ᐅ Is it Permissible to Use a Construction Site Camera for Monitoring?

SirSydom schrieb:

Basically, you are allowed to film on your own property as you like.

That statement is still not entirely correct. There have been numerous court rulings on private video surveillance with differing decisions. One common factor in all these rulings is: it always depends on the specific circumstances.

SirSydom schrieb:

Surveillance in a secured area does not have to be announced.

This is only true if the video surveillance actually covers only the owner’s own property, if I understand the rulings correctly. Or if the operator can prove that in their case the surveillance interest outweighs the individual’s right to privacy.

**The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) established the following principles:

• When installing video surveillance systems on private property, it must be ensured that neither adjacent public areas nor neighboring private properties or shared access ways are recorded by the cameras, unless the operator can demonstrate, based on a balancing of interests, that their overriding interest outweighs the privacy rights of the affected parties.
• An infringement of the privacy rights of third parties occurs if they are actually affected by the surveillance. If this is established and the required balancing shows that the operator’s interest does not outweigh the privacy rights of those affected, a claim for injunction is justified.
• A claim for injunction may also exist if third parties must reasonably fear surveillance by cameras. However, the claim is rejected if neighbors only fear that recordings might be made, and the cameras can only be pointed towards their property with considerable and externally visible effort—i.e., not simply by activating a control system.
• The fear of being monitored by existing surveillance devices is justified if, based on concrete circumstances, it appears plausible and understandable, for example, in the context of an escalating neighbor dispute. If such circumstances exist, the privacy rights of the (allegedly) monitored person may already be affected due to the suspicion alone. Merely the hypothetical possibility of surveillance by video cameras or similar devices does not impair the general privacy rights of those who might be affected.

SirSydom schrieb:

Whether a contractor can refuse to fulfill a contract because cameras are installed on the construction site is an interesting question!

That is indeed interesting—but in my opinion, easily resolved. A polite request and positioning the camera far enough away so that no worker can be identified should suffice 😉

**Sharp or blurry

If the quality of the surveillance camera—for example at a food distribution point or on a construction site—is so “poor” or blurry that individuals cannot be identified, there is no objection to using a webcam. Otherwise, the consent of employees or construction workers is required.

**Source: WEKA Akademie

Best regards, Bauexperte

Oops. That's right. I specifically searched for FAZ, but also found FR.

andimann schrieb:
Hello,

why always have these theoretical discussions? Just kindly ask the structural builders if they have any objections. If the camera is positioned far enough away to capture the entire house in the frame, in a time-lapse video (i.e., taking one picture every 30 seconds), you simply won’t see any people. Maybe a shadow at most, but nothing more.

Just ask nicely and that’s it...

Best regards,

Andreas

That’s how I would handle it too. If the contractors find out about it without any prior notice, any trust could be lost immediately.

Why use a camera at all? If you want to document the general construction progress, you can take photos after working hours. Otherwise, send relatives or good friends who have time in the morning or early afternoon to visit the site and check everything out. Usually, that’s enough to apply some “pressure.” Just imagine for yourself if your boss filmed you every minute at work to check in the evening whether you made any mistakes.

Hello,

Musketier schrieb:
I specifically searched for FAZ, but also found FR

*blush* *embarrassed* I mentioned the wrong Frankfurt newspaper. You shouldn’t quickly write something between coffee and an appointment.

On the topic:
As I understand it, I am allowed to install video surveillance on my own property, but I have to inform others that I am doing so and they must agree to it.

However, I don't mean to imply that before entering such an area, you first have to go through and sign 50 pages of contracts. I can understand the desire to watch your own building grow in time-lapse. So: involve the contractors, ask them politely if it’s okay. If they say no, then that’s just no. End of story. You should then come up with another idea.

Enterich schrieb:
Just imagine your boss filming you every minute at work to check in the evening whether you made any mistakes.

Not only that, imagine it for yourself in a purely private setting. You visit someone who has surveillance you don’t even know about. In the hallway, at the right moment, someone quickly adjusts pinching or poorly fitting clothes with practiced hands. I wouldn’t want that to be seen or even recorded anonymously on video by anyone.
(One of our guys was once the target of an “I’ll film you in an embarrassing moment and post it online” attack — cyberbullying at its worst. That definitely makes you more sensitive.)

Enterich schrieb:
That’s how I would do it too. If the contractors find out without being warned in advance, any trust is lost from the start.

A construction site is an extremely dangerous place—cranes can swing, paint can splash, and so on. If they get really clever, a camera won’t survive longer than a snowman in the Sahara. 😀
Even if it is legally allowed, the rights of the people involved should be respected, even if the purpose of such “surveillance” is not surveillance in the strict sense but the quite understandable wish to simply watch your own house grow on video, without any ill intentions.

Hello

if I understand the thread starter correctly, he wants to document the progress of his construction. So quite simply: pictures showing how the building gradually rises.

I would set up a "trail camera" at a certain distance and program it to take a picture once every hour. To be completely sure no one objects, just inform the workers and the construction company and explain it that way.

Steven

Steven schrieb:
simply inform the workers and the company and explain it that way.

And that’s exactly what I mean—it would not be sufficient to justify installing a camera in case of a dispute.

Sir_Kermit schrieb:
it is not really surveillance in the strict sense, but rather the perfectly understandable desire to simply watch your own house grow on video, without any ill intentions.

In my opinion, the desire alone to watch the house being built would also not be enough to justify placing a camera.

To avoid any potential trouble, there would be nothing wrong with taking a camera in hand after working hours to document the current progress.