CCTV and privacy
What is the trade off between keeping us safe and secure using monitoring such as CCTV, versus a step too far for our private lives?

As tech law specialists we frequently advise on data privacy and security matters. CCTV monitoring has caught the attention of several clients, specifically how to respond to requests for CCTV footage.
In this article, we review the Privacy Act, the Privacy Commissioner’s CCTV guidelines and a company’s security policy for considerations on the topic.
Do we have to provide copies of CCTV footage should it be requested?
Firstly our response would be, “No”, but you may, in some circumstances, consider allowing the requestor to see the relevant footage(without taking a copy), provide the requester with an extract from the footage with other individuals “blurred” out so as not to be identifiable (if reasonably possible to do), or provide still shots from the footage (but again on a blurred-out basis).
The Privacy Commissioner points out in its Guidelines that in general people have a right to access images of themselves. To start with, access need only be provided if “readily retrievable”. Further, when providing access, the company must not intrude on the privacy of others who are also shown in the footage.
The Commissioner goes on to say that the “starting point is to give access in the way the individual wants. However, this is not always possible or desirable:
Giving someone a copy of the footage has different privacy impacts from just allowing someone to come in and view the footage. For instance, it may not be a problem to let someone view a tape. However, there may be a good reason not to provide a copy if the information could be damaging or embarrassing for others who are pictured if it is put on the internet.
If you have the technology to blur or pixelate the faces of the other people on a copy of the footage, this is a good way to protect others’ privacy.
If you cannot provide access to the footage without unreasonably breaching others’ privacy, you could provide the individual with a written description of what they are doing in the footage.”
The Commissioner says that a company should generally treat CCTV footage as confidential to the company and not disclose unless that is one of the company’s purposes in operating a CCTV system.
Exceptions
Principle 11 of the Privacy Act states that an agency that holds personal information shall not disclose the information to another agency unless one of the listed exceptions applies, including for example:
a) disclosure of the information is one of the purposes in connection with which the information was obtained or is directly related to the purposes in connection with which the information was obtained;
b) disclosure is to the individual concerned; or
c) disclosure is authorised by the individual concerned.
The Privacy Commissioner’s CCTV guidance confirms the application of Principle 11 to CCTV. The guidance applies to non-covert CCTV in ‘public spaces’ (spaces that are completely accessible to the public) and ‘semi-public spaces’ (spaces that, even if privately owned, are accessible to the public during opening hours). The guidance stipulates that CCTV footage should only be used or disclosed for the original purpose for which it was collected.
What can companies do to help manage such requests?
Companies may determine their own policies with respect to CCTV and whether access to its footage will be made available. It may be that such a policy might say that “Requests for access to the system from interested parties will be denied unless good cause is given, and the Company formally approves the requested access”.
In assessing any request for access, the Company should have regard to the relevant Privacy Principles under the Act (in this case Principle 5 which protects personal information from unauthorised access, Principle 6 under which Individuals have the right to access personal information the Company holds about them, Principle 7 which allows correction of incorrect information, and Principle 11 which deals with the disclosure of personal information).
The Company should also have regard to the Privacy Commissioner’s guidelines and also to the Company’s own policies and the purposes behind the use of a camera surveillance system.
It should be considered too that any request made to a Government organisation (e.g. ministry, police, public hospital, school) for access to information captured by the CCTV system is also to be treated as an Official Information Request and so the timelines need to be respected and so the Company’s CCTV team involved from an early stage.
Should you find yourself on the receiving end of CCTV requests or need support on privacy matters we can help.
Services in this insight
From Hertzian waves to hyperlinks – What the BSA’s online decision means for your business
Space Law in New Zealand — Signals from the ground
Cyber security changes flagged for New Zealand
The four Cs of successful fintech partnerships
New rule 3A introduced to the Biometric Processing Privacy Code
IPP3A is nearly in force – What agencies need to know
OPC shifts public enquiries online – What agencies should do now
AI as a confidante? Legal privilege and the ever-increasing use of AI
New Therapeutic and Health Advertising Code – What you need to know
Building blocks of trade mark law: New Zealand approach to "use as a trade mark" now compatible with Australia
Consumer law update 2025
Open banking launches in New Zealand
Is fair something to fear? The Government announces beefed-up Fair Trading Act
Is it fair? Lessons from Bartz v Anthropic and Kadrey v Meta
Open banking almost live
Why New Zealand businesses should care about the EU Data Act
Product labelling changes flagged for New Zealand
Biometric Processing Privacy Code 2025 introduced to New Zealand
Open banking regulations released for consultation
Ten tips for buy-side M&A success
A recipe for disaster – Is caramel a copyright work?
Becoming a Globally Renowned Fintech Nation (and how regulation can light the path)
Important changes made to the Privacy Act
New Zealand may ban social media for young users
Customer and Product Data Act update – Open banking officially on the way
Tips from the trenches – Your AI policy cheat sheet
Significant regulatory reform proposed for New Zealand media
Security guidance released for emerging tech companies
Customer and Product Data Bill – Select Committee reports back
Consumer law update 2024
New Zealand’s Artist Resale Royalty is ready to go
The shape of coffee – “Moccona” vs “Vittoria”
New Zealand’s Copyright Act gets a sense of humour
WIPO’s traditional knowledge treaty is adopted
Doing business in the Middle East
AI and advertising – What producers need to know
Seven contract clauses every freelancer needs
Baby Reindeer – When truth is stranger than fiction?
Our comments on the Biometric Processing Privacy Code
Therapeutic Products Act to be repealed this year
Is End-to-End to end?
Geographical indications – Changes uncorked by the EU-NZ Fair Trade Agreement
Lawyers and Generative AI – New NZ Law Society guidance released
Facing the future – A biometrics code of practice for New Zealand?
Deepfakes and style mimicking – Should New Zealand adopt a right of publicity?
Five Eyes release the Five Principles to Secure Innovation
The copyright conundrum with generative AI
Innovate at the speed of trust – Privacy Commissioner releases new guidance on artificial intelligence tools
Political advertising on social media: sludge or copyright quagmire?
Privacy Amendment Bill introduced to Parliament
New Data Privacy Framework: Meta gets a lifeline
The long and winding road to royalties
Implications of the Supreme Court’s “new debt” approach in Mainzeal
EU gets closer to AI laws
UK Supreme Court puts Quincecare ‘duty’ back in its box
A Deep Dive into The Customer and Product Data Bill
Searching for a shield: Meta’s €1.2 billion fine and international transfers in the age of Big Data
New NZ-UK Free Trade Agreement signals tech, media and IP law changes
Ditch the fax! Tips for building a tech-savvy law firm
The Incorporated Societies Act 2022 – what you need to know for your society
Common myths about copyright online
Artificial artist, or artificial plagiarist?
Big boost to gaming
Is your product “AI powered”?
The latest on New Zealand’s Consumer Data Right
Space Law in New Zealand
You Cannot Defame the Dead or Can You? Tikanga Māori and NZ Defamation Law
Open Banking is coming – through the Consumer Data Right
Massive SEC Fines for Companies Using Text and Instant Messaging
One Act to Rule Them All
A Legal Guide to Kicking SaaS
Potential changes to the Privacy Act 2020
NZ's Social Media "Code of Practice" Launched
Are you being unfair?
Are you legal?
Power Up 2022
A new Companies Office levy is one step closer
Has Paramount Pictures gone maverick?
From Russia with love: The ‘other’ Russian conflict targeting intellectual property owners
I'm back, baby
Retail Payment System Act 2022 now in force
Paying the price for getting privacy wrong
Can AI be an inventor?
Finfluencer Crackdown
TIN Fintech Insights Report Launch
Britain seeks to regulate 'Big Tech'
Disclosure of personal information - how to, not don't do
The Spice May Flow, But The Copyright Doesn’t
Sound Recording Ownership (Taylor's Version)
The Lowdown (and Lockdown) on Summer Clerkships
Building Blocks of Trust
Firm News | Legal Rankings
Buy Now, Regulate Soon
Ten simple things
Funding the Future
Cyber Security for Start-ups
Fit for purchase
The Screen Industry Workers Bill
UK/New Zealand Trade Deal Takes Flight
Palmer v Alalääkkölä
Other articles you
might like
Negotiating a fintech partnership agreement is not a zero sum game.
New rule 3A means individuals must be notified about indirect collection under the Biometric Processing Privacy Code 2025.
The official commencement of open banking in New Zealand is a significant milestone for the local industry.







.jpg)



%20(2).jpg)