Search results

If you think that someone is using camera surveillance unlawfully you can file a complaint to the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection (IMY) using our e-service.

It is common that individuals of the general public use video surveillance on their own property. The so-called "domestic purpose exemption" means that the rules of GDPR do not apply when using video surveillance in your capacity as a private citizen or in connection to your personal household. Sometimes it is hard to know when the exemption applies. Following you will find a guide on what applies when it comes to video surveillance and the domestic purpose exemption.

Are you, as an employer, considering using video-surveillance of a workplace? Remember that all video-surveillance entails an infringement of privacy and that employees in general have a right not to be monitored at work. Therefore, you need strong reasons as to why it is necessary to monitor employees at their place of work. Here you will find out more of what rules apply.

If you carry out video-surveillance you need to provide information regarding the surveillance in an intelligible and easily accessible way. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) lists a number of requirements of what this information needs to contain.

The following is a brief description of what anyone interested in the use of video-surveillance must consider.

We receive many questions about camera surveillance and how to comply with the rules in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Camera Surveillance Act. The rules are different depending on who you are and which location is being filmed.

Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection (DPA) has investigated a co-operative housing association’s use of video surveillance on its property. The DPA concludes that the association has gone too far when using video surveillance in the main entrance and the stairwell and when recording audio.

The Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection (IMY) has investigated the use of camera surveillance at a number of fire stations in Östra Skaraborg and notes that 24/7 surveillance of the staff is too far-reaching.

The Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection (IMY) concludes that SL, who operate the public transport in Stockholm, has violated GDPR when equipping ticket inspectors with body cameras that record video and sound. The IMY issues an administrative fine against SL of SEK 16 million.

Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection issues an administrative fine of SEK 200,000 against Gnosjö Municipality for unlawful video surveillance in an LSS housing.