Pirate Party Challenges Andorra Council's AI Surveillance Cameras

Josep Guirao, representing the Pirate Party of Andorra, has filed a complaint with the Data Protection Agency (APDA) alleging a potential breach of the Qualified Law on Personal Data. The grievance targets Encamp parish council's rollout of a camera system incorporating artificial intelligence analytics.

The council, the first in Andorra to deploy such technology, installed intelligent sensors and alarms to automate anomaly detection in public spaces. These tools aim to alert security forces instantly, speeding up responses and easing demands on personnel. Officials in Encamp maintain that data protection was fully considered in the design. The system avoids direct facial capture or recognition, focusing instead on situational analysis rather than individual identities. It has also reached the Pas de la Casa area, at an estimated cost of €110,000.

Guirao argues that even without facial recognition, processing and analysing images in public areas could amount to handling personal data. This might generate profiles or inferences about behaviour, significantly impacting residents' and visitors' privacy rights regardless of nationality. He stresses the need for a clear legal basis, along with proof of necessity and proportionality for public safety purposes.

The complaint raises broader questions, including whether an impact assessment and risk analysis were conducted, how long recordings are retained—typically limited to one month under the Qualified Public Security Law—and the adequacy of information provided to those affected, such as channels for exercising data rights. Guirao notes that AI analytics could still profile conduct, trigger classifications, or generate alerts leading to interventions.

Encamp council defends the setup as balancing effectiveness with privacy, enabling rapid incident response without compromising citizens' personal information. The move echoes debates over AI-enhanced video surveillance, such as at the Paris 2024 Olympics, where groups like Amnesty International raised concerns. European Court of Human Rights case law has ruled that certain surveillance practices violate Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights without a solid legal foundation, necessity, and proportionality test.

The APDA filing opens scrutiny into these issues, with no immediate response from regulators.