INTRA/MD/MD018Covert monitoring on prior suspicion
Observation conducted without notice, following a specific suspicion already held. The suspicion is what permits the observation, not what the observation is for.
| Control | Jurisdiction | Source | What it establishes | Prerequisite or recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MD018/CoEMandatory | Council of Europe | López Ribalda and Others v. SpainEuropean Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber · read 11 Aug 2026 | That those criteria are weighed rather than counted, and that surveillance without notice can survive where a suspicion preceded it. | The suspicion has to exist before the observation begins, and the scope and duration have to answer to it. |
| Recommended | United Kingdomwhere written | Employment practices and data protection: monitoring workersInformation Commissioner's Office · read 30 Aug 2026 | What the British regulator expects of an employer that watches its workers, told apart as what an employer must do and what it should, and the conditions it sets on watching them without telling them. | Watching without telling is unlikely to be justified in most circumstances, and where it is, the conditions are set out. It should be authorized only by senior management. An impact assessment must be carried out. There should be grounds for suspecting criminal activity or an equivalent such as gross misconduct, and a view that telling the workforce would prejudice detecting it. It should be strictly targeted at obtaining evidence within a set timeframe, kept to the shortest possible, and it should not continue once the investigation is complete. It should not reach places where a worker would reasonably expect privacy, and in most circumstances it should not capture communications a worker would reasonably expect to be private. |