The complainants lived at the end of a long driveway. The driveway ran beside a house used to provide residential care for children and young people that was owned by a Trust. The Trust had been offered the house by the Department of Social Welfare to establish a community home for children and young people with care and protection needs. Another neighbour lived beside the driveway and, from the outset, the Trust experienced problems with that neighbour. Staff and residents had allegedly been threatened and abused, and damage caused to the property. Over time the threats escalated and the Trust consulted the police and an independent company. They were advised to install a video surveillance camera to monitor the fence line.

The complainants alleged that the video camera also monitored part of their driveway. The complainants believed that monitoring the movements of people to and from their property amounted to an interference with their privacy. The Trust stated that it did not intend to monitor neighbouring properties and advised the company installing the camera that it only wanted to monitor its own property.

The complaint was withdrawn after the camera was removed by the Trust, which decided it had not been effective.

The complaint raised issues under information privacy principles 1 and 4.

Information privacy principle 1

Principle 1 provides that agencies shall not collect personal information unless it is collected for a lawful purpose connected with the agency's functions or activities and the collection is necessary for that purpose.

I considered first whether monitoring the property was connected with the Trust's functions or activities. I accepted that one of the functions of the Trust was to secure the safety of all its residents. If any incident threatened their safety, the Trust would be required to take appropriate action to safeguard the residents. I accepted that the monitoring was connected with the Trust's functions and that the purpose was not unlawful.

I also considered whether the collection of the information was necessary for that purpose. The Trust explained that the incidents with one of the neighbours had reached the stage where it considered taking out a trespass order. Given that some of the threats had been directed against the property and that damage had been sustained, the Trust believed extra security was required. It decided to install a video surveillance system to monitor the part of the fence line where most of the incidents had occurred.

The camera position involved a compromise between a number of factors including the cost of the installation, the field of vision to be achieved, the ability to adjust to view different angles of the boundary and the protection of the camera itself. In order to monitor the fence line, the camera angle needed to be set so that an area above the fence line would be visible. As a result, a small area beyond the fence and beyond the Trust property was also in view.

I considered that collecting information from an area immediately beyond the fence line would be necessary to identify any breaches of physical security of the Trust property. For these reasons, I considered that the collection of information from the general area of the fence line was necessary to achieve the Trust's stated purpose and that the collection did not breach principle 1.

Information privacy principle 4

The complaint also raised issues under principle 4. This principle provides in part that personal information shall not be collected by means that, in the circumstances of the case, are unfair or intrude to an unreasonable extent upon the personal affairs of the individual concerned.

In considering whether the video surveillance was unreasonably intrusive, I considered the extent of the intrusion to the complainants and other people who would use the driveway.

The complainants were concerned that the activities of their family were monitored as they came and went from the property. They were also concerned that someone watching their property would be aware when the house was empty. They felt that people visiting their home would see the camera and form a negative view of the neighbourhood.

My investigating officer visited the premises and noted that the camera monitored only a short length of the driveway, which was also used and seen by another neighbour. The camera did not monitor the area surrounding the complainants' property where they could expect to have exclusive use.

I also took into account the particular circumstances of the case, including the security issues faced by the Trust and the limited range of options open to them to improve their security.

For these reasons I considered that in the circumstances the Trust was not collecting information about the complainants, or anyone else using their driveway, by means that were unfair or unreasonably intrusive.

During my investigation the Trust removed the camera because they considered it had not been effective in reducing the number or severity of incidents. The complainants accepted that with the removal of the camera, the primary cause of their complaint no longer existed and they withdrew their complaint.

I discontinued my investigation.

Indexing terms: Collecting personal information - Accommodation - Surveillance camera - Overt recording of premises - Neighbourhood dispute - information privacy principle 1

Collecting personal information - Accommodation - Surveillance camera - Overt recording of premises - Neighbourhood dispute - information privacy principle 4

June 2001