 |
 |
 |
 |
Log In
|
Log Out
|
 |
 |
News Feed  |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|
PrivacyInfo.ca Decision Summary 518
| DECISION # 376: Allegation of Privacy Breaches Against Condominium Security Company | ||||
Complaint Summary |
||||
The complainant, a resident of a condominium building, issued two complaints with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner against his condominium’s security company. First, the complainant claimed that the security officer in his building followed him within the building using security cameras, and permitted other residents of the building to observe the images. Second, the complainant asserted that the security staff circulated a memorandum about him to other residents of the building. The two events occurred on different dates, however the security officer involved in both matters is the same. Investigation – Security Cameras The complainant had a history of problems with the condominium’s property management company, security company, and certain condominium residents. As the situation worsened a security occurrence report was filed. On the same day, a property management company held an emergency meeting of the condominium’s Board of Directors, of which the complainant was a member. The complainant left the meeting after one of the residents made a comment to him. The complainant claimed that the security officer then began to collect his personal information by using the security cameras to record his location in the building. He then claimed that the security officer permitted two residents to watch him on the security monitors. Given the manner in which the concierge desk was shaped, if a person stood at a certain angle they could see the security camera monitors, however they could not clearly see the details of the images on the screens unless they stood directly in front of the monitors. There are 45 cameras situated throughout the condominium. The cameras are fixed and cannot turn or zoom. Images are recorded and maintained for one week. Both residents who were allegedly permitted to view the complainant on the security camera monitors confirmed that they did see the complainant, however they also noted that the security officer did not permit them to go behind the counter, stand in front of the monitors or lean over the counters. They saw the complainant on the security camera monitors due to the way the monitors were situated at the concierge desk. The security company also denied that its security officer helped the residents to track the complainant’s whereabouts or that he provided them access to the cameras or monitors. The security officer also maintained that he did not permit the residents to view the complainant on the cameras. The security monitors were later replaced with flat screen images that were angled away from the open area of the building lobby. This was done to ensure that the images could not be viewed by individuals standing at the desk or in the open area of the lobby. Investigation – Disclosure of Memorandum According to a report filed by the security company, the complainant had threatened the security officer. In a memorandum prepared following the incident, the security company advised that any additional problems, abuse, threats or harassment from the complainant should be reported to the police. Around the same time a group of concerned residents formed a “Committee of Concerned Residents” whose purpose was to remove the complainant from the Board of Directors. The Committee distributed a notice and proxy letter to all residents to call a special general meeting regarding the complainant’s dismissal. A second letter was also distributed which contained a proxy to vote on the same matter. The security company’s memorandum was also attached to the Committee’s second letter. One of the members of the Committee explained that she received a copy of the memorandum at her door, and she noted that she did not receive the memorandum directly from the security company or property management company. When the Office of the Privacy Commissioner requested a copy of the memorandum during its visit, the memorandum could not be found anywhere in the security desk area or in the storage room behind the desk. The client service manager claimed that a copy of the memorandum was not given to the Board of Directors, to the property management company or to any of the residents. The security company reminded its officers verbally and in writing that the information and records they maintain are to be used exclusively by security and the property manager. The security company maintained that all memorandums to its staff are appropriately locked and information about residents contained on its computer is password protected. |
||||
Findings Summary |
||||
Findings – Security Cameras The Assistant Privacy Commissioner determined that it was clear that the complainant’s personal information, specifically his image, was collected by the security cameras and disclosed on the security system monitors. Images are collected by the security cameras when the residents pass within the range of the cameras for security purposes. The question in this instance was whether the collection and disclosure of the complainant’s image was out of the ordinary. There was no evidence which indicated that the security officer was inappropriately collecting the complainant’s personal information, nor was there any evidence that he was asked to do so by the Board of Directors, the property management company, or by any of the condominium residents. The cameras were being used, as they typically are, in order to monitor the building for safety purposes. Further, there was no evidence which indicated that the complainant’s images appeared on the monitor for any other reason than that the complainant walked through areas of the building where the cameras are located. Accordingly, the Assistant Privacy Commissioner found that the security company’s collection of the complainant’s personal information was not contrary to Principle 4.4. Further, the security company did not disclose the complainant’s personal information for any other reason than that for which it was originally collected. To this end, the Assistant Privacy Commissioner concluded that the security company had not contravened Principle 4.5. The security camera complaints were deemed to be not well-founded. Findings – Disclosure of Memorandum The Assistant Privacy Commissioner noted that it could not be determined precisely how the Committee of Concerned Residents obtained the memorandum. The security company claimed that it did not provide a copy to the Board of Directors, the property management company or the residents. Nonetheless, during the investigation the binder containing the memorandum could not be found. The Assistant Privacy Commissioner stated that any document which contains sensitive information should be maintained in an appropriate place to prevent unauthorized access to its contents. To this end, the company did not meet the requirements of Principles 4.7 and 4.7.1. The Assistant Privacy Commissioner was satisfied with the actions the company had taken since the complaint was initiated to ensure that information is properly protected, consistent with Principles 4.7 and 4.7.1. Accordingly, the complaint was deemed to be well-founded and resolved. |
||||
Resolution |
||||
Notes/Comments |
||||
Provisions Raised/Addressed |
||||
Principles 4.4.4.5, 4.7 and 4.7.1 of Schedule 1 |
||||
Other Information |
||||
| Decision Date: | 2007 April 24th | |||
| (Not) Well-Founded: | Mixed Findings (See Notes/Comments) | |||
| (Not) Resolved: | Mixed Findings (See Notes/Comments) | |||
| Sector #1: | Security/Surveilance | |||
| Sector #2: | ||||
| Online at: | http://www.privcom.gc.ca/cf-dc/2007/376_20070424_e.asp | |||
| 518 | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright (c) 2003 Michael Geist