Organisations often choose to conduct video surveillance with audio recording. Sometimes, due to negligence, they also fail to disable the default audio function provided by the camera manufacturer. As a result, the additional risks posed by recording sound, not just capturing images, are not adequately assessed. Furthermore, the associated processing of personal data is not always carried out lawfully.
Video surveillance devices that also provide audio recording create significantly greater risks to the privacy of the people being monitored. They capture and place at the organisation's disposal information that people often wish to keep private, and only in rare cases can the creation of such risks be justified.
Video surveillance, with or without audio, can only be initiated after careful assessment. The organisation (controller) must first understand what problem exists and why video surveillance would be necessary. Then, they must assess whether video surveillance in the specific situation will help solve this problem and whether there is a justified need to also use the audio recording function. Audio recording, in addition to image recording, can be permitted if the goal cannot be achieved in any other way and such processing is proportionate to the privacy of the recorded individuals. Namely, the organisation must assess whether the benefit of the recording will outweigh the threat/restriction to privacy caused to the individual.
For example, video surveillance is installed on a company's territory to protect company-owned equipment against theft and vandalism. In this case, recording the image, which would capture the offence, is sufficient to achieve the purpose. That is, an audio recording—which would also record the conversations of company employees and customers—is not justified.
Use audio recordings for your video surveillance system only if:
- A specific need or problem has been identified, and you can prove and argue that this need must be addressed with an audio recording (the goal cannot be achieved with video recording alone);
- Other, less privacy-intrusive methods have been reviewed, and it has been concluded that they will not adequately solve the identified problem, and the only way to do so is to use an additional audio recording;
- You have informed the people that an audio recording is also being made.
The Inspectorate's practice to date shows that the processing of personal data through video surveillance with audio recording is, in the majority of cases, unjustified. Rare situations are possible where it is lawful and permissible, mainly related to elevated risks to significant organisational or public interests.
For example, a shop owner may want to record sound in the checkout area because the shop frequently experiences serious conflicts between customers and sellers, and the assessment of the individuals' verbal communication may be crucial for evaluating the dispute and defending the interests of the involved parties. In such a case, audio recording may be considered permissible if the shop can argue the essential nature of such processing and ensure measures that minimise the possible negative impact on customer privacy as much as possible.
Often, the legal basis for such processing can be found in the special regulatory framework applicable to the specific sector in which the organisation operates.
It should also be remembered that recording sound and image are two different data processing operations, so different legal bases are required for both audio and video. If audio is conducted simultaneously with video surveillance, the information sign must indicate that an audio recording is also being made, as well as the legal basis, purpose, and other information for both the audio and video surveillance.
Source: https://www.dvi.gov.lv/lv/jaunums/dviskaidro-skanas-ierakstisana-veicot-videonoverosanu (in Latvian)