(Read: Court debates police access to private surveillance circuits)
When studying a lawsuit, the high court made two clarifications. First, that it is contrary to the Constitution to allow the Police access to these mechanisms claiming “prevention”, without prior authorization from a judge and, therefore, the entity will no longer be able to do so.
(Read: Indigenous peoples of the Amazon demand attention from the Court, why?)
The authorization granted to the National Police to access closed security circuits and private surveillance for “prevention” actions is disproportionate
With a presentation by magistrate Cristina Pardo, the Constitutional Court said that the law had created an authorization for the Police to access and use the data and information that is recorded in closed security circuits, without any prior control.violating the fundamental rights to privacy and habeas data.
(Read: “Disastrous”: harsh criticism of the decision that left the lawsuit against Petro in limbo)
The high court said that, although it is true that the processing of data through closed security circuits and private surveillance could have dissuasive effects on the social conglomerate for the protection of people and property, it is also true that this technological development could be in a condition of infringing fundamental rights.
For this reason, the Court said, national law and international treaties on human rights have established a set of principles for the administration of personal data that must be strictly applied to avoid the “abusive and arbitrary exercise of computer freedom”.
(Read: The claim of a Marine to not be separated from his sick wife)
In this sense, the Court “considered that the authorization granted to the National Police to access closed security circuits and private surveillance for “prevention” actions was disproportionate.”
That the Police can access private security for “prevention, said the Court ends up empowering that institution” to approach other very personal information that is sensitive.
The Chamber also reiterated that in private spaces a degree of guarantee of personal and family privacy and sensitive data must be maintained. For this reason, the fact that the Police can access private security for “prevention, said the Court, ends up empowering that institution “to approach other very personal information that is equally sensitive.”
(Read: Vivian Polanía: the judge who came out half-naked at the hearing is suspended for 3 months)
Only the Judicial Police “should exercise the functions assigned in the framework of a criminal investigation”
According to the Constitutional Court, Congress should have made it clear that this access requires prior control and, therefore, conditioned article 48 of Law 2197 of 2022 to say that access to private security circuits and private surveillance for actions of ” identification” or “prosecution” is not assigned to the National Police, in general, but, specifically, to the Judicial Police.
(Read: Wilson Ramos Girón, elected new magistrate of the Council of State)
The Court said that the Judicial Police “must exercise the functions assigned in the framework of a criminal investigation, prior authorization from the corresponding judicial authority, in accordance with the criminal procedure regulations and the principles that govern the protection of personal data.”