Andorran privacy group demands safeguards as communes plan €2m surveillance expansion

Andorran Privacy Rights (APRi), a newly formed community that promotes digital rights and privacy, has called for public debate and strict safeguards after parish authorities announced plans to expand video surveillance from 2026. Officials at a recent consuls’ meeting said the communes expect to invest around €2 million to add cameras in public spaces.

APRi said any enlargement of surveillance must be justified, proportionate and transparent, and subject to independent oversight. While recognising that cameras can help local security, the group warned that broader deployment affects fundamental rights such as privacy and freedom of movement and therefore requires robust legal and technical guarantees.

The community specifically warned against moves toward “smart” surveillance, including facial recognition and other automated profiling technologies, which have been controversial elsewhere. In a small state like Andorra, APRi argued, camera density can quickly become disproportionate to the real risk: the country’s size and social fabric already facilitate investigation and police control, so the case for multiplying devices should be especially solid.

APRi recommended prioritising less intrusive measures to improve public safety, such as better street lighting, preventive urban design, increased police presence, and improved protocols and training. Video surveillance, the group said, should be a complementary tool rather than the central pillar of a security model.

The community also flagged risks linked to international data transfers and dependence on particular suppliers. Equipment and software choices can expose images or metadata to foreign jurisdictions; choosing hardware and software is therefore critical for data protection and technological sovereignty. APRi urged that adopted solutions meet strong security standards and that procurement decisions be publicly justified.

APRi highlighted that many modern camera systems include microphones even when audio is not supposed to be recorded. Because audio recording constitutes a far greater intrusion into privacy and can capture especially sensitive situations, the group said that verifiable guarantees and enforceable rules are needed, not only declarations of intent.

To prevent mission creep, APRi called for precise definitions of the purposes for which surveillance systems may be used. Experience in other countries shows that cameras can be repurposed for unintended uses — for example, worker monitoring, broad movement tracking or mass surveillance — unless legal limits, operational protocols and regular independent audits are in place.

The community is also following proposals to equip traffic officers with body‑worn cameras. APRi acknowledged that bodycams can increase transparency in some interventions but warned they can significantly affect the privacy of recorded individuals, particularly people in vulnerable situations. Citing guidance from European data protection authorities, the group said any deployment should ensure proportional use, restricted activation, secure storage and limited access to footage.

APRi urged authorities to open a public dialogue on the plans, publish impact assessments, and set binding oversight mechanisms before proceeding with large‑scale installations. The group said those steps are necessary to balance public safety objectives with the protection of individual rights.