Thanks again for your answers.
But please understand that our realities are completely different.
I live in an isolated house, surrounded by forest. Not as safe as it used to be - it's true - but very distant from the american reality. I don't set my intruder alarm at night, not even one of the 3 partitions it has. There's somebody at home 24 hours a day, most days of the year. I, myself, am presently a farmer and am 10 minutes away from the house most of the time. I want the cameras for a few ocasions during the year.
Portugal has just been considered the third most peaceful country in the world:
"Iceland is joined at the top of the index by New Zealand, Portugal, Austria, and Denmark, all of which were ranked highly in the 2016 Global Peace Index." (Global Peace Index – Vision of Humanity);
and the 12th safest country in the world, according to the The Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report 2017 of the World Economic Forum (
Revealed: The world's safest (and least safe) countries - Zimbabwe and Nicaragua beat the UK)
The surveillance system will be for my peace of mind when (not often) I am away. And also the laws are different in the european union. I can only record images of my private space. If I record images from what is beyond my land, it will probably not by accepted as evidence in court. By law it will certainly not be accepted. Because crime is increasing there are special cases where it has been accepted. If I have a camera that covers my property entrance, the pixels that cover the public road beyond my gate or my neighbour's garden have to be blocked.
Just read this decision of the European Justice Court, regarding a case in the Czech Republic (the whole JUDGMENT OF THE COURT is inthis link:
EUR-Lex - 62013CJ0212 - EN - EUR-Lex - just chose the english language in HTML or PDF):
"
The dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling
13 During the period from 5 October 2007 to 11 April 2008, Mr Ryneš installed and used a camera system located under the eaves of his family home. The camera was installed in a fixed position and could not turn; it recorded the entrance to his home, the public footpath and the entrance to the house opposite. The system allowed only a visual recording, which was stored on recording equipment in the form of a continuous loop, that is to say, on a hard disk drive. As soon as it reached full capacity, the device would record over the existing recording, erasing the old material. No monitor was installed on the recording equipment, so the images could not be studied in real time. Only Mr Ryneš had direct access to the system and the data.
14 The Nejvyšší správní soud (Supreme Administrative Court, Czech Republic; or ‘the referring court’) notes that Mr Ryneš’s only reason for operating the camera was to protect the property, health and life of his family and himself. Indeed, both Mr Ryneš and his family had for several years been subjected to attacks by persons unknown whom it had not been possible to identify. Furthermore, the windows of the family home had been broken on several occasions between 2005 and 2007.
15 On the night of 6 to 7 October 2007, a further attack took place. One of the windows of Mr Ryneš’s home was broken by a shot from a catapult. The video surveillance system at issue made it possible to identify two suspects. The recording was handed over to the police and relied on in the course of the subsequent criminal proceedings.
16 By decision of 4 August 2008, following a request from one of the suspects for confirmation that Mr Ryneš’s surveillance system was lawful, the Office found that Mr Ryneš had infringed Law No 101/2000, since:
— as a data controller, he had used a camera system to collect, without their consent, the personal data of persons moving along the street or entering the house opposite;
— he had not informed those persons of the processing of that personal data, the extent and purpose of that processing, by whom and by what means the personal data would be processed, or who would have access to the personal data; and
— as a data controller, Mr Ryneš had not fulfilled the obligation to report that processing to the Office.
(...)
Consideration of the question referred
(...)
35 Consequently, the answer to the question referred is that the second indent of Article 3(2) of Directive 95/46 must be interpreted as meaning that the operation of a camera system, as a result of which a video recording of people is stored on a continuous recording device such as a hard disk drive, installed by an individual on his family home for the purposes of protecting the property, health and life of the home owners, but which also monitors a public space, does not amount to the processing of data in the course of a purely personal or household activity, for the purposes of that provision."
