Complaint Case Notes

編號: 0019/2010/IP

標題: Installation of a video camera at the top corner of a building entrance and outside a clinic

立案原因: Reports


    Inhabitant A of building C indicated that Doctor B had installed video cameras at the top corner of the building entrance gate and outside his clinic D. Doctor B expressed that he had received the consent of all the owners in the building, with all video information in his custody and these video could only be examined by Doctor B.
  Inhabitant A indicated that he had never given any such consent, and filed a complaint with this Office (GPDP), claiming that Doctor B’s conduct had breached the terms of the “Personal Data Protection Act”.


    In accordance with the provisions in articles 4.1.(1), 3.1 and 2 of the Personal Data Protection Act, as Doctor B opened clinic D inside Building C and the recording range of relevant video camera was covering the building entrance, the purpose of data processing exceeded household security, and was not exclusively within the scope of purely personal or family activities, thus the data processing involved in this case is within the scope of regulation by the said Act.
  Doctor B submitted documents to the GPDP confirming that all owners (a total of eight) of Building C and their families had agreed to allow two video cameras to be installed outside the building entrance and outside Clinic D.
  GPDP believed that the processing of the aforementioned information with the explicit consent of the data subjects by Doctor B was carried out legitimately, in accordance with Article 6 of the “Personal Data Protection Act”. The tenants should have taken notice of the warnings posted in front of the building entrance, and the landlords had the obligation to inform the tenants of the existence of the video surveillance system. From this, we can presume that the lessees had agreed to install such a system.
  It was recommended that Doctor B should notify GPDP this video surveillance system and other personal data processing separately, in accordance with Article 21. of the “Personal Data Protection Act”. Doctor B was also reminded that if any of the owners were to withdraw their consent of the video surveillance system, the video camera ought to be taken down because the legitimacy conferred by the consent of the data subjects no longer existed.
  In summary, Doctor B’s installation of video camera did not breach the “Personal Data Protection Act”.


    GPDP sent a letter to Doctor B, informing him of the above analysis and recommending that a notice be posted outside the clinic door. In addition to this, he was also required to prepare a detailed “Personal Data Collection Statement” or “Privacy Policy” and notify GPDP in accordance with the law.

Please refer to "Personal Data Protection Act", articles 3,4,6,7,16,21 .