The topic of electronic peepholes with cameras is on everyone's lips, because of course, who doesn't want to know if the courier left the package or if the neighbor on the fifth floor is spying on you? The problem arises when that little camera goes from monitoring your doormat to recording half the landing... or the door (or the living room!) of the neighbor.
Well, the Supreme Court is already addressing this issue, so they can later say that justice doesn't keep up with technology. The case, in case you didn't see it on the news, occurred in Aluche (Madrid). A couple installed one of those modern peepholes: motion sensor, night vision, Wi-Fi, cloud recording... In other words, all they needed was to order you coffee using Alexa.
They said it was to see if packages arrived when they weren't there. But of course, the landing was so narrow that the camera caught everything: every time the neighbor opened his door, the peephole recorded everything, right down to the doormat and a bit of the interior. Imagine the anger.
In short, the neighbors got fed up and took the matter to court. And look, everyone agreed, from the high court to the Supreme Court. The key: that peephole wasn't just monitoring packages, but also the private lives of others. And, according to the Constitution and the Data Protection Act, privacy in the home is sacred. There's no need for the camera to be recording 24/7; if it can do so, and on top of that without any control or limits, you're already crossing the line.
So, when is it illegal to install a peephole with a camera? Basically, if you record anyone entering or leaving another home, it's neither necessary nor proportional. There are a thousand less invasive ways to feel safe: sensors inside the house, a traditional doorman, or even an alarm. Furthermore, in this case, the camera captured footage right inside the neighbor's apartment when they opened the door. And they hadn't even posted warning signs or limited access to the recordings. In other words, a disaster for privacy and the Data Protection Law.
Can an electronic peephole be installed legally? Yes, but be careful, only if it records right at your doorstep, without snooping into common areas or what others are doing. And it has to be more than justified (protection of people or property, and little else), comply with all the data protection regulations, warn that there's a camera, limit who can access the videos, and protect them like gold. If you record your neighbor's door, their visitors, or who comes and goes, you're taking a risk: you could be ordered to remove the camera and even pay moral damages.
This isn't the first time the Supreme Court has gotten involved in these issues. Back in 2010, they said no more cameras recording the entrances to other apartments. In other words, if you're going to install something like this, you'd better consult beforehand, or you'll end up in the community's WhatsApp group... but not necessarily in a good way.
In Supreme Court Ruling 600/2019, dated November 7, it concluded that the mere potential for capturing images can constitute an unlawful intrusion into privacy, even if no recording is actually taking place.
In contrast, in Ruling 1399/2024, dated October 23, the High Court accepted cameras in common areas provided they are managed by the community, with prior knowledge of the neighbors, restricted access to the recordings, and a limited retention period. The key criterion is not only whether the recording is made, but what is being recorded, for what purpose, and under what control.
3 Myths About Installing Cameras in Residential Condominiums
Many misconceptions still circulate about what can (and cannot) be done when installing a camera at the front door of a home within a residential condominium. Below, we debunk three of the most widespread myths that can lead you to unwittingly commit an illegal act:
"I can record what happens on the landing because it's a common area."
It is a common misconception that any owner can freely record the landing or hallway of a building simply because it is a common space. However, common areas are not exempt from the protection of the right to privacy, as recognized by both the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court.
The fact that a space is shared does not eliminate the reasonable expectation of privacy for those who use it, especially if the camera focuses on the entrance door to a home, which can allow one to observe who enters, leaves, or even part of the interior when the door opens.
Supreme Court case law has reiterated that monitoring access to another neighbor's home can constitute an unlawful intrusion, even if the images are obtained from the landing and without constant recording. The key lies in the device's ability to systematically capture scenes linked to the private sphere of the affected person.
"My door is private property, I can put whatever I want on it."
It is true that the door of a home is part of the private property. However, the use made of that private space cannot affect the fundamental rights of third parties.
As we have seen, case law considers that these cases should be resolved through a proportionality judgment, and that fundamental rights are not limited by the ownership of the physical medium where the device is installed.
"I can avoid problems if I put up a sign indicating a video surveillance area."
Putting up an informational sign is an obligation in certain cases, but it alone does not legitimize the installation of cameras. For the use of a video surveillance system to be legal, all requirements must be met: there must be a legitimate basis for recording, respect the principles of proportionality, minimization, and purpose, inform the affected parties, adopt security measures regarding the images, and avoid capturing other people's spaces without authorization.
The sign is a formal requirement, but it does not exempt from liability, nor does it prevent the illegality of an installation that violates rights or affects spaces that cannot be recorded.
The essentials for installing a peephole with a camera without breaking the law
Before installing one of these devices, consider whether there are less invasive alternatives and consider whether its installation is really necessary or whether it could affect the privacy of your neighbors. Remember that a seemingly innocent decision can end up having legal consequences if it violates constitutionally protected rights.
1. Recent Case Law: Key Changes and Rules
Image Capture:
The Supreme Court, in STS 600/2019 (November 7), determined that the mere possibility of capturing images can constitute an unlawful intrusion into privacy, even if the camera does not actually record.
Conditional Acceptance:
In Supreme Court Ruling 1399/2024 (October 23), the High Court accepted the installation of cameras in common areas under very specific conditions:
Community charge management
Prior information for neighbors
Restricted access to recordings
Limited retention period
Fundamental Criteria: What is being recorded? Why is it being recorded?
Under what control or supervision?
2. Common Myths about Video Surveillance in Communities
Myth 1: "I can record the landing because it's a common area"
Common areas, such as landings and hallways, are also protected by the right to privacy.
Recording access to old homes, even from the landing and without continuous recording, can be considered unlawful intrusion.
Myth 2: "My door is private, I can install whatever I want"
Private property does not exempt one from respecting the fundamental rights of third parties.
The use of cameras must pass a proportionality test and not violate the rights of other neighbors.
Myth 3: "A video surveillance sign is already legal."
The sign is a formal requirement, but it does not legitimize the installation on its own.
It is essential to comply with:
Legitimate basis for recording
Principles of proportionality and minimization
Adequate information for those affected
Security measures and access control
Do not record other people's spaces without authorization
3. Recommendations Before Installing a Peephole Camera
Evaluate Alternatives:
Analyze if there are less invasive options before installing any device.
Real Need:
Evaluate whether the installation is truly essential for security.
Impact on Privacy:
Consider whether it may affect the privacy of neighbors, as this may lead to legal liability.
Regulatory Compliance:
Ensure you comply with all legal requirements to avoid penalties and conflicts.
Conclusion
Installing a smart camera or monitor in a homeowners' association requires rigorous analysis. The intention of simply increasing security is not enough: legal limits and the rights of other neighbors must be respected. A poor approach can lead to sanctions, conflicts, and, ultimately, the obligation to uninstall the system.