Privacy Masking / Pixelization

In Progress

Comments

8 comments

  • Avatar
    Tagir Gadelshin

    Miguel Câmara

    I think that's is possible via adding RTSp streams back to Nx. Then you could restrict users to see only RTSP streams, while admins have access to original cameras. 

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Visus Support

    Hello Tagir Gadelshin,

     

    Yes, that has been the solution we have applied so far, but it would really be interesting if we could also record a third special "masked" stream, so that someone could still playback the recordings of the even if they didn't have permission to the standard "full" stream1 and stream2 recording.

    This would make it more straightforward for the Nx software to be more GDPR compliant, having to option to force some users to only see masked streams.

    Otherwise, the solution can be made GDPR compliant through some workarounds, but that would never be acceptable as being GDPR compliant in terms of facial masking people.

     

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Tagir Gadelshin

    Visus Support

    I do not fully understand. If user is able to see original stream -- he can. If he is not able to see -- the original stream (or camera) is not shared to him in user rights and only generic RTSP (masked stream) is shared with him.

    Can you elaborate a bit your scenario, as per my understanding Generic RTSP streams allow you to make flexible GDPR compliant solution.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Norman - Nx Support

    Hi Visus Support,

    As a fellow European my experience is that face pixelation isn't a requirement of and a dealbreaker to be GDPR-compliant. 

    The GDPR in a nutshell is about documenting the processes. Simplified; who can do what, when, and maybe the most important: why? If you look for: CCTV Data Protection Policy you'll find a lot of examples of what should be described, including various templates and inspiration.

    Security systems are typically a non-issue in case of the GDPR, if the appropriate documentation is available.

    DISCLAIMER: I'm just a computer geek and not a lawyer, so it is always recommended to inform yourself about the applicable laws. ;-)

     

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Visus Support

    Hi Norman - Nx Support,

     

    Thank you for the detailed explanation.

    I do know that pixelization of the face is not mentioned or required, but in Portugal, you cannot install cameras that capture the outside of the facilities, store warehouse etc, because it will record people who are not in your facilities, even though it is always desirable to see and record the outside to capture anything that is of interest when there is an incident.

    Having a software that allows the dynamic pixelization will allow you to be able to say "This software allows me to record the outside of your facilities by anonymizing the faces of the people".

    If there is a robbery or incident with someone who did get into the facilties, you can easily correlate the recordings of the pixelated person on the outside with the unpixelated person from the inside.

    In this case the 3rd stream approach I mentioned is not required, but could again be an added value to the software as at least one way the solution is ready for anonymization of the people of "non-interest".

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Norman - Nx Support

    Hi Visus Support,

    The same applies for my country. Formally monitoring the public space is prohibited to the government, yet is allowed, for security purposes, to have outdoor view if it required for your own security, the so called proportionality.

    For example, a jeweler is allowed to use cameras on the outside, to check if no robbers are waiting for him, when he comes outside his building. But a home owner, that finds it just 'convenient' to have outdoor cameras isn't, not even when they are pixelated, unless it aimed directly at his car, since he is allowed to protect his goods with cameras.

    But every country will have its specific interpretations of the GDPR, and I only wanted to make clear that the GDPR doesn't enforce pixalation.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Visus Support

    Hello,

    Whether or not GDPR is complied by blurring faces in videos or not.... This is a feature that is requested, valued and would help to win more tenders over from other manufacturers.

    I have provided an example of how this could be done using NxWitness' own existing UI in a previous thread.

    https://support.networkoptix.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360014662274-Ability-to-add-blur-or-Privacy-zone-during-export

    NxWitness UI for video export already overlays a Logo on top of the video.... It's just a case of applying multiple "logos" on specific areas manually, and additionally to have a logo that is set on top of face/objects (in case metadata exists).

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Norman - Nx Support

    Hi Visus Support,

    You're absolutely right, if face pixelation wins the project, it is a justified feature and the discussion about whether it is required for GDPR is irrelevant. ;-)

    At this moment, the suggestion of Tagir Gadelshin is the way to go.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.