In Sweden, camera surveillance in places where the public own access is regulated by a permit. This entails a lack of permit requirement for camera surveillance in places where the public does not own access. Such places can consist of a privacy- sensitive character. Surveillance constitutes processing of personal data where- upon the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) must be complied with.Article 6 of the GDPR stipulates various legal bases that must be met in the processing of personal data. The ones who conduct surveillance in places where the public does not own access often fails to make correct legal assessments of Article 6(1)(e) and 6(1)(f) of the GDPR, as displayed by various supervisory de- cisions issued by the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection. In this light, the purpose of the thesis is to examine and analyze how the ones who conduct sur- veillance and the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection consider the personal integrity of the camera monitored individual in the assessments of Article 6(1)(e) and 6(1)(f) of the GDPR during camera surveillance without permit requirement in places where the public does not own access. Because of the differences be- tween the legal assessments made by the ones who conduct camera surveillance and the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection, the thesis also intends to shed light on the consequences that arise for the camera monitored individual by the fact that their personal integrity is assessed in different ways.The thesis also aims to evaluate the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protec- tions’ supervisory work in relation to both personal integrity and the compliance with Article 6(1)(e) and 6(1)(f) of the GDPR during camera surveillance without permit requirement in places where the public does not own access. The Swedish Authority for Privacy Protections’ supervisory work is important as most of the camera surveillance takes place without a permit requirement and the fact that there is a lack of knowledge prevailing to the number of cameras in use. It is important that the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protections’ supervisory work is well-functioning since the ones who conduct surveillance carry out the legal assessments incorrectly. The risk with insufficient supervisory work is that per- sonal integrity is violated and that the GDPR is ineffectual in the long run.In general, it can be said that the legal assessments of Article 6(1)(e) and 6(1)(f) of the GDPR are poorly carried out by both the ones who conduct surveillance and the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection. This primarily affects the cam- era monitored individuals’ personal integrity. Because of the indications of short- comings in the supervisory work, there are several improvement measures that can be taken to maintain personal integrity and ensure that the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection continue to constitute an important function.

In Sweden, camera surveillance in places where the public own access is regulated by a permit. This entails a lack of permit requirement for camera surveillance in places where the public does not own access. Such places can consist of a privacy-sensitive character. Surveillance constitutes processing of personal data whereupon the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) must be complied with.  Article 6 of the GDPR stipulates various legal bases that must be met in the processing of personal data. The ones who conduct surveillance in places where the public does not own access often fails to make correct legal assessments of Article 6(1)(e) and 6(1)(f) of the GDPR, as displayed by various supervisory decisions issued by the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection. In this light, the purpose of the thesis is to examine and analyze how the ones who conduct surveillance and the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection consider the personal integrity of the camera monitored individual in the assessments of Article 6(1)(e) and 6(1)(f) of the GDPR during camera surveillance without permit requirement in places where the public does not own access. Because of the differences between the legal assessments made by the ones who conduct camera surveillance and the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection, the thesis also intends to shed light on the consequences that arise for the camera monitored individual by the fact that their personal integrity is assessed in different ways. The thesis also aims to evaluate the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protections’ supervisory work in relation to both personal integrity and the compliance with Article 6(1)(e) and 6(1)(f) of the GDPR during camera surveillance without permit requirement in places where the public does not own access. The Swedish Authority for Privacy Protections’ supervisory work is important as most of the camera surveillance takes place without a permit requirement and the fact that there is a lack of knowledge prevailing to the number of cameras in use. It is important that the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protections’ supervisory work is well-functioning since the ones who conduct surveillance carry out the legal assessments incorrectly. The risk with insufficient supervisory work is that personal integrity is violated and that the GDPR is ineffectual in the long run. In general, it can be said that the legal assessments of Article 6(1)(e) and 6(1)(f) of the GDPR are poorly carried out by both the ones who conduct surveillance and the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection. This primarily affects the camera monitored individuals’ personal integrity. Because of the indications of shortcomings in the supervisory work, there are several improvement measures that can be taken to maintain personal integrity and ensure that the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection continue to constitute an important function.