This article provides general information. Any real project must be assessed against its site, intended use and the rules in force at the time of deployment.
When an image becomes personal data
As soon as a person can be identified directly or indirectly, their image falls within data-protection law. This applies to fixed cameras, thermal images that permit identification, mobile robots and surveillance drones.
The FDPIC also confirms that current Swiss data-protection legislation applies directly to AI-based processing. Automated detection, tracking or classification therefore needs to be assessed like every other part of the system. For verification, see Video surveillance of neighbouring property (FDPIC) and Data-protection law applies to AI (FDPIC).
Real-time analysis is not automatically anonymous
Even where footage is not stored for several days, a person may still be observed and analysed in real time. The operator must consider the purpose, necessity and transparency of that processing.
For a deeper analysis, read Swiss legal framework. The wider rules for robots, drones and cameras.
Keep monitoring within the relevant property
For private surveillance, the monitored area should generally remain within the owner’s property. Neighbouring land and public space, including the pavement, should not fall within the camera’s field of view.
The narrow exception for public space
The FDPIC accepts that a small section of pavement may sometimes appear when a private entrance cannot reasonably be monitored otherwise. This does not permit filming an entire street. Angle, zoom and privacy masks must reduce the field to what is strictly necessary. For verification, see Video surveillance by private individuals (FDPIC).
Shared areas and neighbours
In a shared garage, laundry room or passage, the interests of all users need to be considered. Prior consultation may be required to find a proportionate solution.
For a deeper analysis, read Surveillance drones. Combine aviation and privacy requirements.
Inform people clearly before they enter the area
Video surveillance must be recognisable. A visible sign should inform people before they enter the monitored zone. Where responsibility is not obvious, it should also identify the controller and explain how a person can exercise access rights.
What useful information should contain
Information can be provided in two layers: a clear sign on site and a more detailed notice available through a link or QR code.
- The purpose of monitoring.
- The controller’s identity and contact details.
- The categories of data processed.
- The retention period.
- Relevant recipients or service providers.
- How to exercise the right of access.
Retain as little footage as possible
Retention must follow the purpose. For workplace surveillance, the FDPIC indicates that recordings should generally be deleted within 24 to 72 hours. This is not a universal period for every installation, but it shows why retention should be short and justified. For verification, see Video surveillance in the workplace (FDPIC).
Prefer event-based alarm verification
A modern architecture can reduce collection by activating a mobile camera only after a relevant signal. A robot inspecting an alert for a few minutes may be less intrusive than fixed cameras recording every area continuously, provided its route and field of view are controlled.
Employee surveillance is especially sensitive
A monitoring system may not be used to observe employee behaviour. A camera may be justified to protect an entrance, dangerous installation, valuable warehouse or car park, but only where a less intrusive measure cannot achieve the same purpose.
A night patrol differs from permanent observation
A robot operating while a site is closed has a different impact from a device continually following employees during the day. Hours, zones and triggers should be configured to avoid behavioural monitoring.
Employees should be informed before commissioning. Access to recordings must be limited and secured. Blurring can reduce intrusion, but it does not replace the need to justify the system.
For a deeper analysis, read Robotic business patrols. Design missions without monitoring employees.
Frequently asked questions
Do you need FDPIC authorisation to install a private camera?
No general authorisation is required to monitor private property, but every data-protection requirement still applies.
Is a sign enough to make a camera lawful?
No. A sign supports transparency, but monitoring must also be justified, proportionate, secure and limited to necessary areas.
May a business film employees to monitor their work?
Targeted monitoring of employee behaviour is prohibited. Surveillance for safety or security may be possible under strict conditions.