French Government Threatens School with $1.7M Fine For “Excessive Video Surveillance”

By Charles Rollet, Published Nov 14, 2018, 07:47am EST

lecole 42 small 2

The French government has notified a high-profile Paris coding academy that it risks a fine of up to 1.5 million euros (about $1.7m) if it doesn’t overhaul its video surveillance system, which was deemed “excessive” for constantly filming students and allowing them to view real-time footage of their peers.

In this note, we examine the alleged violations, what changes the academy has to make, and what this means given this year’s implementation of the European Union’s new data privacy regulations.

France *******

****** *** **, ****** has ****** ******** *********** on ***** ************. *** example, ******* ********** ************* ********** ******* **** film *** ****** *****.

*********** ******** *****: “********** *** **** film *** ******** ** their ********… **** **** no ***** ** **** publicly-accessible *****, **** ** they **** ** ****** the ******** ** ***** vehicle ****** ** ***** of ***** ****.”

*********, ********** ******* ** camera ******* **** **** publicly-accessible ***** (**** * supermarket) **** **** * ******** *********** ** ****** first. ************** ** ***** rules ** *** **** perfect, *******. ***** ************ *** ****** never ******* ** **-***-****** verification, ***** ***** ****** were ******** ******* ** illegally ******* ******* ** a ************ ********* ******* of ******* ** * protestor. (********* ********* ******* ******* Video ************ ********.)

*** ********** ****** ***** oversees *** **** ** France’s **** ********** ******, the****, ***** ** ********* to ******* **-**** ************** to ****** ********** **** French ******* ****. (************ **** ************** ************ related ** ***** ************ in ****.)

What ********

** ******** ****, *** CNIL ************** **, * **** ****** academy **** ***** *** students **** ** ****-***** in ****** ******* ** its******* ** * ****** tech ***********.

*** ********** **** ***** French********************** ***** **’* ************ camera ********* ******** * ******* of ******. ** **** of *** ******* ** radical ************, ***** ** allows *** ******** ** view ****-**** ***** ** the ************ ******. **** ******* *** ********** used ** **** ******** to **** *** *** on ****** ********, *** was **** *** ****** behind *** **** ** a ******** ******** ***** of ***** **’* ******** and * ***** ** work.

CNIL ********** *******

******* ********* *** *******’* **-****** surveillance ****** ***** * number ** ****** ******* regulations. ********************:

  • ******* **** **** ****** in **********, ******** *********, and ***** ****** ***** which ****** ******** *** staff ******* ****** **** hours. (******* ************ ** only ******* ** **** entrances *** ***** ** outside ******* *****.)
  • ******** ***** ******* ** view ***** ***** ************ feeds ** **** ****, although **** **** *** given ****** ** ****** video. (****** *********** ********* these ***** *** **** be ****** ** ************** and ******** *************.)
  • ****** ** *** ****** video ************ ****** *** protected ** * ****** password ******** ** * alphanumerical **********.
  • *** ****** *** *** up ***** ************ ******* signs, *** ***** ***** did *** ******* *** details ***** *** **** video *** ***** ******, the ******* ** **********, or *** ** ******* in **** ** * complaint.

Other ******

***** ***** ************ *** the **** ***** ** the ****’* **********, ***** personal **** ********** **** found, *********:

  • ************** ******** ****** ******** information ***** ******** ** an ******** ******** ******** their ********, **** ** one *******’* **** *********** being *** ** ********** caused ** *** ******’* cancer.
  • ******** ***** **** *****-**-*** passwords ** ***** ** the ******’* ****** ******* being **** ** ****** new ****.
  • ***** *****-**** ********* **** weak ** ****** *** complexity.

Two ****** ** ****** ** *** **

*** ************ ***** ******** ** the ********** ****.

** *** ***** ***** 42 *** ****** ** comply *** ******** ** that ******* ** ** so ***** ***** * fine ** ** *.* million *****. *** ******* required *******:

  • ******** ******* **** ******* students *** ***** ****** working ***** (***** **** main ********/**** *******)
  • ****** *** ******** ** allowing ******** ** ****** video ************ *****
  • ******** ********* ******** *** they *** ***** ******, how **** *** ******* is ***** ******, *** who ** ******* *** complaints
  • **** ******* **** ******* to ********’ ******** ***********, not ***** ******** *****
  • ********* ******** ****** *** complexity

GDPR ************

*** **** **** **** that ***** ** ** not ***** ******** *** violating *** ****, *** EU-wide **** ******* *** whose *********** ***** ** video ************ ** **** ways (**** *** ***** ************ Guide.)

****’* ******* *** ****’* inspection **** ***** ** February, *** ****** ****** the **** *** *********** in ***.

***** ** *** ***** in **** ******. *** the ****’* ********** ***** place ***** *** ****, it ***** ** **** to ******** **** ************ ** ** ** 20 ******* ***** ** 4% ** ****** *******.

*** ****’* *********** *** all ***** ********** ** core **** **********, **** as:

  • ************ “**** ********** ** design *** *******” ******* strong ********** (******* **)
  • ********* **** ******** *** is *********** **** *** for **** ******* (******* **)
  • ******* *** ***** ** collected **** “******* ** what ** ********* ** relation ** *** ******** for ***** **** *** processed” (******* *)

***** **’* **** ** thus * **** ******** that *** ***** ** the ** **** ** think ********* ***** ******* their ******* ***** ** interpreted ** *********** ** “excessive”, ********** ***** *** GDPR’s ******* *********.

***** ** *** *** respond ** ****’* ******* for *******.

Comments (13)

Greg Clausen

11/14/18 01:23pm

It is only excessive until they have another "Charlie" type attack. Then they will be running around frantically trying to source all the video footage they can lay their hands on. I do, however agree that it should not be made accessible to anyone other than the administrators of the system and should only be kept for a defined period of time..

Avatar

Jonathan de Chateau

11/14/18 02:45pm

I would have expected clickbait after seeing 'Cameras that were placed in workspaces, bathroom entrances', surely we can blame Hik :) :).

In all seriousness, I am happy to see this development. Legislation to control CCTV is a good thing, as this case proves.

As for Greg:

It is only excessive until they have another "Charlie" type attack

The idea is the government takes care of surveillance in public spaces. This has nothing to do with how excessive CCTV is in a certain building.

 

The rule you can not film what is not yours makes perfect sense. In the Netherlands the same data minimization applies. You can record inside, and you can record your own area, but you can not film the public road. It's simply non of your business.

 

Undisclosed #1

In reply to Jonathan de Chateau | 11/15/18 01:39am

Maybe you can still blame Hik for the 5 digit alphanumeric password?

Gary Gibson

In reply to Jonathan de Chateau | 11/15/18 07:47pm

You can record inside, and you can record your own area, but you can not film the public road. It's simply non of your business.

It's non of your business until another driver runs you off the road or causes an accident.

Avatar

Jonathan de Chateau

In reply to Gary Gibson | 11/15/18 11:11pm

Unless the road is private property it’s still not your business. Government owned land and road, it’s up to government to monitor with cameras. And that’s a good thing, it stopping your neighbors and who knows who aiming cameras at your house and driveway. 

Avatar

Tim Pickles

Mitie Fire & Security Systems
In reply to Gary Gibson | 11/23/18 06:56am

So based on"just in case", it's ok to record everyone and anything outside is it? Perhaps parking on road with a camera focussed on your children on your yard is "ok"? So where do you draw the line? Using this analogy a perv filming your kids from a distance would be vindicated if a third party entered the scene and assaulted them - because, hey, a crime had been captured on a camera legitimately. Whereas just filming what has nothing to do with you is ok? Do you focus your cameras in to next doors garden, just in case a burglar enters your property from there?

 

 

Greg Clausen

In reply to Jonathan de Chateau | 11/16/18 11:30am

Jonathan

Unless I am mistaken, their issue is not that they are capturing footage of the public road, but that they have excessive coverage of INSIDE their premises. If it is a privately funded college, then the areas inside the college are private and not accessible to the general public. 

 

Avatar

Jonathan de Chateau

In reply to Greg Clausen | 11/16/18 12:22pm

Hi Greg,

I believe you are correct, it's not a public road. But, wether it's a public school or private, in the EU there are rules on data usage and data minimization.

To make it simple, if you own a shop and own the building and land, you still can not place 20 cameras in a simple small shop. Minimization of data means you can not use more than needed to meet the goal, the security goal that you need to specify.

Also, you can not just place CCTV because this is the most intrusive measure.
You need to use less intrusive measures first, like access control, intrusion alarm etc.

 

Undisclosed Integrator #2

11/16/18 01:14pm

Well, in Europe we have absolutely no rights for self defense anyway.

Avatar

Jonathan de Chateau

In reply to Undisclosed Integrator #2 | 11/16/18 01:52pm

Yep and the deaths due to gun violance is pretty darn low.

For more stats see the link.

There are even some nifty charts tailored for the USA.

An artile in the NYT stated:
Since 1970, more Americans have died from guns (including suicides, murders and accidents) than the sum total of all the Americans who died in all the wars in American history, back to the American Revolution.

 

Avatar

Tim Pickles

Mitie Fire & Security Systems
In reply to Undisclosed Integrator #2 | 11/23/18 07:15am

Not strictly true...

A story very close to me also demonstrates that even a hardened, known, convicted criminal can kill a Police Office in "self defence".

I've worked all over the world and on balance, I'm perfectly comfortable with the UK's right to self defence. From my time in the military, the "green card" rules seems to extend to civil life also - that you have right to use the minimum amount of force required to protect the property or persons you are responsible for. The US adopts the "shock and awe" approach of overwhelming force - which is their prerogative and constitutional right.

Where the sensationalists get it wrong, is that in the UK if you use lethal force in defence you will be arrested - correctly. The incident is then investigated and in the vast amount of cases no further action taken - even when guns are involved (yes we do have guns in the UK!). In the famous case of Tony Martin, there is little doubt that shooting and killing a trespasser was wholly disproportionate to the threat to him personally. A sentence from murder to manslaughter reflected his mental state and the fact he had been victim to numerous trespassing events, but still did not justify the unlawful killing.

A typical case would be the "Welby Farm Shooting" incident that resulted in acquittal - but was correctly investigated with the preservation of the potential crime scene, arresting of suspects followed by due process. The assumption was not and should never be, that every shooting or incident of alleged self defence, where someone loses their life is neither investigated or challenged and the basis that the homeowner acted reasonably.

 

 

Undisclosed #3

IPVMU Certified | In reply to Tim Pickles | 11/23/18 10:21am

I've worked all over the world and on balance, I'm perfectly comfortable with the UK's right to self defence

Perhaps U2 was referring to Continental Europe ;)

Aren’t you guys leaving anyway?

Avatar

Tim Pickles

Mitie Fire & Security Systems
11/23/18 10:39am

We are leaving, yes, but the Government and the IC have both stated that after Brexit, we will still comply with GDPR. There is some re-engineering required around articles 27, 29 and 37 of GDPR requirements to ensure the UK DPA108 supports the act, but the gut feeling is that as we are already pretty geared for GDPR, little will change given the implications of trade boundaries through data controls.

Read this IPVM report for free.

This article is part of IPVM's 6,738 reports, 909 tests and is only available to members. To get a one-time preview of our work, enter your work email to access the full article.

Already a member? Login here | Join now
Loading Related Reports