Data Protection Ombudsman calls for rules on use of surveillance cameras in restaurants

print this

In dozens of Helsinki’s nightclubs and discos clients are subject to video surveillance. Often the customers are not informed of the presence of the cameras, even though the Personal Data Act stipulates that all such systems should have prominently displayed notices to make the clients aware that their image is being recorded.
      On Friday night, Helsingin Sanomat accompanied Data Protection Ombudsman Reijo Aarnio while he was making his rounds in Helsinki nightclubs. Aarnio feels that the increase in camera surveillance is alarming.
      "The camera surveillance of clients is problematic, as usually there is no immediate reason for it", says Aarnio.
     
The Data Protection Ombudsman also expressed concern over the way the recorded material is stored, and who has access to it. Moreover, who will guarantee that the images from the in-house surveillance cameras do not fall into the wrong hands, Aarnio queried. While the installing of surveillance cameras is not subject to any permit, the law does have stipulations on the use of recorded material.
      The nightclubs argue that video surveillance is needed mainly to guarantee the legal protection of both personnel and customers alike.
     
The images from the in-house surveillance cameras can be used to find out what really took place between customers, whether or not the doormen were guilty of assault, or whether the customer really left an expensive coat in the cloakroom as he or she claims.
      According to Aarnio, the recorded material should not be stored for more than a few days, unless there is an acceptable reason for the storage.
      While being surprised at the widespread use of surveillance equipment at nightclubs, Aarnio expressed concern over the lack of openness. Some establishments do not inform their customers of the video surveillance clearly enough or do not do so at all. Even though the cameras are usually not hidden, the neglect of informing the individuals who may be observed by these systems is a violation of the Personal Data Act, and can be punished with fines.
     
In order to create explicit rules on in-house surveillance for the entire industry, the Data Protection Ombudsman intends to take the matter up with the Finnish Hotel and Restaurant Association FHR during the summer.
      According to the Personal Data Act, restaurants are allowed to use video surveillance in public spaces, while the use, storage, and protection of the recorded material are all strictly overseen by the Act.
     
However, it is forbidden to place secret cameras in restaurant toilets and staff rooms. The punishment for clandestine camera monitoring is up to one year in prison.
      The images from the in-house surveillance cameras form a personal data register, and according to the Personal Data Act, the subjects of such surveillance have the right to know why and by whom they are being monitored, and whether or not the images are being recorded.


Links:
  The Office of the Data Protection Ombudsman
  Finnish Hotel and Restaurant Association FHR

Helsingin Sanomat