Setting up a time-lapse camera for house construction

And many of those who condemn trash TV act antisocially themselves. Self-interest is given too much importance and laws are disregarded - stubbornness sometimes has a slight upper hand.

: with professional photographers and others who, due to their profession, should know the laws because they work on their basis every day, the belt is tightened in case of violations. That’s why there is meticulous security.

By assuming from the outset that the created images are not handled responsibly, any further discussion about it is unnecessary for me.

I have tried to illustrate how the situation is when the images are used purely in private and further, how it is regulated in non-private contexts by laws. Since I cannot and do not want to provide legal advice, I ask everyone to use their common sense and, if that is not enough, to seek legal counsel.

Hello,

By assuming from the outset that the created images are not handled responsibly, the further discussion about it is unnecessary for me.

I did not assume, but rather presented lines of thought for discussion.

I tried to explain how it behaves when the images are used purely privately and further, how it is regulated by laws in the non-private context.

That is clear to me, however, "x" judgments (mostly contradictory) speak against an exclusively black-and-white view...

Rhenish greetings

I can say how I solved it for myself:

[*]I informed the neighbors... they then told me: "no problem at all, we and our friends are currently constantly taking photos of how work is being done there and are having fun with it..." - I also pointed out that parts of the neighboring house might possibly be in the picture, but I was clearly told that they have no problem with that and I shouldn't worry...
[*]I sent an email to the site manager asking him to forward it to the companies working there. In it, I ask for my concern to be communicated accordingly (explained by me with example videos) and offer contact options if anyone desires not to be recorded here. It will be almost impossible for me to individually address everyone, the solution is not ideal, but I try to get everyone on board this way. A photographer friend who frequently makes recordings of public and private places for a large newspaper said that, due to the resolution at that distance and wide angle, it is unnecessary to ask the companies, as it is not possible to clearly identify a person.
[*]A recording from the street would mean that I attach a camera to public trees, signs, etc. That is relatively unprotected and certainly legally the next problem. Either I will drive a pole into the ground at the end of the property to make the recording from about 2 - 4 meters high, or I will go to a tree or, with permission, to a neighbor's tree for the recording.

I am aware that one could certainly say that this is still not 100% legally correct. I am striving to respect all rights and would recommend that to everyone!
Many thanks for the discussion here and since it became emotional: every person has a different perspective on things based on their experiences. Sometimes it makes sense to look beyond your own horizon and try to put yourself in other people’s shoes.
A statement like IQ over 130 is, in my opinion, an indirect dig and can quickly add fuel to the fire.
The fact is, many people would make such a recording and not worry about it, because people think differently. As for me, I try to protect myself in such cases, which is often not easy, you usually get rejection and notice that certain rules are not there for nothing. I still find the StreetView discussion strange; after all, you can’t pixelate a house for everyone in reality from public space either.

To conclude, here is an example video from the bcc100 camera, so you can see such a result yourself and assess it better in content:
[MEDIA=YouTube]FiEE3b0_0QA[/MEDIA]

Just came in on my end:

CJEU Judgment: Surveillance Camera for the Protection of Property & Public Street Space

The EU directive on the protection of personal data applies to video recording with a surveillance camera installed by a person at their single-family home and directed at the public street space. However, the directive allows for the consideration of the legitimate interest of this person to protect the property, health, and life of themselves and their family.

The Facts

A family in the Czech Republic was repeatedly targeted by attacks from an unknown individual. The windows of their house were smashed multiple times. In response to these attacks, the head of the household installed a surveillance camera that recorded the entrance to the house, the public street space, as well as the entrance to the opposite house.

One night in October 2007, a window pane of his house was shot at and shattered with a slingshot. The surveillance camera recordings handed over to the police enabled the identification of two suspects, against whom criminal proceedings were initiated.

One of the suspects challenged the legality of the processing of the data recorded by the surveillance camera. The authority (in the Czech Republic) found that the regulations on the protection of personal data had indeed been violated and imposed a fine on the head of the household. Among other things, the authority explained that the data of the suspect had been recorded without his consent, although he was present in the public street space, i.e., on the part of the street located in front of the house.

Question to the Court

The Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic wishes to know from the Court whether the recording made by the head of the household to protect his life, health and property (i.e., the recording of personal data of persons who attacked his house from the public street space) constitutes data processing not covered by the directive because the recording was made by a natural person exclusively for personal or family activities.

The CJEU Judgment (C-212/13)

In its ruling today, the Court first points out that the term personal data within the meaning of this directive refers to all information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person. A person is considered identifiable if they can be identified directly or indirectly by reference to one or more specific elements that are an expression of their physical identity.

An image of a person recorded by a camera thus falls under the term personal data as it allows identification of the data subject.

Likewise, video surveillance recording and storing personal data falls under the scope of the directive as it constitutes automated processing of this data.

Secondly, video surveillance extending to public space and thus aimed at an area outside the private sphere of the data controller cannot be regarded as an "exclusively personal or family activity."

Legitimate Interest for Data Processing

At the same time, the national court must take into account when applying the directive that its provisions allow for the consideration of the legitimate interest of the data controller to protect the property, health and life of themselves and their family. In particular, first, the processing of personal data may occur without the consent of the data subject, among other things, if it is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the data controller. Second, a person does not have to be informed about the processing of their data if this is impossible or involves a disproportionate effort. Third, member states may restrict the obligations and rights laid down in the directive, provided such restriction is necessary for the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Subject Index:
Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 281, p. 31).
Video camera, video surveillance

Court:
CJEU, judgment of 11.12.2014 - C-212/13

Best regards from the Rhineland

Totally crazy, to put it kindly. I already read it yesterday.