Justice Chancellor: Trail cameras should be treated like other surveillance
While trailcams provide a unique window on to Estonia's wildlife, care must be taken when processing images and footage of people, Chancellor of Justice Ülle Madise said.
Trailcams operated by, for instance, the state Environmental Agency's (Keskkonnaagentuur) are focused on wildlife and not humans. However, data protection concerns still apply, Madise noted, even as the agency's wildlife monitoring functions well.
"The Environmental Agency has made wildlife monitoring significantly more efficient through the use of modern tech," Madise stated in her opinion. Current practice has been well thought through, and restrictions on people's fundamental rights resulting from the use of new technology will remain moderate for as long as the existing approach is maintained, she said.
Since trail cameras are currently placed in rarely visited locations, at least by humans, monitoring periods are generally scheduled for early spring and late autumn, while the public is informed about the use of the cameras. Madise praised the agency's technical measures for protecting privacy.
"It is also important that the species-recognition software in use is configured to identify animal species rather than people who happen to enter the camera's field of view," Madise noted.
Nevertheless, in the Chancellor's assessment, the rules governing data retention require legal clarification, as there is currently no substantive justification for retaining photographs of people for extended periods.
"Section 7.1 of the [agency's trailcam] procedure should specify the deadline for deleting personal data more precisely," Madise noted. He suggested adding a provision requiring the deletion of data no later than a specified period after the recording has been uploaded.
Particular care is needed in situations where a trail-camera image of a person is forwarded to a supervisory authority or law enforcement agency for investigative proceedings, which could happen in the case of suspected poaching, for instance. The chancellor stressed that in such cases the Environmental Agency must delete the photograph immediately after it has been transmitted.
"No legislation permits the retention of such photographs in the Environmental Agency's database," Madise said, asking that Section 7.3 of the trail-camera usage procedure be amended accordingly. She added that, given the current purpose of trail cameras—i.e. solely the monitoring of wildlife—there is no need to retain photographs of humans.
The justice chancellor also drew attention to possible future plans which might see trailcams get used for other purposes, such as identifying and penalizing people engaged in fly-tipping.
If the Environmental Agency sees a need to retain such images, the current regulatory framework will not be sufficient, Madise said. In that case, the Riigikogu would first have to grant authorization through legislation that complies with the Constitution, Madise concluded.
Other operators of trailcams include the national hunting society (Jahimeeste selts) and the state forestry commission (RMK).
--
Editor: Andrew Whyte, Mari Peegel
