Data protection threatens many weather webcams in Austria

Many Austrian webcams are threatened with closure. The reason for this is a decision by the country's data protection authority. It orders the operator of a weather webcam to adjust it so that the house of a complainant is no longer recorded. This is tantamount to a ban on operation.

Because no matter how the webcam was turned, some house would always be in view – unless it was pointed at the sky. “Whether this is interesting is a matter of opinion,” said Thomas Zimmermann Computer GmbH, managing partner of TZ-COM, in an interview with heise online. Zimmermann's company has been operating the webcam in the small Lower Austrian town of Zwettl since 2017 to promote tourism in the town. The company is not pursuing its interests.

It is probably the only public webcam in the town. Two public roads, a gated level crossing, the sky, and the town panorama with various properties can be seen in a still image that is updated every minute. The current air temperature is shown in the image, along with the date and time. If you want, you can use the webcam images to find out about the weather and road conditions and see whether the railroad crossing is currently open. There is no live stream, zoom or pan function. The operator does not provide an image archive, especially as it says it does not store the images itself.

License plates or people unrecognizable

The resolution of the minute-by-minute images is limited to 1279 × 723 pixels. This makes it impossible to recognize license plates, read inscriptions or identify people. Reference is made to the operating company, otherwise there is no advertising and therefore no revenue. A local media outlet reported positively on the webcam in 2017 and again in May 2024.

In the intervening years, a new residential building with parking facilities was built on one of the properties in the picture. Its owner complained to the Austrian data protection authority in May 2024, a few days after the second media report about the webcam. He admitted that it was “not surveillance in the true sense of the word”. However, he is bothered by the fact that his building, cars and any lights that may be on are in the picture. The whole world can see whether someone is at home, and “with a hunch” people can also be identified.

In a decision signed on 26 February, which heise online received in anonymized form, the data protection authority upheld the complaint but did not impose a fine. It refers to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and Section 1 of the Austrian Data Protection Act. The latter guarantees the right to confidentiality of personal data “insofar as there is an interest worthy of protection.” This right is excluded for generally available data or if it cannot be traced back to the data subject.

Decision: “Camera violates the right to confidentiality”

The authority states that the camera violates the right to confidentiality “in that the recording area of the (…) camera also covers the complainant's home.” The camera should therefore be adjusted so that the complainant's home is no longer recorded. This might be possible, but only until the next resident complains.

The operator therefore sees no other option than to switch off the webcam if the decision becomes legally binding. Zimmermann cannot understand this: “That would affect a lot of webcams because often, some buildings, or parking spaces are visible.” Although his company earns nothing from the webcam, he would like to have the decision reviewed by the Federal Administrative Court. The aim is to “raise awareness of the fact that authorities sometimes issue decisions that cannot be followed logically.” There is no resentment between the parties involved, Zimmermann emphasizes. They know each other in Zwettl and simply want to find out what the legal situation is. heise online is not aware of any Austrian case law on the admissibility of weather cams under data protection law.

Before the GDPR came into force, the then Data Protection Commission dealt with a similar case once, as far as is known. In 2013, it recommended setting a webcam with an hourly archive so that a specific building was not recorded (ref. no. K212.780/0004-DSK/2013). However, the authority also stated at the time that such a webcam only violates data protection law “if the interest in information can be satisfied by a less intrusive means and yet there is a not inconsiderable interference with legal positions protected by data protection law.”

As the editorial team only received the decision in anonymized form, it was not possible to obtain a statement from the complainant. He is not known to the editorial team.

(ds)