Camera in Pictures: your whole life in pictures?

The street full of private cameras

We previously wrote about the smart doorbell camera. As with the doorbell camera, most cameras connected to the cooperation Camera in focus not just their own premises. The vast majority film public space, creating a network of about 300,000 private cameras filming public space.^[1] Anyone walking down the street may unknowingly be captured by dozens of cameras - often by neighbours who want to secure their homes and hope to make the neighbourhood a little safer. And with a bit of bad luck, this means you are on the neighbour's camera every time you come home or go out.

Stringent rules for government

The ease with which a private individual can film public spaces too enthusiastically is enormous. And yet, when the municipality or police want to film themselves, strict conditions rightly apply. Camera surveillance must be publicised and the need must be substantiated: it is only allowed if no other alternatives are possible. There must also be a nuisance or crime that cannot be dealt with in any other way. In addition, it is always temporary and only the police may view the images.^[2] That means you can know where you are being filmed and have the opportunity to inquire whether it is done according to the rules. Should it be too much of an invasion of your privacy, you can go to court.

Invisible surveillance by private individuals

If the neighbour puts up a camera, things are different. Camera surveillance must be officially announced, but in practice this is far from always the case. Even with a sign that camera surveillance is taking place, it is impossible for passers-by to assess whether the public road is also being filmed. After all, from outside it is difficult to see what the field of vision is, whether the camera is always on, or, for example, only works when the doorbell rings or someone enters the premises. In other words, you often do not know you are being filmed and certainly not how.

Often not according to the rules

It also remains to be seen whether the neighbour complies with the rules. This is because camera images cannot be kept for too long and filming is only allowed if there is no other way. Facial recognition is also prohibited. The police have recently taken parts of the Camera in focus dataset made public, and it shows that not everyone is playing by the rules.^[3]

Moreover, we regularly see images being shared recognisably. How about footage of that group of youths causing a nuisance appearing in the neighbourhood app? Or of that parcel delivery man who immediately gets into his car after ringing the doorbell and ends up on Dumpert or YouTube? Would these individuals have given permission for recognisable publication?

It suits the police

And to be fair: the excess of camera surveillance actually suits the police. The longer images are kept and the more they are captured, the more likely it is that there will be useful footage in a crime. The lack of knowledge and interest in privacy is gratefully used by the police to make their work easier. Indeed, the police actively encourage camera surveillance and also provide instructions on the police website on how to make camera footage as usable as possible.^[4]

A grey area with no legal basis

This creates a dangerous situation: a form of surveillance with no legal basis. The police cleverly exploit a grey area: after all, they do not film themselves, but know exactly where private cameras hang and how to retrieve images. Thus, a public task - surveillance in public spaces - is outsourced to private individuals, without the safeguards that normally apply. A trick is applied: the rules for public camera surveillance are bypassed, while the result is the same.

But it leads to curtailment of freedom

For the ordinary citizen, this is hardly noticeable. The surveillance is not known, there is no sign from the municipality or decision from the mayor, and nobody knows if and how often images are requested. This creates large-scale, invisible surveillance, with all its security risks. The images of well-meaning citizens become a honeypot for police, intelligence agencies, hackers and malicious actors. And meanwhile, the system legitimises abuses by private individuals who film without supervision without limits. What began as a handy tool to solve crimes thus threatens to become a structural curtailment of our freedom without a legal basis.

^[1] https://eenvandaag.avrotros.nl/doe-mee/steeds-meer-cameras-in-de-openbare-ruimte-dit-zijn-de-gevolgen-voor-jouw-privacy-151620

^[2] https://www.autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl/themas/cameratoezicht/cameratoezicht-op-openbare-plaatsen/voorwaarden-cameratoezicht-op-openbare-plaatsen

[3] See earlier https://www.politie.nl/wet-open-overheid/woo-verzoeken/staf-korpsleiding/woo-verzoeken-per-jaar/2024/2024-privacy–en-informatiebeveiligingsrisicos-van-camera-in-beeld.html and https://www.politie.nl/wet-open-overheid/woo-verzoeken/staf-korpsleiding/woo-verzoeken-per-jaar/2024/2024-brondata-van-camera-in-beeld.html.

^[4] https://www.politie.nl/informatie/wat-is-camera-in-beeld.html