Neighbor Wins Privacy Row Over Smart Doorbell and Cameras (bbc.co.uk) 135
New submitter apcyberax writes: A judge has ruled that security cameras and a Ring doorbell installed in a house in Oxfordshire "unjustifiably invaded" the privacy of a neighbour, in a case that could have implications for home surveillance devices. Dr Mary Fairhurst claimed that the devices installed on the house of neighbour Jon Woodard broke data laws and contributed to harassment. The judge upheld both these claims. Mr Woodard now faces a substantial fine. He claimed he installed the devices in good faith as a deterrent against burglars.
The origin of the row stems from an invitation from Mr Woodard to his neighbour Dr Fairhurst to have a tour of his home renovations, during which she claimed he showed off his new security system. The judgement reads that Dr Fairhurst was "alarmed and appalled" to notice that he had a camera mounted on his shed and that footage from it was sent to his smartphone. A series of disputes about the cameras followed, which resulted in Dr Fairhurst moving out of her home. In the judgement it was found that the Ring doorbell captured images of the claimant's house and garden, while the shed camera covered almost the whole of her garden and her parking space.
The origin of the row stems from an invitation from Mr Woodard to his neighbour Dr Fairhurst to have a tour of his home renovations, during which she claimed he showed off his new security system. The judgement reads that Dr Fairhurst was "alarmed and appalled" to notice that he had a camera mounted on his shed and that footage from it was sent to his smartphone. A series of disputes about the cameras followed, which resulted in Dr Fairhurst moving out of her home. In the judgement it was found that the Ring doorbell captured images of the claimant's house and garden, while the shed camera covered almost the whole of her garden and her parking space.
Black-out neighbors property? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Black-out neighbors property? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Black-out neighbors property? (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet the judge agreed that it was an invasion of privacy. Armchair quarterbacking from a completely different country based on a highly abbreviated summary probably isn't being fair to the actual case.
Re:Black-out neighbors property? (Score:5, Funny)
Armchair quarterbacking from a completely different country based on a highly abbreviated summary probably isn't being fair to the actual case.
Welcome to /. Wait 'til you read something here about science ... :-)
Re:Black-out neighbors property? (Score:5, Informative)
Judgement can be read here: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-co... [judiciary.uk]
It looks like the defendant lied on multiple counts, never a good idea. He also harassed the claimant, for example by telling her that he had sent an image of her to the police as an "unknown suspicious person".
It's quite nuanced too. In particular paragraph 134, where the judge notes that just incidentally capturing images of the neighbour are balanced against the need for crime prevention (thieves had attempted to steal the defendant's car previously). That covers the doorbell camera.
The other cameras don't cover the area where the car is or people approaching the house, so those can't be justified by the "legitimate interests" defence.
Re: (Score:2)
Armchair quarterbacking from a completely different country based on a highly abbreviated summary
as is tradition.
Re:This is GREAT. Now to do Google. (Score:5, Informative)
i can legally film and take pictures of your house and property from public property
Re: (Score:3)
Re:This is GREAT. Now to do Google. (Score:5, Insightful)
In the state I live in (Illinois) it is illegal to take pictures or videos of the inside of someone's home without their consent. That even applies to views of the inside of their home that are visible from outside their property. I don't think that would apply to someone's yard, though.
IANAL, YMMV, etc.
At least in most places in the US, the standard is whether there is an expectation of privacy. So, a driveway near the street would normally have no expectation of privacy, but a fenced-in backyard would.
Re: (Score:2)
In the state I live in (Illinois) it is illegal to take pictures or videos of the inside of someone's home without their consent. That even applies to views of the inside of their home that are visible from outside their property. I don't think that would apply to someone's yard, though.
IANAL, YMMV, etc.
At least in most places in the US, the standard is whether there is an expectation of privacy. So, a driveway near the street would normally have no expectation of privacy, but a fenced-in backyard would.
Yes exactly - the reasonable expectation of privacy of the test. It's also why you see 'video recording in progress' signs all over. They're making it clear you have no expectation of privacy to avoid doubt should someone cause a stink. Equally, if you can see something from a normal, public-space vantage point then you can photograph it.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe federal law and SCOTUS case law (and arguably, the constitution) is what permits filming in/from public locations. Illinois law would likely not stand up to a challenge in court. I get it - you shouldn't stand on the street and point a camera in someone's bedroom window - but if said window is left without a curtain/shade the argument that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy can be made.
IANAL either, but am a photographer so have done a fair bit of reading about this topic. Otherwise
Re: This is GREAT. Now to do Google. (Score:2)
There's an argument to be made it would stand up to any photography or video that used a zoom function. However without that zoom function there wouldn't be a leg to stand on.
Re:This is GREAT. Now to do Google. (Score:4)
In my country you can't do that with a fixed-mounted camera without proper permissions. Hand-held is ok.
Re:This is GREAT. Now to do Google. (Score:5, Funny)
So sick and tired of Google streetmap drones publishing pictures of my property for anyone and everyone to peep on me with.
If I ever see the Google Prius turn down my street, my clothes are coming right off.
Re: (Score:2)
So sick and tired of Google streetmap drones publishing pictures of my property for anyone and everyone to peep on me with.
The difference, of course, is that Google does this very infrequently compared to a doorbell/security camera.
Re:This is GREAT. Now to do Google. (Score:5, Informative)
So sick and tired of Google streetmap drones publishing pictures of my property for anyone and everyone to peep on me with
Rest easy. No need for any more hand wringing!
1. Go to Google Maps and enter your home address
2. Enter into Street View mode by dragging the small yellow human-shaped icon, found in the bottom-right corner of the screen, onto the map in front of your house
3. With your house in view, click "Report a problem" in the bottom-right corner of the screen
4. Center the red box on your home, and select "My home" in the "Request blurring" field
5. Write in the provided field why you want the image blurred (for example, you may be concerned about safety issues)
6. Enter in your email address, and click "Submit"
Re: (Score:3)
As I'd mentioned elsewhere, in some/many cases these cameras are mounted in such a way as to give MUCH more than normal public view access.
Often these cameras are rooftop mounted or pole mounted that would allow the camera to stare down into a backyard that has a high privacy fence for example.
I suppose it would be legal for the neighbor to set up a laser aimed at the camera to shield its view, or maybe set up a bu
Re: (Score:2)
Which is clearly exactly the same as constantly filming the area and uploading it to a commercial database that keeps a record of all activity there, possibly forever, and shares it with the entire world.
Yeah, exactly the same.
Re:Black-out neighbors property? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The direction a camera points only tells a small part of the story. Most of my cameras have a fixed field of view of about 110 degrees, and are all general consumers really care about. I have two that cost 3x as much that have optical zooms that get it down to 30 degrees, but that is still software controlled. Then I have two PTZ cameras one which can see in the window of a neighbor a half mile away if it is aimed that direction. (It isn’t but as I was testing its capabilities I found out that it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Black-out neighbors property? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, aiming the camera differently would have done the same.
My neighbor bitched that one camera of mine was pointed at her house, I re aimed it. It still sees the house but its now pointed at the corner. A year later I hear she wants to know if I have pics of her car windows getting smashed last weekend. Neighbors are nut jobs.
Re: (Score:3)
A year later I hear she wants to know if I have pics of her car windows getting smashed last weekend.
So what was her response to "of course not. You said not to point it at your house so I re-aimed it" ?
Re: Black-out neighbors property? (Score:2)
Did you laugh in her face. This is my biggest issue with privacy gripes. everyone believes their life is worthy of being the Truman Show and that their neighbors/police are peeps. The latter does happen and should be recently punished but it's by no means regular and the potential security is worthwhile. This being said such coverage is so low, any footage is probably not that helpful... and police will only pursue the investigation briefly...
Re: (Score:2)
Neighbors are nut jobs.
You are somebody's neighbour, therefor you are a nut job. Posting on Slashdot is additional evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, aiming the camera differently would have done the same. It sounds more like the security system owner was intentional about recording beyond their property lines.
Sometimes you can't simply change the aim, particularly with PTZ cameras. My city has incredibly powerful traffic cameras (made by Axis I believe). They can zoom in on a license plate a mile away. They could also easily zoom into office or residential windows and other private spaces. A huge amount of effort has gone into programming masks in the software to prevent them from seeing places they shouldn't.
https://www.winnipeg.ca/public... [winnipeg.ca]
Re: (Score:3)
It sounds more like the security system owner was intentional about recording beyond their property lines.
Unless you want to create a permanent fog, or put up a 10ft wall then yes photons don't just suddenly self annihilate at an imaginary boundary.
I suspect there's far more to this than there first appears. I think the dead giveaway was the word "renovation". Having had the absolute pleasure of living next to and renovating a house next to a Karen I can tell you some fuckwits simply look for conflict everywhere they go.
I say pleasure because it was hilarious watching her squirm as she lost literally every sing
Re: (Score:2)
It isn’t always that simple. I bought a cheap PTZ camera because it was too hard to add a network cable in the ideal location, and I needed a 5x zoom to target the point I wanted to see and 180-degree rotation to see the opposite direction with 1x zoom. (Doing a second camera in that location would have required me to take a finished wall apart again which would have been a pain.)
I can black out zones for the camera in fixed positions, but when it pans the black-out zones are not honored. All my fi
Re: (Score:2)
TFA points out that the biggest problem was not pictures, but audio recording of the neighbours.
Re: (Score:2)
How does that really work to reassure a neighbor? Can't the owner of the system 'unblock' after they've shown the neighbor that their property is not visible?
I've always assumed that if I'm in view of the street, I have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
How does that really work to reassure a neighbor? Can't the owner of the system 'unblock' after they've shown the neighbor that their property is not visible?
I suppose you could give the neighbor access to the camera. If it has a good view of both your properties, it would make sense for both of you to be able to view it anyway (they might even stop demanding for it to be blacked out).
Re: (Score:3)
But in many cases, this is MUCH more than view of the street.
You may have a back yard with a high fence that would shield you from any normal human's view from the street or anywhere near your property at street levels.
But often these security cameras are mounted high on the houses or on poles to get a bird's eye view of the property at which point they are now also looking down onto your property where you
Re: (Score:2)
You might. Of course, the guys putting on the new roof next door will still be able to see your backyard orgies....
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
> I've always assumed that if I'm in view of the street, I have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
It's a bit more nuanced than that in the UK as it's covered by data protection law. You're right if you take a photo of someone in the street, you're not committing an offence.
The problem is with the nature of CCTV; it's constant and ongoing, so you're not just capturing a passing image of someone in public, you're capturing their daily lives, their habits, what time they go to work, who they have visit t
Re: (Score:2)
The devices in question were old, later models had that ability.
But the judge was most upset with the audio capability. Can not 'black out' that.
Re:Black-out neighbors property? (Score:4)
There was a case years ago where a woman complained that a local council run CCTV camera could see into her bedroom. The council responded by setting up black bars in software.
A year later a couple of the camera operators were charged with invading her privacy. They found that all they had to do was pan the camera a bit. The black bars didn't move, only the camera did.
Re: (Score:2)
Thats bad software - I helped out a friend at a local CCTV company back in the 2000s and they did exactly the same for privacy issues, created areas where the camera had permanent blacked out zones covering parts of the picture, and those zones were correctly persistent throughout pan, tilt and zoom actions.
Re: (Score:2)
Lesson here (Score:2)
Don't show off your surveillance equipment to the neighbors.
A Bit More To It (Score:2, Troll)
Don't show off your surveillance equipment to the neighbors.
Or just don't film their property with it (of course this nuance is only in the last sentence of TFS).
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see why property "in clear view of the public" is a problem? If my camera is covering the inside of your privacy-fenced back yard, or can see clearly inside your windows, then ok. But not your open yard??
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine the neighbor has eyes and can see the cameras. That saying about obscurity and security applies here as well.
Difficult to fathom (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The story is vastly short on details, but I suspect the neighbors were antagonistic to each other. Taking a cause to court is difficult, time consuming, and a last resort.
Details (Score:2)
For anyone sufficiently interested, a Google search reveals the 49 page judgement of the case.
Re: Details (Score:2)
Holy fuck... 49 pages. Can I get a summary?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Whiners gonna whine. You can sit on your porch all day long and watch your neighbors property and there isn't a damn thing they can do about it. Why filming a view that already isn't private is a problem is beyond me.
Re: (Score:2)
Your eyeballs will never compete with a NVR let alone the ability to see in dim or no light (IR).
Re:Difficult to fathom (Score:5, Insightful)
Uhm they had a FENCE. So no, the neighbor could not sit on their porch and see the garden all day. But the camera was set up high enough to see over the fence.
Re: (Score:2)
You can sit on your porch all day long and watch your neighbors property and there isn't a damn thing they can do about it. Why filming a view that already isn't private is a problem is beyond me.
Besides, since now I don't have to sit on my porch and jack off, I'm kinda of doing them a favor.
Re:Difficult to fathom (Score:5, Informative)
Because of data protection laws.
Back in the 80s when data protection rules were first created, in an incredibly forward thinking moment the government recognized electronic processing of data was very different in scope to manual processing. Vast amounts of data could be collected, organized and retried.
Because the video is stored electronically it is covered by data protection rules, which are based on GDPR. The owner of the camera needs to follow the rules (i.e. to have a legitimate interest in the data, and to take steps to minimize it as far as possible). They need to register with the ICO too.
In this case the guy did none of those things.
Re:Difficult to fathom (Score:5, Informative)
If you just read this as "Person sets up security system and neighbor doesn't like it" then the whole thing is hard to understand. Looking into this, it seems that the audio recording of her property was more of a problem than the video, and the multiple cameras did point at his property. Also, there appears to have been some additional harassment from the neighbor with the cameras. Not to mention, they apparently lied about one of the cameras, claiming that it was just a dummy. It's a little unclear in the articles I can find, but it looks like they may not have just lied to the plaintiff about this, but also to the court. If that's the case, lying to the court is often a very good way to get a case decided against you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but perjury is very seldom prosecuted, especially in civil cases Might be less true in the UK though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's more or less my impression. I was thinking it was likely that it was just the next escalation in a feud between neighbors.
Glass houses (Score:3)
People who live in glass houses shouldn't traipse around in the nude.
Re:Glass houses (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't want to see me naked, don't look in my window.
Re: (Score:3)
People who live in glass houses shouldn't traipse around in the nude.
Was she in the nude? Pictures, or I don't believe it.
Re: (Score:2)
People who live in glass houses shouldn't traipse around in the nude.
Why not? What is wrong with naked bodies? I admit that in my case, I have got to an age where my body is no longer a thing of beauty, so I prefer not to scare the humans by exposing my wrinkled flesh.
Good! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sounds like people have a case against Google Street View. Well it was good while it lasted.
Re:Good! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They also blur house numbers. Which is infuriating when you're about to navigate to a new address and want to see the exterior first. Oddly, they still label house numbers on the regular overhead maps view, complete with an outline drawn of the actual house.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlikely. Any images captured by Street View would only include their personal data incidentally. Seeing as the photo is only a single snapshot in time the amount of data collected is minimal, and Google took steps to minimize it (by blurring out faces).
The more interesting question is what about Ring doorbells? In this case the judgement was that the doorbell camera was okay, it only covered the area where there had previously been an attempted car theft, and some incidental areas that on balance were acce
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming this took place in the UK (as that's whose law this case concerned) the best people to ask would be the Information Commissioner's Office.
Their general guidance for individuals operating cctv systems is here : https://ico.org.uk/your-data-m... [ico.org.uk]
Their general guidance for people who are filmed is here : https://ico.org.uk/your-data-m... [ico.org.uk]
And you can start a chat with them to get more specific comments here : https://ico.org.uk/global/cont... [ico.org.uk]
Where's the line? (Score:2)
I live in an apartment. The people under me got in to a fight last winter with the people who live across from them. After an incident over a parking space (there is no reserved parking, but shoveling out a space equates to ownership to some people), dog shit magically appeared on their door threshold, where it was for several days because they hadn't been home. Subsequently, a Ring camera appeared on their door until they moved out.
The building has a shared entrance for 4 apartments. While technically
Link to judgment (Score:5, Informative)
I really wish this was included in the story https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-co... [judiciary.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, that's quite a read! The guy who got served was being a giant dick, and there was indeed harassment.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely hilarious how awful a liar this peeping tom turns out to have been.
It's also hilarious how many slashdot neckbeards defend him. They have their own dreams of peeping, and they don't want to think about consequences, even mild ones.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also hilarious how many slashdot neckbeards defend him. They have their own dreams of peeping...
No, don't draw ridiculous conclusions to go along with your inflammatory language. They just didn't bother to read any further than the summary and are basing their judgements on the absolutes of the US first amendment, which doesn't exist under British common law. Our constitution is a great thing when it comes to protecting us from government overreach and politically motivated attacks, but it needn't run afoul of common sense or common decency. Sometimes, I think, common law interpretations, considering
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, look, another creeper who wishes he could be a peeping tom when he grows up.
Audio was the big deal. (Score:2)
The law treats audio a lot harsher than video, except in cases of attempting to secretly film nudity.
In this case, the judge really disliked that the microphones on the cameras in question.
They also disliked the motion activation - even when the motion was done in the neighbor's property, the recording would activate.
Basically they were found guilty of wiretapping the neighbor's garden.
Re: (Score:2)
Wiretapping means actually tapping into a wire.
Re: (Score:2)
The law treats audio a lot harsher than video, except in cases of attempting to secretly film nudity.
In this case, the judge really disliked that the microphones on the cameras in question.
They also disliked the motion activation - even when the motion was done in the neighbor's property, the recording would activate.
Basically they were found guilty of wiretapping the neighbor's garden.
Does English law look at audio recordings differently than video, like US law does? That doesn't fit any definition of wire tapping that I've seen, but yeah, the range/location of the motion detection and the audio were certainly significant in this case. Had it just been simple 24x7 video monitoring that didn't specifically alert the gentleman to the lady's movements, the judge would have been less moved to find against him. And a doorbell cam or cams just capturing visitors coming up to the house probably
Will not stand (Score:2)
You can't trespass my eyes.
I can film anything I can see from my land and from publicly accessible places.
Privacy begins BEHIND your curtains, not in front.
Homeland Security even gave out a memo a few years ago so that police should stop harassing photographers who sued them senseless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't trespass my eyes. I can film anything I can see from my land and from publicly accessible places.
Privacy begins BEHIND your curtains, not in front.
Homeland Security even gave out a memo a few years ago so that police should stop harassing photographers who sued them senseless.
Um, Homeland Security has no jurisdiction on British soil, and the Crown is not beholden to the US constitution or your own personal interpretation of it. Sorry, everything you say here is completely irrelevant to the case and article in question.
We do such a BAD job of protecting privacy in the USA because our definition of protected speech is so broad as to include things that limit the privacy of others, but that's a topic for a different thread. The founding fathers should not be expected to have for
Lots of comments about Google Street View (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
No expectation of privacy in public.
I have read this here many times, and I think it is off the mark. There is a difference between understanding that public conduct isn't private, and accepting 24/7/365 audio and video recording of that conduct be kept forever and subject to frame by frame analysis by anyone who might choose to do it.
As far as successfully suing the government, of course not. If this thing gets upheld on appeal (assuming there is a path to appeal) this is just the government making sure its the crimes of its citizens aren't in keeping with their own.
Re: (Score:2)
If the government operates it and can't justify why it's necessary then yes.
That's an interesting question, but probably not relevant. CCTV systems are specifically mentioned in UK law: whether dashcams are CCTV would
Re: (Score:3)
So, apparently, in the UK, if my smartphone takes a picture of someone else's yard, I can.... um... face a substantial fine? Wait wut? Apparently the judge failed to think this through.
There is plenty of UK case history about whether or not taking a photo is legal, and I'm sure the judge was well aware of the case history and would have soon looked it up if he was not. Generally, having some private property into a shot is acceptable, even if people happen to be in it - although I have had such people complain to me anyway. However, it depends on intent, and in this case it seems there was a continuous and deliberate coverage. Does not sound acceptable to me.
This is what judges are
Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
Your own FENCED IN GARDEN is not a public space. It is a private space.
Your fence is limited in height by local rules. Then some a-hole neighbor puts a camera up high enough to see over the fence.
So yeah, you do not know what you are talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
"We need to adapt, not deny."
Perhaps we can adapt and deny. I can envision a little arms race using lasers and sonic jammers.
Re: (Score:2)
Uhm, I demonstrated that I read the article by mentioning: 1) The fence, and 2) the Shed. You did not mention any details until now.
What the woman was mad about is irrelevant. What matters is the Judge. The judge cared about a) the garden, b) the audio and c) lack of modern blackout.
You keep talking about public space, and I keep pointing out this is NOT ABOUT PUBLIC SPACE. This is clearly private space. As long as you use the words public space, you sound obnoxious (because you ignore my one and on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Wow (Score:2)
Here comes Captain Kneejerk with the wrong end of the stick. Helped by his friends General Outrage and Major Hyperbole.
Re: (Score:2)
Google maps doesn't stream live video, does it?
Re: (Score:2)
You can sue anyone you want honey.
https://www.cnet.com/news/coup... [cnet.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So if she puts her camera on a tripod and hits the video button then she can be fined? OP is spot on.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm guessing the most likely explanation is that the case was tried before a dim-witted judge.
Or more likely, the story was judged by dimwitted slashdot readers, who could not be bothered to RTFA, let alone the judgement.
Re: (Score:2)
Not true. In at least some states both parties' consent is required for recording and filming the inside of a house through someone's window is illegal without that consent, even if the window is visible from a public place or your own private property.