Three legal bases, one choice
Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, Section 4 BDSG or a state-law provision: the three routes are mutually exclusive, so one is chosen rather than several ticked. For the latter two the exact reference is mandatory.
The installation is the leading object, not the camera
A camera register that merely counts devices does not help a data protection officer. What is assessed is not the camera but the surveillance measure: the German data protection authorities’ guidance asks about purpose and legal basis for each measure. In this register the installation is therefore the leading object, with the cameras attached to it. Locations, rooms, organisational units and people are referenced rather than maintained a second time.
Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, Section 4 BDSG or a state-law provision: the three routes are mutually exclusive, so one is chosen rather than several ticked. For the latter two the exact reference is mandatory.
The purpose is a mandatory field on the installation. That follows chapter 2.1 of the guidance: there is no such thing as surveillance "just in case", and therefore no register entry without a stated purpose.
On the camera the field of view is mandatory, because it is the basis of every necessity assessment under chapter 2.2.2. Alongside it, the type of area covered, ordered by intrusiveness rather than alphabetically.
Chapter 4.2 requires audio recording to be irreversibly disabled, with Section 201 of the German Criminal Code in view. A toggle does not evidence that, so the field is free text: it asks how it was disabled, not whether someone asserts it.
A register that answers the supervisory authority’s questions in the same order the guidance asks them.
Schedule a no-obligation demo – we will show you the module with your own use cases.