Take-Aways (AI)
  • The BayL­DA cla­ri­fi­ed that the affixing of door­bell signs is not (par­ti­al­ly) auto­ma­ted data pro­ce­s­sing and the­r­e­fo­re the GDPR is not appli­ca­ble in accordance with Art. 2.
  • If the GDPR were appli­ca­ble, the instal­la­ti­on of door­bell signs would gene­ral­ly be cover­ed by a legi­ti­ma­te inte­rest pur­su­ant to Art. 6 para. 1 lit. f GDPR, sub­ject to exceptions.
  • The BayL­DA descri­bed the asser­ti­on that door­bell signs are inad­mis­si­ble wit­hout con­sent as non­sen­si­cal and con­tra­dic­to­ry to its legal opinion.

In recent days, the media have repea­ted­ly repor­ted that around 200,000 door­bell signs are to be remo­ved in Vien­na for data pro­tec­tion rea­sons (e.g. at heise.de: “Anony­mous living with DSGVO”). Appar­ent­ly, the­re were also simi­lar views in Ger­ma­ny. The Bava­ri­an super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty, the BayL­DA, the­r­e­fo­re saw its­elf to a Cla­ri­fi­ca­ti­on initia­tedThe instal­la­ti­on of door­bell signs is neither ful­ly nor par­ti­al­ly auto­ma­ted data pro­ce­s­sing, which is why the GDPR is not appli­ca­ble accor­ding to Art. 2. If it were, this pro­cess would – excep­ti­ons reser­ved – be cover­ed by a legi­ti­ma­te inte­rest within the mea­ning of Art. 6 (1) lit. f DSGVO. The view that the instal­la­ti­on of door­bell signs is imper­mis­si­ble wit­hout con­sent is sim­ply “non­sen­si­cal”.