In a letter to the Ministry of Justice, you noted that the rules governing the use of cameras in public spaces should be significantly more detailed in the law. You drew attention to a guide by the Data Protection Inspectorate, which states, "In maintaining public order, a situation has developed where, in some municipalities, surveillance covers nearly the entire territory of the municipality. Especially in the case of small municipalities, residents are under constant surveillance." Do you think that the described situation is correct and justified?

We did not provide these assessments in the letter. Rather, the purpose is to draw the attention of the Ministry of Justice to the issues that people have sent to the chancellor of justice. This is undoubtedly one of them. When the cameras of public authorities, such as the city, municipality, state and even those of private owners, essentially cover the entire territory, even forests, what does that mean for human psychology? At the Chancellor of Justice's Human Rights Advisory Board, Professor Talis Bachmann gave an excellent presentation explaining that living in such a so-called panopticon is likely very difficult for a person's psyche. It leads to hypocritical, restrained behavior and many other negative consequences, which may not be in good balance with the intended order and security.

However, we did not start assessing the constitutionality of this situation right now. Since the Ministry of Justice has taken up the task of amending the laws, we ask that these concerns, which have reached us from people and to which we cannot provide a good answer because there is simply a gap in the law, be resolved. Or it may be necessary to apply a very old law, and the result may be unfair, either to the individual or perhaps even unreasonable from the standpoint of the state or security.

In your letter, you point out that the law allows for cameras to be placed in public spaces to identify and avert dangers or to eliminate public disturbances. However, the law does not permit the installation of cameras solely for the purpose of preventing potential dangers. I understand that those who have installed these cameras, such as the Police and Border Guard Board and local governments, believe that the legal basis already exists in the form of the need to identify dangers. Let's take, for example, a random street in Tallinn. Where should the line be drawn? What exactly justifies the placement of a camera, as currently, according to the installers' assessments, there is always a need to identify a threat?

That is what the Riigikogu needs to establish. The issue may lie in current law enforcement legislation, which, I must apologize for this conclusion, seems to have failed in providing clarity on what is permissible and what is not. The chancellor of justice's letter to the minister of justice references excellent scholarly articles that discuss these contradictions. It is quite possible that these cameras have been installed in good faith, but it may turn out that current laws do not allow for it. I am not saying that it should not be done; rather, it is a matter for the Riigikogu to decide. The conditions under which a local government may place cameras on its main streets or, specifically, in less illuminated corners should be determined. If the Riigikogu explicitly grants this right, it should also specify what can be done with the footage – how long it can be used, who can see it, when the data should be deleted and whether individuals captured in the footage have the right to obtain it, for instance, if their property was damaged, like a car being vandalized, so that they might take the footage to an insurance company. These matters are currently unregulated, but precisely the kind of issues the Riigikogu needs to address.

In the letter sent to the Ministry of Justice, you note that the procedure for installing cameras should be regulated by law due to constitutional requirements, and you add that the installation of cameras should involve the public. Do I understand your point correctly that the public, such as the local community, should have a say in where a specific camera can be pointed, or whether a particular intersection or park area should or should not be within the view of public cameras?

Ideally, that would be the case. This way, the community would most likely accept it, and it likely also has a preventive effect, discouraging people from committing wrongful acts there. Additionally, as someone who enjoys running and walking, knowing that a park is constantly monitored and well-lit certainly makes it more appealing to go there for a run, a bike ride or a walk, and to feel comfortable letting children go there as well. For a significant part of the year, our evenings after school and work are quite dark, yet people still want to be active. Therefore, there aren't any one-size-fits-all solutions, but in a rule-of-law state, the parliament must carefully weigh the restrictions on people's rights and the substantive dangers that might accompany them, as well as the benefits derived and then anticipate measures to mitigate possible risks. For example, the risk that a person's biometric data, such as their facial image, might be stored and potentially not well-protected. It could fall into the hands of someone who could use artificial intelligence to create a forgery that could harm the individual. Similarly, the tracking and overt monitoring of a person who is not a criminal but simply living their life is unacceptable.

This morning, I have been trying to find out if any local government could provide me with a map or list that shows which parts of their territory are covered by camera surveillance. Both Tallinn and Tartu clearly state that cameras are under the jurisdiction of the police, yet in Tallinn, it is acknowledged that the municipal police can also monitor and adjust the cameras, and furthermore, the city of Tallinn pays for these cameras. Should the public have access to an overview indicating which areas of the municipality are covered by camera surveillance and which are not?

If the Riigikogu and the local government decide so, then certainly. This matter primarily falls under the jurisdiction of the Data Protection Inspectorate, and it is essential to consider that if, for example, the police use camera footage to catch a terrorism suspect, then naturally, informing everyone that surveillance devices have been set up would be contrary to the objectives. It is also clearly stated that for such cases, the Riigikogu must similarly allow for the possibilities that enable the capture of criminals.

Are you aware of any regulations currently in place regarding whether people have the right to know which areas are covered by camera surveillance and which are not? Often, there is a sign notifying the presence of public cameras. Could the public currently access such an overview?

According to the constitution, if the state or local government collects data, people indeed have the right to know what data is being held about them. Naturally, exceptions include issues related to criminal activity. However, the practical question arises whether you even know whose camera it is. What is done with the data? Whom should you ask? The issue becomes even more acute with cameras attached to drones.

For example, the chancellor of justice has received several complaints where a person sees a drone with a camera constantly hovering over their private land or near their apartment window, and they do not know who owns it. Under current law, they do not have the right to shoot it down; they should call the police. If it happens to be a malicious neighbor who intentionally disturbs their neighbor with the drone's buzzing and filming, by the time the police arrive, the drone has usually left. And simply filming the drone doesn't prove who owns it.

A few years ago, this was not a major issue, but now, looking at the chancellor of justice's mailbox, such questions are increasingly common. For instance, a farmer says that the Land Board's orthophotos are very precise, but this poses risks for him because they show where his expensive agricultural machinery is located. He can install cameras himself to protect his property, and filming for one's own interests is undoubtedly allowed, and I believe that no one would prohibit that. However, unfortunately, this often does not help against theft. He wanted our opinion on whether these photos must be so detailed and whether it might be possible to blur the information about the expensive agricultural machinery on his lands. Thus, this topic is quite diverse.

In other words, whether a neighbor's camera is allowed to see a part of my back yard must also be more precisely regulated?

Exactly. And again, we have a whole host of complaints, not only from private homes where naturally you would want to film your gate, your garage door, your garden to see who might be crossing over or if they are. Similarly, some might be interested in watching, for example, deer. Many do this to keep up with the surrounding wildlife without harming nature, but other people may also end up in the picture. In addition, we have received complaints from apartment buildings, where it seems there could be deliberate harassment by a neighbor or that's how it is perceived, that every step they take when they come out of the door is being filmed. And perhaps the person filming claims that they are protecting their door with it.

So again, a situation where people should have clarity that on one hand, property protection must be possible. On the other hand, a person should be able to live their life, if they are not a lawbreaker, in such a way that they can also retreat and not be constantly in the view of cameras, not always recorded.

One issue is cameras installed by housing associations to monitor residents. Some associations have recently placed a camera near their garbage sheds to check whether residents are disposing of their trash in the correct bins. The state also says that the association must be responsible for proper waste sorting. Does the law provide an answer as to whether a camera is appropriate in this case?

It does not provide a clear and single answer, but it could. It is possible that all of the association's members, all residents have provided consent because someone keeps putting plastic in the glass container and mixed waste in the cardboard container. Or perhaps people who are not members of the association at all are placing their garbage in our containers while we pick up the tab. Maybe they're also getting the sorting wrong. So, it is entirely possible all members agree to this level of surveillance. But it is also possible that such a decision will be made by majority vote, or that a camera is simply set up without asking anyone anything. This would raise legal issues, and everyone would find life a little easier if the Riigikogu had considered these matters and people knew what is permissible and what isn't.

Finally, let us return to the question to what extent can society put up with surveillance. If we imagine asking people's opinions about cameras, there will clearly be people who say that those who have done nothing wrong have nothing to fear, as well as those who say that they feel uneasy when they know someone might be watching. In the end, it is a matter of deliberation whether the constitution provides an answer. Which camp should prevail?

Striking a balance between those two approaches is key. That, I believe, is the logic of the constitution.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!