[estebank]

> The infringements refer to the following: the video surveillance system covers public streets as well as parking lots, both part of the public area in front of the entrance of the sports betting café. This is not adequate for the purposes of the processing and is not limited to a necessary extent. There are no logs of video surveillance processing operations. There is no deletion of the personal image data recorded by the video surveillance within 72 hours and no separate logs for processing in this regard and a justification for an extended storage period is missing (as determined in the Austrian Data Protection Act). In Addition to that, the filmed area does not have adequate signage about CCTV.

Why are those laws insane?

[easytiger]

You set up a camera to cover your front garden and if you happen to cover a portion of the street leading up to your property you are breaking the law. That's genuinely absurd. Keep in mind these apply to residential systems also.

The rest of your quote is just as ridiculous.

> There are no logs of video surveillance processing operations.

It's a private system, why should there be.

> There is no deletion of the personal image data recorded by the video surveillance within 72 hours

Genuinely insane

[em-bee]

if you happen to cover a portion of the street leading up to your property you are breaking the law

in germany too.

why is that absurd?

you can monitor your own property, but don't record me when i am walking along the street please.

[ars]

Recording the street is the most important part of recording for crime detection.

If someone knocks off the side mirror of my car by driving too close, I shouldn't be able to record that? I shouldn't be able to capture the license plate so I know who it is?

You do get that you are publicly visible when walking down the street, right?

People are visible in their gardens too, but I can at least understand making it illegal to record other private property, but the pubic street is reading it too far.

[vidarh]

Regulation of CCTV generally takes the approach that there's a substantial difference between you standing there with a camera and CCTV because you standing there with a camera produces a substantially different level of signal that people are being observed.

Your right to take the footage is in competition with peoples right to a reasonable level of privacy even in public spaces, as there is a huge difference between being seen by someone, being filmed by someone when they happen to be there, and being constantly filmed by automated systems that may or may not be appropriately controlled to ensure images are not spread.

The approach taken tends to vary between outlawing it or allowing it with restrictions, including making you subject to retention and subject access policies.

E.g. in the UK, which is notorious for the amounts of CCTV, you can cover public areas if necessary, but you then need to be prepared to delete footage of people on request, respond to subject access requests, ensure the footage is kept securely, ensuring the footage is deleted regularly, and restrict access to the footage. You also need to be able to provide - in writing if requested - legitimate reasons for doing so. Here's the ICO's advice page on the subject[1]

[1] https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/domestic-cctv-systems-g...

[easytiger]

Or go live in Africa where people case the street before they come to rob/murder you. It's a big deterrent to have CCTV covering property perimeter

[em-bee]

it's a band-aid to a different, more serious problem. you both would have a point if the crime rate in germany or austria was higher due to not allowing surveillance in public spaces.

but thankfully they have other deterrents to crime that allow everyone to have more privacy in public spaces.

[easytiger]

> germany or austria was higher due to not allowing surveillance in public spaces.

Have you seen how many stabbings have been happening in germany lately?

[easytiger]

don't go to pretty much any other country on planet earth then