UNREASONABLE SURVEILLANCE:
A camera targeted on an road by a neighbor captured a man’s habitual unsignaled turn into home, netting him dozens of tickets
-
By Hsu Kuo-chen
and Esme Yeh / Staff reporters
The Taichung High Administrative Court has canceled all 45 tickets given to a man for failing to use a turn signal while driving, as it considered long-term surveillance of his privacy more problematic than the traffic violations.
The man, surnamed Tseng (曾), lives in Changhua County and was reported 45 times within a month for failing to signal while driving when he turned into the alley where his residence is.
The reports were filed by his neighbor, who set up security cameras that constantly monitored not only the alley but also the door and yard of Tseng’s house.
Photo: Taipei Times
The surveillance occurred from July 2023 to August 2023 when the tickets, issued by the police based on the reported camera footage, were initially sent to a woman surnamed Hsieh (謝), who owns the vehicle.
The police later identified Tseng as the actual driver and fined him instead after Hsieh made a complaint.
Tseng then filed an administrative lawsuit, arguing he was likely targeted by someone who intensively reported his behavior.
During proceedings, the court found the complainant lives across from Tseng and the reported footage included private living space.
Such camera monitoring was no different from recording Tseng’s household via long-term surveillance, the court said.
Using surveillance devices for personal security is considered reasonable, but the case went beyond reasonable limits and constituted serious infringement of privacy and right to informational self-determination, it said.
The camera monitoring was self-protective in nature, as it was constant and targeted, with the goal of surveilling people and collecting evidence, the court said.
Although Tseng did fail to signal while making turns, the footage cannot be used as basis for penalization as it was illegally obtained, it said.
Given that the alley is only 2.78m wide with relatively little traffic on regular days, turning without signaling would not much affect road safety or result in substantial harm, the court said.
However, long-term surveillance of the home life of others clearly constituted a more severe infringement, it said, adding protection of privacy should be prioritized over punishment for minor traffic violation in this case.
The reported footage was considered illegally collected information lacking legal legitimacy for administrative authorities to use as a basis for penalties.
The judge concluded that all the tickets should be canceled, as the penalty violated the principle of proportionality and the Personal Data Protection Act’s (個人資料保護法) principle of purpose limitation.
The case was finalized.
When reached for comment about the case, lawyer Lee Hsueh-yung (李學鏞) said the judgement criteria lie in whether it would meet reasonable expectation of privacy.
The right to privacy is not restricted to indoor space, he said, noting that any space of personal living activities that one does not want other people to constantly monitor or record — including a residence’s entrance, yard and access — can be considered private areas.
It could constitute infringement upon privacy and personal information if someone filmed their life for an extended time with a security camera, to the extent that the individuals in the footage can be recognized, he said.
The judgement would be case by case as to the legality of directing cameras only at public roads outside a residence, Lee said.
For example, it is usually considered legitimate when cameras are directed only at public space for anti-theft or self-protection purposes, he said.
However, if the camera angle includes aspects of a neighbor’s daily life or entry and exit of residence for an extended period that form “behavioral data” of the neighbor, then it could be considered excessive collection of personal data despite no other space but roads on the footage, Lee said.
