Is my neighbor allowed to point his camera at my driveway?

A neighbor dispute over a surveillance camera is a classic legal problem. You feel watched, but your neighbor invokes his safety. The question is: where is the line? A decision by the Data Protection Authority (DPA) on 12 November 2025 (No. 181/2025) offers a crystal clear answer: no, not in principle. Filming a neighbor's property or a shared easement is almost never “necessary” and therefore illegal. However, this case also shows a crucial exception: what if you yourself are walking on the neighbor's property?

The facts: a neighbor's argument over two cameras

The case revolves around a conflict between two neighbors, X (the complainant) and Y (the respondent). The complainant alleges that her neighbor has installed two cameras that intrusively film her and her family.

• Camera 1 was installed three years ago, filmed the easement (a road the complainant must use to get to her home), and also recorded sound.
• Camera 2 was placed later, near the complainant's bedroom.
• The defendant had even posted images on Facebook and belatedly installed a warning icon.

The defendant defended himself, arguing that the cameras served only to secure his property against theft and vandalism. After a visit from the police, he admitted that he had initially been in the wrong, but claimed to have rectified the situation: he said he had set up privacy masks (black zones) and stopped the audio recording.

The decision: one camera illegal, the other (surprisingly) not

The Litigation Chamber of the DPA had to decide whether the processing of these images was lawful. She assessed the situation against both the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Belgian Camera Law.

The neighbor invoked his “legitimate interest” (Art. 6.1.f GDPR) to secure his property. The DPA accepted that security is a legitimate purpose. However, the crucial question was necessity: was this particular method of filming necessary to achieve that goal? The DPA split its judgment by camera.

Verdict on Camera 1 (filming the easement)

• Results: Unlawful.
• Reasoning: The DPA determined that this camera, even after the modifications, was still filming part of the easement and was also imaging another neighbor's front door.
• The defendant could not show why it was absolutely necessary to film these areas to secure his own home. The argument that the owner of the other house had given permission was dismissed: permission must come from the occupant (the person being filmed), not the landlord.
• Consequence: The DPA orders the neighbor to modify Camera 1 within one month so that the easement and the other neighbor's door are completely masked (obscured).

Verdict on Camera 2 (which films the back side)

• Results: Legal.
• Reasoning: This is the most striking part of the decision. This camera did focus strictly on the defendant's property (specifically his windows at the rear) and did not film the easement .
• However, the complainant did get systematically filmed by this camera. Why? The GBA determined that the complainant had erected the fence herself. Through that fence, she had to take a detour, thus deviating from the easement and walking on the defendant's private property, thus coming into the camera's field of view.
• Consequence: The DPA ruled that the interference with the complainant's privacy here was “caused by her own actions.” Because the camera was properly set up (on private property only) and the complainant chose to walk on that property, the neighbor's security interest outweighed the complainant's privacy interest. The complaint for this camera was dismissed.

Other violations

The defendant did receive a reprimand for two other facts:

1. Failure to timely install the mandatory pictogram signaling the presence of cameras.
2. Failure to maintain a register of processing activities (a required document).

Having rectified both points during the proceedings, he was left with a reprimand.

Legal analysis and interpretation

This decision is a textbook example of the “interest trier” of legitimate interest (Art. 6.1.f GDPR). A processing is lawful only if three conditions are met:

1. Target test: There must be a legitimate purpose. Protecting property from theft is just that. This test is usually easy to pass.
2. Necessity test: The processing must be necessary to achieve that goal. This is closely related to “data minimization” (Art. 5.1.c GDPR): you may not process more data than necessary. This is where the defendant went wrong with Camera 1. He could also secure his house without filming the easement and the neighbor's door. The DPA clearly states that less intrusive means existed (e.g. aiming the camera better or masking it more completely).
3. Balance of interests: The interests of the processor (security) must be balanced against the interests and rights of the person being filmed (privacy). For Camera 2, this balancing act was crucial. Although the DPA acknowledged that being systematically filmed is a “manifest interference” with privacy, it gave decisive weight to the fact that the complainant had created the situation herself. This shows that a person's rights are not absolute and that her own actions can strongly influence the outcome of the balancing of interests.

What this specifically means

This ruling has obvious practical implications for anyone with a surveillance camera.

For those who want to install a camera

• Direction is crucial: Film only your own property. Never point the camera at a public road, neighbor's property or an easement unless absolutely unavoidable.
• Mask active: Use the “privacy masking” feature (black zones) in your camera software to consistently obscure anything irrelevant to your security.
• No sound: Sound recordings are almost always disproportionate and prohibited. Please disable this feature.
• Inform correctly: Hang an official pictogram prominently at the entrance to your property.
• Keep records: Even as an individual, you are often required to keep records of processing activities.

For those who feel filmed

• Document: Take pictures or videos of the camera and what it is (presumably) filming.
• Stay on your right: As this case demonstrates, trespassing on your neighbor's property (even if you are “forced” to do so by an obstacle) can weaken your legal position .
• Find the conversation: Formally ask your neighbor to move the camera, aim it differently or mask the areas you are filming.
• File a complaint: If a conversation does not help, you can file a complaint with the Data Protection Authority.

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

Is a camera sticker (pictogram) really mandatory for a private residence?
Yes. Once a surveillance camera films a place that is not purely your private interior (e.g., your driveway, yard, or partially the sidewalk), you are required to post the legal pictogram at the entrance to the monitored place. Failure to do so is a clear violation of the Camera Law.

What if my neighbor posts the images on Facebook?
This is a very serious privacy violation. Camera images may only be used for the purpose for which they were collected (e.g., security). Publishing on social media is not allowed and constitutes a separate, serious violation, as was also cited in this case.

Can my camera film ‘a small part’ of the public road?
No, not in principle. The DPA and the law are very strict about this. You may not point your camera at the public street. If it is unavoidable that a minimal portion of the sidewalk is in view to secure your front door, it must be masked. In this case, filming the public road was one of the reasons why Camera 1 was illegal.

Conclusion

This decision by the GBA confirms the strict rules for surveillance cameras in Belgium. You may secure your property, but your neighbors' right to privacy weighs heavily. The necessity of filming must be interpreted strictly: film only what is yours and mask the rest. At the same time, the ruling shows an important nuance: those being filmed must also respect their own rights and cannot create a privacy violation through their own actions and then complain about it.