Smart video doorbells installed on apartment doors are triggering neighborhood disputes as residents grapple with constant surveillance on shared corridors, according to Dnevnik.
Residents in apartment blocks increasingly face situations where neighbors install modern video doorbells equipped with wide-angle cameras on their entrance doors. Whenever someone steps out of a nearby apartment, an indicator light activates on the recording device, sending continuous notifications and video footage of hallway movements to a smartphone app. Dnevnik reported that privacy right outside personal front doors has essentially vanished for affected tenants.
While these affordable and easily installed devices aim to boost home security and comfort, they frequently blur the legal line between protecting private property and intruding on the privacy of others. The Information Commissioner’s office confirmed that the proliferation of networked video cameras has driven an increase in questions and risks tied to unauthorized recording.
Even when cameras activate only upon a doorbell press or motion detection, such measures do not automatically maintain the domestic exception that exempts users from data protection rules if identifiable third parties are captured.
Turning off recording functions does not suffice if a device still permits live-stream monitoring of the surrounding area. When smart video doorbells capture identifiable individuals moving across shared spaces like hallways in multi-apartment buildings, the usage falls squarely under data protection legislation, according to the Information Commissioner. Operating such surveillance requires a valid legal basis, as obtaining prior consent from every potentially captured person remains unlikely.
A legitimate interest under the General Data Protection Regulation could provide that legal basis, provided the operator performs a documented balancing test before use. This test evaluates whether the operator’s legitimate interests override the rights and interests of individuals caught on camera. If the pursued goal is achievable through less invasive methods, such as narrowing the camera’s field of view or disabling recording entirely, those alternatives must take priority.
Police investigate reports regarding these devices to determine if grounds for action exist within their authority, handling matters through misdemeanor or pre-trial proceedings when offenses or crimes are suspected. When complaints focus strictly on the legality of video surveillance or data processing, police typically direct complainants to the Information Commissioner.
Individuals who believe their privacy has been unlawfully violated may also pursue civil protection under Article 134 of the Obligations Code, asking a court to halt the behavior or seeking damages, while unauthorized surveillance can constitute a criminal offense in severe cases.
The Information Commissioner possesses strict oversight powers, including the authority to order video surveillance bans or the deletion of stored recordings, alongside imposing fines ranging from 100 to 3,000 euros for natural persons, pursuant to regulatory guidelines.
