Undercover tracking technology has come under fire from campaigners, with many arguing that the technology could be used to spy on you.
In Italy, some cities have banned the use of “mood-tracking devices” as well as cameras, GPS units and other similar devices.
They argue that the devices can be used for the purpose of tracking people, which in itself is a breach of privacy.
Undercover cameras have also been used by some criminals, who have used them to record people’s movements.
The latest in this debate came on Monday, when the government of the Italian capital, Rome, passed legislation aimed at ending “misdirection” – the practice of passing off information about an individual to the authorities.
The law also sets up a public information commission to investigate misuse of surveillance technology.
The Italian parliament’s legislation was signed into law on Tuesday.
The legislation states that: “It is prohibited to use, install or maintain surveillance devices, or any device for monitoring, gathering, recording or recording data in the form of a video recording, audio recording, photography or recording in any form, including video, photos, sound recordings or photos taken with a video camera or camera phone, or recording the activities of an individual by means of a mobile phone or an internet camera or a camera phone camera, or photographing or recording a person, with the intention of monitoring or collecting data for the purposes of identification or punishment”.
The law states that such a device cannot be used in the following circumstances: to collect information on the identity of an actor or a person; to gather information to obtain a court order for the detention or removal of a person or an object; or to collect a private communication.
A person who has not had a warrant, but who was already under surveillance by an electronic surveillance device can also be arrested, subject to the conditions that the person has been detained by a police officer, the device is confiscated and the information is destroyed.
“If it is necessary to prevent the interception of an essential element of the security and privacy of the State, then the data is to be destroyed immediately and the data shall not be used by the State to further its activities,” the law states.
“Any individual may challenge the legality of the use and retention of a device by appealing to a court, a prosecutor or the civil service.
In addition, the use or retention of the data may be stopped if it does not have a reasonable connection with a legitimate purpose.”
The legislation comes after Italy’s top court ruled in February that police had used the use-of-force and search-and-seizure provisions of the state security law to justify the use on public property of a camera that was placed in a public building, a practice known as “magnaroli” in Italian.
The court ruled that the practice violated the privacy of those in the building and in the public, and that it could have led to excessive use of force.
The Supreme Court of Justice has since taken up the case.
It will be up to the appeals court to decide if the use should be stopped.
In the wake of the ruling, the city council in the Italian city of Milan proposed that it should be banned from using any device that collects “information for the use by police of a building, or that is used by a public authority for the control of the public area, in particular a public school”.
In response, the Italian police’s national director of law enforcement, Antonio Casale, told reporters: “We don’t believe in this practice of cameras in public buildings.
They have been used in many cases for the same purpose.”
However, the chief inspector of the city of Pisa, Fabrizio Mancini, told the BBC that cameras could also be used on buildings for surveillance purposes, but only if there is a “specific legal basis” for doing so.
“In my opinion, it would be possible to implement the law against cameras,” he said.
He added that it would not be illegal for police to use the technology, but it would need to be carried out in accordance with the law.
Mancino said that police should not be allowed to use such technology to monitor people for surveillance, unless they were actually trying to do so.
In May, the Federal Data Protection Commissioner’s Office in Brussels ruled that data gathered through a device such as a “movable tracking device” (MTD) could be protected under the European Convention on Human Rights.
“The right to privacy must be respected in all circumstances,” the court ruled, adding that: “[T]he protection of such data is a fundamental right and should not therefore be violated.”
In February, a group of US senators, led by John McCain, wrote to the US State Department, requesting the US to block the use, storage and sharing of data by the military and intelligence agencies, citing the potential for misuse.
“These types of devices can have a huge impact on privacy, and have become