”
Dashcams at the intersection of evidence preservation and data protection
\n\n
Cameras inside the vehicle or on the windshield are increasingly being used to record what happens in traffic. Such recordings can subsequently be used to reconstruct how an accident occurred. At the same time, dashcams regularly affect the right to informational self-determination and other personality rights of the affected road users, in particular when they are identifiable. The use of dashcams therefore typically operates in a field of tension between documenting an incident and the requirements of data protection law.
\n
Data-protection-law classification of dashcam recordings
\n
Personal reference and scope of application of the GDPR
\n\n
Dashcam recordings often capture license plates, faces, driving behavior, location and time data, as well as other circumstances that may make it possible to identify natural persons. To the extent such a personal reference exists, this constitutes personal data. Accordingly, the requirements of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the accompanying national provisions may apply. This also applies where the recording is made “merely” without a specific cause in public road space, since the affected person typically has no control over whether and to what extent they are captured.
\n
Purpose limitation, data minimization, and storage limitation
\n\n
Data protection law ties the processing of personal data to defined purposes and requires that data be collected and stored only to the extent necessary to achieve the purpose. Continuous and indiscriminate recording of traffic events can therefore lead to conflicts with the principles of purpose limitation, data minimization, and storage limitation. The more comprehensively and the longer data are stored, the higher the risk, as a rule, of incompatibility with data-protection requirements.
\n
Transparency and information obligations
\n\n
Anyone who processes personal data may be obligated to inform the persons concerned. In road traffic, directly informing all recorded persons is practically hardly feasible. However, this circumstance does not change the fact that processing in public space can become legally problematic if transparency requirements cannot be met, or in any event cannot be met in a manner that satisfies the statutory standards.
\n
Dashcams as evidence in court proceedings
\n
Admissibility of use despite potential data protection concerns
\n\n
Irrespective of the question of whether a recording was made in a manner permissible under data protection law, in the event of a dispute the separate question arises as to whether it may be used as evidence. The use of evidence is governed by procedural rules and the weighing of the interests involved. In doing so, courts may in particular examine whether the interest in appropriately clarifying the course of the accident outweighs the data subject’s interest in protecting their data.
\n
Balancing conflicting interests
\n\n
When assessing admissibility of use, the circumstances of the individual case are regularly taken into account, such as the specific occasion for the recording, the scope of the data captured, the intensity of the interference, and the importance of the recording for clarifying the facts. In this context, the weight of the interest in clarification may increase if, without the recording, the course of the accident can be determined only with difficulty or not reliably at all. Conversely, particularly extensive, comprehensive, or long-duration recording can lead to a greater intensity of interference and thus to higher requirements.
\n
Possible legal consequences in the event of unlawful use under data protection law
\n
Civil-law and data-protection-law risks
\n\n
If dashcam recordings are processed in a manner impermissible under data protection law, various legal consequences may be considered. Depending on the circumstances, data-protection measures by the competent supervisory authorities, civil-law claims by affected persons, or further legal consequences may be considered. Decisive are always the specific circumstances, in particular the type, scope, purpose, and use of the recording.
\n
Publication and disclosure of recordings
\n\n
Heightened requirements may apply if recordings are not used solely for internal documentation, but are disclosed to third parties or published. With each additional use, the reach of the data processing and thus the intensity of the interference generally increases. This can influence the legal assessment, for example with regard to the personality rights of the persons recorded as well as data-protection-law requirements for justification.
\n
Classification and outlook
\n\n
The legal assessment of dashcams lies between the interest in securing evidence and the limits imposed by data protection law. Whether recordings are permissible and whether they will be taken into account as evidence in the event of a dispute regularly depends on a case-by-case assessment. For companies, investors, and high-net-worth private individuals who deal with data protection issues relating to video-based documentation, storage, and use of recordings, a more in-depth review of the applicable framework conditions may be advisable. MTR Legal attorneys provide support in classifying data protection aspects; further information on legal advice on data protection can be found at the link provided.
“
