2006
Excerpt from AIP annual report Access to Information in Bulgaria 2006:
Thirty-six cases in which the right of personal data protection was violated were referred to the legal team of AIP in 2006.
In the majority of these cases, citizens complained that data controllers collected more of their personal data than was necessary to carry out their activities. In many cases it is not necessary for data controllers to keep and hold personal IDs. For example, the parents of several students from the town of Targovishte reported that the school where their children studied required them to submit their birth certificates. In a number of cases, even at the door of some public institutions, personal data of visitors is collected and sometimes even their IDs are held until they leave the building.
In 2006 an increased number of people referred questions to us, asking whether CCTV recordings of certain public places such as streets, official buildings, and others are legitimate without clear signs indicating such surveillance. The same question has been raised when it comes to recording in places that are far from public, such as hospitals, for example. AIP’s coordinator for the region of Vratsa submitted a case in which the owner of a dental clinic had installed CCTV cameras to record the work of the dentist he had employed. However, the question was raised by the dentist’s clients regarding the legitimacy of his recording their visits. An identical question was submitted by AIP’s coordinator for Plovdiv regarding CCTV recordings of visitors to a private hospital in the town.
Thirty-six cases in which the right of personal data protection was violated were referred to the legal team of AIP in 2006.
In the majority of these cases, citizens complained that data controllers collected more of their personal data than was necessary to carry out their activities. In many cases it is not necessary for data controllers to keep and hold personal IDs. For example, the parents of several students from the town of Targovishte reported that the school where their children studied required them to submit their birth certificates. In a number of cases, even at the door of some public institutions, personal data of visitors is collected and sometimes even their IDs are held until they leave the building.
In 2006 an increased number of people referred questions to us, asking whether CCTV recordings of certain public places such as streets, official buildings, and others are legitimate without clear signs indicating such surveillance. The same question has been raised when it comes to recording in places that are far from public, such as hospitals, for example. AIP’s coordinator for the region of Vratsa submitted a case in which the owner of a dental clinic had installed CCTV cameras to record the work of the dentist he had employed. However, the question was raised by the dentist’s clients regarding the legitimacy of his recording their visits. An identical question was submitted by AIP’s coordinator for Plovdiv regarding CCTV recordings of visitors to a private hospital in the town.