The digital peephole as a video surveillance system: legal and jurisprudential limits

Abstract

Technology has brought devices such as digital peepholes into our homes, which improve security but raise legal conflicts in condominiums as they can display images in real time or incorporate recording, transmission and storage functions. The problem arises when common areas are captured, which may affect the fundamental right to privacy, regulated in Article 18 of the Spanish Constitution, which protects personal and family privacy, also echoing the inviolability of the home and freedom of information. This right must be weighed against others such as security, always under the principle of proportionality. In condominiums, common areas (entrances, corridors, stairways) are jointly owned and enjoy protection against undue interference. The LOPDGDD regulates video surveillance, imposing obligations such as informative signs, limitation of recording angles and maximum storage of 30 days. The jurisprudence of the Supreme Court has compared cameras with traditional surveillance practices, such as peepholes or door entry systems, referring to the potential for recording to assess unlawful interference, incorporating the criterion of proportionality and consolidating case law through Supreme Court Ruling 3579/2025, which considers digital peepholes to be unlawful due to their disproportionate capacity to capture images. The central conflict pits security against privacy, making it necessary to weigh both rights. The solution involves limiting intrusive functions, requiring community authorisation and ensuring compliance with the RGPD and the LOPDGDD.