@cezary806, a few more messages and you won’t end up buying a doorbell camera 
4 Likes
Haha, yes, that’s highly possible, but it’s not actually a bad thing 
I want to consider all possibilities before I do something stupid.
Current state of my decision: 50:50 chance of buying
4 Likes
If I were a lawyer, I would advise against it, but as a smart home enthusiast, I would strongly recommend buying one
3 Likes
By the way, I also wanted to point out that there are not only arguments against having a security camera at the front door, such as privacy concerns. There are also legitimate reasons in favor of it.
For example, in the event of a burglary, insurance companies will typically require evidence that a covered loss has actually occurred. In many cases this is straightforward because there are signs of forced entry, police findings, witness statements, or other supporting evidence. However, there can be situations where the circumstances are less clear and physical evidence is limited. In such cases, video footage may help establish what happened and who was involved.
I’m not suggesting that a video recording is required for an insurance claim. However, if the circumstances of an incident are disputed or unclear, video footage can be a valuable additional piece of evidence for the police, insurers, or other parties involved.
And if there are concerns about privacy or compliance, another option would be to install a camera inside the apartment, facing the entrance from within your own rented premises, and use the video doorbell itself purely as a digital peephole rather than as a motion-activated surveillance device.
4 Likes
Thanks, it’s a piece of good advice.
Regarding the inside cameras - this reminds me. A few days ago there was a case of an unsuccessful burglary. An 72-year old man broke in using a lockpick, saw a camera and panicked.
He can be sentenced up to 10 years in prison.
Original article (in Polish): 72-latek włamał się do mieszkania na Czubach. Uciekł, gdy zobaczył kamerę : Lublin112 – Wiadomości z Lublina i regionu. Ważne informacje z kraju
2 Likes
@gafich10, do you live in an apartment block and it’s an inside setup? If yes, does it prove to be actually more useful than a peephole?
Just a heads-up: it’s a completely different matter if you are only filming your own private property (with no tenants), or if you are located outside the EU.
3 Likes
In case of private properties (and I mean a house with a land that is also yours, not an apartment, just like in my case) I believe you also have to watch out, as recording the street, pavement or the neighbors is also illegal as far as I know.
That is - those things can be in the frame if the camera is pointed at your property (and they are just partially in the frame because you’re not physically able to remove them from the frame), but a camera pointed at the street or pavement is just illegal.
Which also makes the case of smart doorbells somewhat a questionable matter. Is there a lawyer in the room? 
4 Likes
Thanks!
1 Like
Ok, I’ve looked into case C-212/13 and it looks like almost all video doorbells are kind of legal grey area.
Looks like any type of surveillance that records any public or common space has to be GDPR compliant, which includes motion or button activated cameras/doorbells, or 24/7 recording UNLESS it only records your private area. Even if it’s motion/button activation (like - on a doorbell press), people have to be informed in advance about the recording (and who is the personal data administrator/collector, that is who keeps the recording)
Nevertheless, either it’s for your private use only (and you don’t record any public spaces, even partially), or you have to inform people about the fact it’s recording and who is personal data administrator. Or both. And it still may be illegal if the primary use of the camera is to record places you’re not the owner of.
The recorded person has the right to know they are being recorded, by who, and they have the right to have their data removed on request.
But it sounds like a corporate/lawyer talk… in practice people just install the video doorbells, peepholes and video intercoms everywhere they want (as long as it’s not too far from their property ) and it’s ok. And apartment blocks have the video intercoms (especially newer ones)… so it’s questionable, but there is no clear answer. Like - it’s allowed to some degree, but there is no law that clearly states to what degree.
2 Likes
Case C-212/13 (the Ryneš case) is indeed a crucial reference point. It clarifies that the GDPR’s “household exemption” may no longer apply if the camera captures areas beyond the purely personal or household sphere (e.g., public paths or third-party property).
I wanted to quickly touch on your previous point about “partial” recording of public spaces. The legal principle here is “data minimization”. If it cannot be physically avoided that the pavement is in the frame (e.g., by using wedge mounts to change the angle), the legal justification becomes much more difficult. While the GDPR does not dictate a specific technical solution, in practice, setting up Privacy Masking (blacking out those areas via software) is a very important and proven measure to minimize the risk of a violation.
Regarding your point that “in practice people just do it” That is absolutely true – it’s often a case of “where there is no plaintiff, there is no judge”. However, if a complaint is filed (for instance by neighbors or pedestrians), it may trigger a review by the Data Protection Authority. This doesn’t always lead to immediate fines, but often results in orders to realign the camera, reduce the recording area, or, in doubt, remove it.
That was the case with my parents. Thanks to the neighbor, they received a letter from the data protection officer. In this case, however, it was enough to write that the cameras only cover their property and do not capture public areas or the neighbor’s property.
What about video intercoms in apartment blocks then? The GDPR naturally applies here as well. The difference often lies in proportionality: Many classic systems do not store any recordings and do not trigger without a specific cause. They merely switch on as a live feed when someone actually rings the bell. While a live stream is still relevant under data protection law, it can, depending on the individual case, often be more easily justified via a “legitimate interest” (security, checking who is at the door) than a system that permanently records the area in front of the door.
The legal assessment is therefore highly fact-specific and depends heavily on the individual circumstances of the installation. That is exactly why features like privacy zones, smart motion triggers, and the ability to disable recordings are so valuable: They help us users implement the legal requirements for data minimization as effectively as possible in practice!
2 Likes
A few more days of this conversation, and one of us could land a job at Aqara’s legal department handling video surveillance. 
By the way, it’s been a really educational exchange.
3 Likes