Madise highlighted the fact that cameras are being used in many public spaces as well as on private property, and that the collection and processing of biometric data is increasing in both the private and public sectors.

"What has emerged at the same time is the ability to process data in bulk, including real-time personal identification," she noted. "This situation raises the question of whether the automatic identification via camera image of an individual in a public space without their consent is unlawful or not, and whether the law allows as much to be concluded with sufficient certainty. As unlawful surveillance activities are indictable, such activity must be explicitly prohibited by law."

The justice chancellor finds it also worth analyzing whether and under what conditions the real-time identification of an individual via camera image by non-automated means, i.e. when a camera feed is being monitored by a natural person, should be prohibited.

"This should be prohibited at least in cases where the purpose of the surveillance is to identify when a particular person appears somewhere that falls within the camera's field of view," she added.

Madise acknowledged that certain public sector exceptions could be considered, such as the search for the perpetrator of a terrorist offense as authorized by an administrative court and within a very limited time period, however even these exceptions must be decided on by the Riigikogu.

"Once again it needs to be considered whether, in order to improve legal clarity, it would be possible to combine the provisions of several laws regarding data processing by the automated biometric identification system database (ABIS) into a single law," she continued. "It would be reasonable for a person to get as complete an overview as possible regarding the use of personal data from a single piece of legislation at the time their data is entered into the database already."

Pursuant to the Law Enforcement Act, the police or, in cases provided by law, another law enforcement agency may use monitoring equipment which forwards images or records to monitor events taking place in a public space in order to ascertain and counter a threat or eliminate a disturbance.

"The Law Enforcement Act does not allow for such a camera to be installed in a situation only just involving threat prevention," the justice chancellor noted. "The Law Enforcement Act uses the term threat only in the sense of a specific threat. Thus, a camera may only be installed once at least the suspicion of a specific threat has already arisen."

Madise also referred to Data Protection Inspectorate guidelines, which concluded that in ensuring public order, it has now gotten to the point where in some municipalities, nearly the entire territory thereof is covered by camera surveillance.

"Especially when it comes to small municipalities, in this case, residents are under constant surveillance," she emphasized. "This may raise doubts whether all conditions provided for by law are met in all such cases."

According to Madis, it is necessary to consider whether cameras should be able to be installed in natural environments that people consider as private.

She also noted that regulations on the protection of fundamental rights need clarification regarding the use of mobile cameras, i.e. police body cameras and drones.

"The law must establish how people within a camera's field of view should be made aware of its operation," the justice chancellor said, adding that conditions for the use and storage of recordings must be regulated as well.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!