The first problem concerns the places in which video surveillance equipment is installed. Indeed, the law provides, under the conditions that it sets out, for the installation of cameras on the public highway as well as “in premises and establishments open to the public for the purposes of ensuring the security of persons and property when these premises and establishments are particularly exposed to risks of assault and theft”. There is no difficulty in acknowledging that police custody facilities are particularly exposed to the risk of assault: attacks on security staff and, even more so, self-assault (a large number of the rules applied in such premises are governed by the fear of suicide). On the other hand, one might have serious doubts as to their status as premises open to the public, at least insofar as custody facilities are concerned. Admittedly, police stations and gendarmeries are open to the public insofar as they are visited, for example, by plaintiffs and persons who go there to carry out administrative formalities. However, certain parts of such premises are obviously not open to the public81: administrative offices, maintenance areas etc. It is an obvious fact that police custody facilities come within this category: although it is true that persons enter these premises who are not members of the police, they do so solely at the latter’s initiative and under duress 82. Police custody video surveillance devices do not therefore fall within the abovementioned provisions of the Internal Security Code and, for this reason, the authorisation procedures provided for in the code do not apply to them. There does not appear to be any text regulating the conditions under which they are installed and governed. In the case of prison facilities, the act of 24th November 2009 at least provides (under article 58 thereof) for the installation of surveillance cameras in collective areas 83. Such is not the case for police custody facilities. This is to be regretted. We recommend that the texts should not continue to be silent with regard to this matter. Another problem arises from the fact that, in premises of this kind, these cameras allow the identification of persons, who may thus be recorded on video. This problem was resolved in principle, following the verdict of the Council of State of 24 th May 2011. The question referred to the latter concerned the application of the act of 6 th January 1978 to video surveillance systems installed in detention facilities. The Interior Division stated that when premises not open to the public possess systems of this kind allowing the recording and storage of images, on the one hand, and the use of these images for the identification of persons, on the other, these devices shall be subject to the formalities provided for data files of a personal nature set out under the act of 6th January 1978 concerning data processing, data files and individual liberties. However, conversely, systems that merely transmit images from cameras to monitors, without recording them, are not governed by any special formalities. A circular from the Prime Minister of 14 th September 2011 repeated the terms of the verdict of 24 th May of the same year, while asking ministers to ensure that the necessary authorisations are obtained. The last problem, assuming that the required authorisations from the French Data Protection Authority (CNIL) are granted, consists of determining whether all of the difficulties relating to the protection of persons are thereby resolved. As far as video surveillance on public highways and premises open to the public is concerned, the Constitutional Council recognised the constitutionality thereof84, because the legislature, while taking a certain number of precautions, had successfully reconciled the protection of personal freedoms and the need to prevent violations of public order. In particular, it noted the inclusion of the following measures 81 For an example of this kind of separation, with regard to court premises, see the ruling of the Council of State, nd Assembly, 22 October 2012, Mrs Bleitrach, no. 301 572, concl. Roger-Lacan. 82 With regard to prison facilities, cf. the verdict of the Interior Division of 24 th May 2011, in particular part § 5 thereof. 83 Which means, conversely, that surveillance cameras cannot be installed in non-collective areas, i.e. in cells. It will be seen below that the installation of cameras in police custody facilities is scarcely subject to any restrictions whatsoever. 84 Ruling no. 94-352 DC of 18th January 1995 “Loi d’orientation et de programmation de la sécurité” [“Act laying down the basic principles for government action in the field of security”], § 2 à 13.O 41