The fact that the municipality of Rotterdam used camera cars to monitor corona measures was unlawful, the Dutch Data Protection Authority (AP) ruled in a report that NRC has seen. The newspaper also claims that Mayor Aboutaleb wanted to stop the publication of the document. “Ready-made nonsense,” Aboutaleb disputes that accusation during an interview with Rijnmond. He has not yet seen the report himself, he says. “We expect the report but I don’t know what it contains.”
The camera cars drove through Rotterdam for about two months, during which time they passed on 75 reports. “It was quite a task for BOAs and agents to enforce the corona measures,” says the mayor. “We can’t be everywhere. We thought that the enforcement of corona rules would benefit from images that were made in this way.” The cars are equipped with 360 degree cameras, which can be used to map faces and license plates. When the camera car spotted something that was not right, this did not lead to a fine, but was only reported to the BOAs, says Aboutaleb.
Article 3 of the Police Act
The camera cars were deployed on the basis of Article 3 of the Police Act, the mayor continues. Article 3 is also discussed and defined in an interim evaluation by the municipality of the use of the cars. “One of the powers is the use of mobile camera surveillance in, among other things, unforeseen disturbances or (the fear of) disturbances of a temporary nature”, it can be read. Aboutaleb: “The question is whether the use in this circumstance was lawful and proportional, the Dutch Data Protection Authority must make a judgment about that.” However, the same municipal evaluation already concluded: “This evaluation has shown that the deployment of the MCAs [de camera-auto’s, red.] has met the requirements of proportionality and subsidiarity to a limited extent for the purpose of carrying out the task of the police under Article 3 of the Police Act.”
According to Aboutaleb, the upcoming AP report should be public and there should be a proper debate about whether this type of technology can be used properly. “The council has discussed whether the use of these cars is in line with privacy legislation. You can make analyzes that show that it is, you can make analyzes that show that it is not necessary.”
NRC believes that the conclusions of the AP report are harsher than those of the evaluation. She would be breaking the law, no privacy test was done beforehand and the images would have been stored for too long.
– .
