Andorran Councillor Challenges AI Surveillance in Encamp over Data Rights

Encamp opposition councillor Marta Pujol has asked the Andorran Data Protection Agency (APDA) to confirm whether the parish's deployment of artificial intelligence across its 492-camera video surveillance network in Encamp and Pas de la Casa meets data protection standards.

The request follows the Encamp communal council's approval on 9 February of a public tender to contract a company for supplying, configuring, and maintaining an AI server platform. Parish officials cited the need for enhanced video analysis features given the scale of the existing system. Pujol, from the Avancem group, noted that technical explanations provided in a relevant commission appeared reasonable at first but insisted on APDA verification to ensure resident rights are safeguarded once the platform is operational. Her party also wants clarity on any procedures or requirements to protect citizen rights if the agency approves the setup.

Separately, the APDA is handling complaints filed by Pirate Party president Josep Guirao against AI surveillance plans in Encamp and body cameras for traffic agents in La Massana. For the Encamp case, the agency has confirmed receipt and said its inspection service will review documents as part of preliminary actions, possibly consulting the parish's internal data protection delegate. Guirao described this as problematic, arguing that an internal advisor cannot replace the agency's independent investigative powers and that routing complaints through the same institution undermines oversight credibility.

In the La Massana complaint, registered on 26 February, the APDA has sought extra documentation from Guirao to confirm the body cameras are in use. He rejected this, maintaining that the agency—not complainants—bears the responsibility to investigate, especially after the parish's own November 2025 announcement of plans to equip agents by year-end. Guirao stressed the obligation for prior data protection impact assessments (DPIAs) under rules mirroring GDPR Article 35 for high-risk systems like body cameras worn by public officials. He argued that public indications of potentially intrusive processing require the authority to act, rather than burdening citizens with proof.

Neither case has triggered a formal investigation, with both still in early review stages awaiting APDA decisions. The agency has not replied to Pujol's query.