[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"$f67JTFUbytbc35RSaNbU1EDE6WuwVn9iewpGP3B8yZGI":3},{"article":4,"iocs":43,"watch_terms":44,"solutions":45,"lesson":48},{"id":5,"title":6,"slug":7,"summary":8,"ai_summary":9,"brief":10,"url":11,"image_url":12,"published_at":13,"ingested_at":14,"relevance_score":15,"entities":16,"category_id":20,"category":21,"article_tags":25},"ce787e4c-057e-4f82-8859-fd249455080d","UODO (Poland) - DKE.561.4.2026","uodo-poland-dke-561-4-2026-ed2d36","← Older revision Revision as of 08:01, 15 July 2026 Line 61: Line 61: }} }} The DPA fined an individual PLN 26,711 (approximately €6,174) for refusing to comply with an earlier decision stating its camera surveillance beyond their property was unlawful. The DPA fined an individual PLN 26,711 (approximately €6,174) for refusing to comply with an earlier decision stating their camera surveillance beyond their property was unlawful. == English Summary == == English Summary == === Facts === === Facts === The DPA initiated an ex officio investigation against an individual (the controller) after several data subjects complained about the controller’s video surveillance extending beyond the boundary of their property to include public roads and the data subjects’ properties. The DPA initiated an ex officio investigation against an individual (the controller) after several data subjects complained about the controller’s video surveillance extending beyond the boundary of their property to include public roads and the data subjects’ properties. The DPA decided that the controller had unlawfully processed data subjects’ data. The DPA held that the controller had the obligation to erase the data, and prohibited the controller from future monitoring. The DPA decided that the controller had unlawfully processed data subjects’ data. The DPA held that the controller had the obligation to erase the data, and prohibited the controller from future monitoring. The DPA requested the controller to provide evidence of compliance with the decision, but did not receive a response form the controller. The DPA later received a complaint from one of the data subjects, stating that the controller continued to violate the GDPR despite the DPA’s decision. The DPA found that the controller had reinstalled the cameras and continued to cover areas outside their property, even after the cameras were removed by police officers. The DPA later requested the controller to provide evidence of compliance with the decision, but did not receive a response from the controller. The DPA received a complaint from one of the data subjects, stating that the controller continued to violate the GDPR despite the DPA’s decision. The DPA found that the controller had reinstalled the cameras and continued to cover areas outside their property, even after the cameras were removed by police officers. === Holding === === Holding ===","Poland's Data Protection Authority (UODO) has fined an individual PLN 26,711 (approximately €6,174) for failing to comply with a previous decision. The individual's camera surveillance extended beyond their property onto public roads and neighboring properties, which was deemed unlawful. Despite being ordered to erase the data and cease monitoring, the individual reinstalled cameras and continued the unlawful surveillance, leading to the fine.","Poland's DPA fines individual €6,174 for non-compliance with unlawful surveillance ruling.","https:\u002F\u002Fgdprhub.eu\u002Findex.php?title=UODO_(Poland)_-_DKE.561.4.2026&diff=52223&oldid=52208","https:\u002F\u002Fgdprhub.eu\u002Fimages\u002F7\u002F7b\u002FLogoPL.png","2026-07-15T08:01:29+00:00","2026-07-15T10:00:27.148874+00:00",7,[17],{"name":18,"type":19},"UODO","vendor","c5c77cdb-f7d7-4990-9436-c81dcbff1163",{"id":20,"icon":22,"name":23,"slug":24},null,"Policy","policy",[26,31,36,38],{"category":27},{"id":28,"icon":22,"name":29,"slug":30},"3f0f8451-91df-4b6c-9a73-ef3b2509b7f1","GDPR","gdpr",{"category":32},{"id":33,"icon":22,"name":34,"slug":35},"53f9c4b6-8bc6-4964-9169-d09e5cd41d72","Compliance","compliance",{"category":37},{"id":20,"icon":22,"name":23,"slug":24},{"category":39},{"id":40,"icon":22,"name":41,"slug":42},"d95477d7-eb04-4fad-a2dc-be1428040ce7","Privacy Fines","privacy-fines",[],[18],{"controls":46,"vendors":47},[],[],{"slug":49,"title":50,"body":51,"framework_refs":52,"framework_notes":61},"polish-individual-fined-for-unlawful-camera-surveillance-beyond-property-boundaries","Polish Individual Fined for Unlawful Camera Surveillance Beyond Property Boundaries","This case demonstrates a deliberate and repeated violation of data protection law, where an individual operated camera surveillance systems that captured public roads and neighboring properties without legal basis. The root failure is a combination of poor security awareness regarding personal data obligations and outright non-compliance with a regulatory authority's binding decision. What makes this case particularly serious is the willful reinstallation of cameras after being ordered to cease — escalating a compliance failure into defiant regulatory non-compliance. Under GDPR, video surveillance that captures identifiable individuals in public or private spaces constitutes personal data processing, which requires a lawful basis and proportionality. This matters because failure to respect supervisory authority decisions can lead to escalating fines and reputational harm, even for private individuals.",[53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60],"GDPR Article 5(1)(a) – Lawfulness, fairness, and transparency","GDPR Article 5(1)(c) – Data minimisation","GDPR Article 6 – Lawful basis for processing","GDPR Article 58(2) – Corrective powers of supervisory authorities","GDPR Article 83(6) – Administrative fines for non-compliance with supervisory authority orders","NIST SP 800-122 – Guide to Protecting the Confidentiality of Personally Identifiable Information (PII)","CIS Control 3 – Data Protection","EDPB Guidelines 3\u002F2019 on processing of personal data through video devices",{}]