Much has changed from the earliest hidden camera shows to the latest investigative journalism. Even so, the common fact is the search for spontaneous reaction or the uninhibited statements of the one who does not know that they are recording it.

In a recent resolution of the EDPS on this subject, [i] an association ends up being sanctioned by the use of a hidden camera and the subsequent public communication of the content through the Internet. For the Agency was important that the recording appeared underage. Of the issues claimed by the association to defend this data treatment was the fact that the recordings referred to a "news". The Agency replied by stating that

"In the present case, it is a matter of the dissemination of images of minors obtained through buy hidden camera, that is to say directly captured without knowledge or consent, recorded in a place near the school and referring to the delivery of the same between the parents, without No informational interest can be seen in the dissemination of the images of such children "

The Agency relies on judgments of the Constitutional Court where it is stated that in the event of a collision of fundamental rights (privacy, image, honor) against the right to freedom of information, there is no pre-established hierarchy; Ponder which right should yield against the other:

The Constitutional Court has emphasized that since constitutional protection is limited to the transmission of "newsworthy" events because of their importance or social relevance in order to contribute to the formation of public opinion, such facts must relate to aspects connected to the public projection of the Person to which it refers, or to the characteristics of the events in which that person has been involved.

So that "only after having verified the concurrence of these circumstances it is possible to affirm that the information in question is specially protected because it is capable of being framed within the space that a free press must be insured in a democratic system" (STC 29 / 2009, of 26 January, FJ 4).

In the same way in STC 12/2012 of 30 January, and in the STS of 30 June 2011.

Thus, and as a summary, it is necessary to differentiate the typology of hidden cameras:

A) Those for entertainment purposes: put the participants in comic situations to check their reactions. Examples range from the famous David Summers movie to the Canadian program "Just for laughs".

B) Those who pursue a journalistic purpose: investigate a newsworthy event by means other than interview, cross data, or seek testimony.

Well, depending on one typology or another, some requirements or others must be met:

For recordings with wiseupshop hidden camera for entertainment purposes, the participants' subsequent consent must be requested. It is a consent that should cover both the processing of personal data and the transfer of image rights.

For recordings with hidden camera for journalistic purposes it will be necessary that the information is truthful and that it is a news event. Likewise, such recording will be adequate, necessary and proportionate for the realization of the right to freedom of information.