There is no official register of surveillance cameras in Norway. Censuses from 2008 show that you can hardly move in Oslo’s city center without being watched.
In a memo to the Inspectorate asking the City parliament that unnecessary video surveillance in the capital is limited. Now the authority will see that businesses increasingly follow regulations.
– We want people to escape being monitored only those taking a tour of the city, said city councilor for environment and transport, Guri Melby.
Camera will be required
It is the City Department for environment and transport is behind the letter to the Inspectorate.
– I do not think anyone is aware of how prevalent such monitoring is. We will limit unnecessary surveillance, says the Commissioner.
“unnecessary monitoring” mean those situations where the problem camera is intended to correct, possibly a risk that is minimized, can be resolved in other ways. These can be, for example the use of security guards, locking or other access control.
– Surveillance Camera is a radical measure. It will be necessary, confirms Deputy Director Kim Ellertsen the Inspectorate.
Authority gives advice on how risks for privacy can be avoided or limited. Their responsibility is to oversee the cameras. They do not have authority to grant permission to set up cameras so the city council asks that sharpened into.
– No, these special permits is not shared out. Owners of buildings where cameras set up is responsible for ensuring that the laws are followed, says Ellertsen.
One in five enrolled
Those who put up cameras are however obliged to notify to the Authority. It is done for about twenty percent of cases, estimates Authority.
– I think it comes that of people simply do not know the rules. They are not aware that there is notification, says Director of the Data Protection Authority, Bjørn Erik Thon.
In other words, the camera owner’s sole responsibility to ensure that it is legal to have cameras installed and operational . Data’s tasks are mainly in it to make sure laws and regulations are followed, and that errors and deficiencies are corrected. Whether this is a good solution, they are willing to discuss.
– It is possibly time for revision. Current regulations and reporting system is based on the Personal Data Act of 2000. Now the EU in the process of developing a new privacy legislation, and when it comes, we can see what guidelines you relate to the rest of Europe, says Ellertsen.
He says that pr. Today is difference in different countries, but the Inspectorate with its workforce did not have the opportunity to take a greater degree of control and neither a stringent permit regime. Such permission is neither a scheme they want.
– The solution here is not a rule that says it must be granted a license for each camera. It would be enormously costly both for us and the entrepreneurs who then must sit down and write applications, says director Thon.
Want clearer labeling
The city council wants the requirements to provide permission for video surveillance in public places shall be sharpened into. They will also be made subject to clear labeling of sites monitored.
– It’s about making people more aware of how they are being watched. We wish list of places that have camera surveillance in Oslo today. We need more knowledge about the boundary between what is for your safety and what is commercial use, explains the Commissioner.
– It is an unconditional requirement that it be marked. When you are photographed, it is personal information about you, and you shall know that others get to grips with, say Ellertsen.
He fears that the threshold for setting up cameras might be perceived as somewhat low.
– The label should tell clearly who the owner is and who to contact if you have questions. Often it only stands Securitas, which was certainly not the owner.
Believes legislation is well
Neither Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development (KMD) has concrete proposals on how the challenges of unnecessary monitoring can be solved .
– Everybody has its own responsibility to acquaint themselves with the legislation. It is possible we have challenges in skills since the Data Inspectorate and the municipality can work together, says Paul Chaffey (H), Undersecretary of KMD.
He believes current legislation is specific and well, and that spot checks which control method is correct. Chaffey denies that the threshold is too low when it comes to installation of surveillance cameras, but admits that it has a challenge when it comes to the practice of law.
– Inspectorate as an advisor and resource unit must continue to clarify the rules. Citizens have a right to privacy and be informed that the stored electronic track where they go, says Chaffey.
Checking up individual cases
The city council does not come with any concrete examples of places they mean monitoring is unnecessary, but believe the cases are many. With its request to the Inspectorate, they want a partnership with the state, hoping to get an overview, then there is a point in councils statement.
– If someone, like the city council, believes there is too much surveillance in some places, so we would like to know about it so we can make sure the law is followed, confirming Ellertsen.
Inspectorate traveling out and checking up on individual cases by inquiries from the public. There are often situations that are distinguished as checked up, including monitoring in a hotel’s dining room and in public swimming pools.
Mandatory database their giving no opportunity to take out numbers sorted in areas, then it is not a requirement to disclose where the camera is located. Censuses from 2009 show that there are at least 1,000 cameras inside the ring 2 in Oslo.
– It is true enough with the physical counts we’ve done yourself, too, confirms director Thon.
– Rather more police
After the Personal Data Act, purpose of the monitoring is to uncover criminal offenses. The need for surveillance in public spaces must clearly exceed those go where their desire not to be monitored.
– Monitoring provides no immediate safety of people who live in the streets. It does however more police. In Oslo we have now got their own Oslo Guards who will help to make streets safer, says Melby.
Inspectorate shall proceed with the City Government’s request after the holidays.
– It is interesting that the city council is committed to reducing the use of surveillance cameras. We will talk further with them to find out what they and we can do to prevent unnecessary use of such cameras in Oslo. We see that some municipalities eager very camera of the police, but if Oslo wants to go the opposite way, it is positive, says Bjørn Erik Thon.
Thon believes information initiatives, such as through the private sector’s member organizations, is way to go to sharpen your use of surveillance cameras. The reason that such monitoring is considered as positive to reduce the extent of is that monitoring is considered as violation of the individual’s privacy.
– That law is today, so this is something we sometimes have to accept. But the camera does not have a major preventive effect, and it gives a lot of information about how people have been, who they have been and what they’ve done. Camera surveillance shall be reasonable and necessary, he notes.
Bearing industry norm
Thon says that the security industry and Inspectorate are in the process of developing an industry norm, which is to ensure that sector increasingly follow regulations.
– We envisage that this could lead to new guidance material on camera use, ranging from storage to when one can actually use camera surveillance and how the cameras can be protected against hacking, says Thon.
The work will start in the fall, and the goal is to be ready for Christmas.
Published:
No comments:
Post a Comment