- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Iceland · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- No confirmed legal basis recorded.
- Privacy topics
Icelandic National Police – Dismissed (Iceland, 2021)
Privacy enforcement record
This record is classified outside cookie consent. Subject classification does not confirm an applicable law. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.
The Icelandic National Police faced a complaint about their use of audio and video recordings in police cars. The data protection authority found that the police had not properly informed the complainant about the recordings in some instances. This case illustrates the importance of transparency in data processing.
What happened
The police recorded audio and video in cars without adequately informing the complainant in some cases.
Who was affected
A complainant who was recorded without proper notification by the police.
What the authority found
The data protection authority concluded that the police did not fully comply with data protection laws regarding the complainant's recordings.
Why this matters
This case stresses the need for law enforcement agencies to be transparent about their data processing practices. It highlights the importance of informing individuals when their data is being recorded.
Source checks
Linked-source text retrieved.
Automated check recorded — 22 March 2026.
Processing notes: articles corrected, national law identified.
Retrieved text may be a secondary summary or an announcement. These automated statuses do not establish that the original decision was read or that the record received an independent legal review. How we check sources
On 15 September 2018, the DPA received a complaint about the three cases of processing of personal data by the police in the capital area using audio and video recording equipment in a police car. The complainant complained about three separate incidents on 2017, 2018 and 2018, all of which concerned alleged audio and video recordings in police cars after the complainant was forced to get into the cars. In all cases, the complainant argued that the audio and video recordings made in the police cars were illegal and that he was not informed that the recordings would take place until long after his conversation with the police officers in each case. The police answered that recording equipment in police cars, so-called eyewitness, and body cameras, fall under the category of electronic monitoring within the meaning of the Privacy Act. Authorizations for the police to conduct electronic surveillance are based on the general rules of Act no. 90/2018 on personal protection and processing of personal information and Act no. 75/2019 on the processing of personal information for law enforcement purposes and rules set according to them. According to the police, in the first incident, the recording was only limited to what happened in front of the police car, and not when the complainant had entered the police car. The recording is silent but it is clearly reported that the complainant had been informed that a recording of audio and video was in progress. In the second incident, the audio recording was missing and therefore it is not possible to verify what took place between the police officers and the complainant. However, the documents in the case do not state that the complainant was not informed that the recording of the audio and video was in progress. The third incident involved a police car that was not equipped with witness equipment. The DPA held with regard to the first incident that it has been stated in the responses of the police that the recording was silent and limited only to what had happened in front of the police. A police report which is one of the documents in the case, stated that the complainant was informed that the recording of audio and video was taking place. Therefore, in the opinion of the DPA, the complainant was provided with the knowledge to which he was entitled according to Art. Article 8 of Regulation no. 322/2001 on the processing of personal information by the police. As for the second incident, a video recording took place in the police car when the complainant was in it, but an audio recording is missing. The police do not have any evidence to show that the complainant was informed that the recording was made on audio and video. According to the DPA, it is therefore not possible to establish what took place between the police officers and the complainant. The police in the capital area will be considered to have to bear the brunt of not being able to show that the knowledge has been provided. For that reason, the DPA considered that the liability of the police in the capital area has not been fulfilled and the complainant was not provided with the knowledge to which he was entitled according to Art. Article 8 of Regulation no. 322/2001 on the processing of personal data by the police. The DPA also concluded that the police has not shown that the processing of personal data in question has complied with the principles of the first paragraph Article 8 Act no. 90/2018. In view of the above, the conclusion of the DPA is that the processing of the complainant's personal information about the complainant by the police in the capital area in 2017 was in accordance with Act no. 77/2000 on personal protection and handling of personal information and Regulation no. 322/2001 on the processing of personal information by the police. However, the processing by the police in the capital area of personal information about the complainant in 2018 did not comply with Act no. 90/2018 on personal protection and processing of personal information and Regulation no. 322/2001 on the processing of personal information by the police.
Outcome
Dismissed
The complaint or investigation was dismissed.
Related Enforcement Actions (0)
No other enforcement actions found for Icelandic National Police in IS
This is the only recorded action for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Icelandic National Police - Iceland (2021). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: