Few topics around dashcams are repeated as inaccurately as the legal position. The short version: the camera itself is not banned. What causes problems is how much it records and how long it keeps what it recorded.
Warning
This article offers general orientation and is not legal advice. For a specific case, a lawyer is the right address.
What the question turns on
Footage from public roads contains personal data: number plates, faces, movement patterns. Whether you may collect it depends on a balancing exercise. The relevant provision is Article 6(1)(f) of the General Data Protection Regulation, supplemented by the rules on video surveillance of publicly accessible spaces in section 4 of the German Federal Data Protection Act.
On one side sits your interest in having something to show if a claim arises. On the other sit the rights of everyone who happens to be in frame and has nothing to do with the matter. The more sparingly your camera works, the more readily that balance falls your way.
What the Federal Court of Justice decided
In May 2018 the German Federal Court of Justice decided a case in which a camera had filmed public space for hours without any specific cause. The court considered that permanent, unprompted recording incompatible with data protection law. At the same time, it held that the footage could be used as evidence in the liability proceedings over the crash.
The decisive thought: a breach during collection does not automatically bar the evidence in civil proceedings. Instead the interests are weighed in the individual case, and the interest in functioning legal proceedings carries considerable weight. The reasoning is summarised in the press release of the court, and the regional data protection commissioners afterwards framed it as a case for privacy friendly technical design.
What matters just as much is what does not follow. The decision permits no permanent surveillance. It only says that footage collected unlawfully may still be looked at in court. Supervisory authorities can assess the same conduct independently as a data protection breach and impose a fine.
What that means for your camera
Three practical consequences follow from the balancing exercise.
First, short recording loops. If your camera records in segments and overwrites older segments automatically, nothing is stored permanently. That design choice is the core of sparing use.
Second, keep only what you have a reason to keep. After a crash you secure the file in question; everything else may be overwritten. An archive of months of uneventful driving cannot be justified.
Third, the microphone stays off unless you have a reason. Spoken word enjoys particular protection, and it rarely contributes anything to assessing how a collision unfolded.
And publishing?
Securing footage and publishing it are two different things. The moment a recording becomes public, the personal rights of the people in it come into play. The article on publishing footage covers how to handle that. And anyone crossing a border should know that other countries are considerably stricter, which is the subject of a separate article on using a dashcam abroad.
