Amazon's Ring Doorbell Can Violate Your Neighbor's Privacy, a UK Judge Rules (gizmodo.com) 55
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: A judge in the U.K. has ruled that a man infringed on his neighbor's privacy by using Amazon's Ring doorbell without prior consent. According to The Guardian, Jon Woodard had installed a Ring doorbell camera on the front of his home and another security camera facing the side yard to help deter burglars after a string of car break-ins. However, Woodard failed to disclose the cameras to his neighbor, Dr. Mary Fairhurst. Fairhurst reported being "alarmed and appalled" when she realized Woodard had recordings featuring her and her voice available on his smartphone. Fairhurst eventually moved out of her home after the two had altercations about the cameras.
Judge Melissa Clarke of Oxford county court ruled that Woodard had violated UK General Data Protection Regulation rules and the Data Protection Act of 2018, which states that "owners and residents of domestic premises must be consulted if domestic premises border the intended area to be viewed." Clarke also ruled that the video and audio captured by the Ring doorbell and cameras were Fairhurst's data and that the security devices contributed to harassment. On his part, Woodard maintained his only intention behind installing the cameras was to ward off would-be burglars. His overall fine could be up to [...] nearly $137,000. "Amazon told the Guardian that it strongly encourages its customers to respect their neighbor's privacy and 'comply with any applicable laws' when using a Ring product," adds Gizmodo. "As a general courtesy, if your cameras are pointed outwards toward someone else's property -- enough that your neighbor's faces and car license plates are occasionally in the frame -- you should let them know."
Judge Melissa Clarke of Oxford county court ruled that Woodard had violated UK General Data Protection Regulation rules and the Data Protection Act of 2018, which states that "owners and residents of domestic premises must be consulted if domestic premises border the intended area to be viewed." Clarke also ruled that the video and audio captured by the Ring doorbell and cameras were Fairhurst's data and that the security devices contributed to harassment. On his part, Woodard maintained his only intention behind installing the cameras was to ward off would-be burglars. His overall fine could be up to [...] nearly $137,000. "Amazon told the Guardian that it strongly encourages its customers to respect their neighbor's privacy and 'comply with any applicable laws' when using a Ring product," adds Gizmodo. "As a general courtesy, if your cameras are pointed outwards toward someone else's property -- enough that your neighbor's faces and car license plates are occasionally in the frame -- you should let them know."
Re: (Score:1)
Another bloody DUPE posting, Slashdot
"you should let them know" (Score:2)
Hey Neighbor, new suggestions for you (Score:4, Funny)
Nowhere to hide (Score:3)
Recent Facebook Friend Requests:
"your old stalker"
"the exhusband"
"the godfather"
"foreign spy"
"your exwife expecting money"
"porn fan you recognized you"
Re: (Score:2)
correction:
"porn fan who recognized you"
Re: (Score:2)
"Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news"
That sig got my curiosity up. Now that Joe is president and represents the establishment are you against him and his establishment?
Just asking for a friend...
Re: (Score:1)
Dunno about you, but the Left should not be confused with "Democrats" or "Liberals" in the US. They are not the same, no matter how much Fox News tries to muddy the issue. As for myself, I'm independent.
Corruption is bipartisan, just as much as the Establishment is.
Re: (Score:2)
"the guy from school who led the gang rape of your sister, which you didn't find out about until 10 years after you'd moved abroad"
That was when we stopped using Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. I know that some people want to believe that Amazon is violating the privacy of their customers right and left, but that doesn't make it true.
Amazon does not release any video from a customer's camera to any law enforcement agency without the customer's consent. The only exception would be in response to a subpoena from law enforcement, in which case a judge has agreed that there is p
Unfortunately that's not the consent required. (Score:3)
Amazon does not release any video from a customer's camera to any law enforcement agency without the customer's consent.
Unfortunately for their customers, the consent required is that of the neighbors and (arguably) the passersby.
Some US jurisdictions have similar laws. (I think Michigan, for starters, but IANAL.) Amazon might be in for a hard time.
Also my across-the-street neighbor, whose high-res doorbell camera is aimed straight at my front yard. I heard CA has such laws too, but haven't checked. (We
Re: (Score:2)
are irrelevant to a story about a UK court judgement.
I also note that it hasn't been subject to appeal by Amazon.Co.UK. Yet.
Re: (Score:2)
"Some US jurisdictions" are irrelevant to a story about a UK court judgement.
Since I was specifically talking about how this might also be starting to play out in the US, I think you missed my point.
Yes, the UK has its own privacy laws that are distinct from those of the US and those of the various countries that remained in the EU. Yes the EU and the UK are quite draconian on protecting people from surveilance.
But the US has a bunch of those, too, dating back to wiretapping scandals and abuses in the cold
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon does not release any video from a customer's camera to any law enforcement agency without the customer's consent.
Amazon does not release any video that I know of from a customer's camera to any law enforcement agency without the customer's consent.
FTFY - because I'm pretty sure you don't know, first hand, that what you claim is true. Besides - do you trust what Amazon says and does? Really?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean Bezos does his own astroturfing here on Slashdot? No way! I guess he's really good at the whole incognito thing too, as evidenced by this quote from one of his earlier posts:
"Whenever you see industry complaints about a "talent gap", you can immediately translate it as "an incredible shortage of talented programmers who are willing to work 60 hours a week for $40k a year".
That was a pretty funny troll though - thanks for playing, and better luck next time!
How is it different than stoplight cameras? (Score:2)
Parking lot surveillance and government street corner cars collect video and hat includes adjacent property. How are these different ?
Re:How is it different than stoplight cameras? (Score:5, Informative)
One day my wife and I were discussing getting an emergency ladder for our 2nd floor patio, in case of a fire. We decided against it because both of us are too old to climb over a rail and down a ladder. Several days later ads for emergency ladders began appearing in my browsing.
Alexa was doing more than just answering questions directed to it, it was eaves dropping on our conversations. The supposed rule was that Alexa would ignore you unless you began a sentence with its name. Obviously Alexa had other agendas.
I pulled Alexa's plug and boxed it up and got rid of it.
My wife has Siri. My Android phone has Bixby. Even when I turn Bixby off in the settings the next update turns it back on. Even "off" Bixby occasionaly states "I didn't understand what you said", when it wasn't supposed to be listening. Ditto for my wife's Siri.
There are phones that have customer replaceable batteries, which means that you can take the battery out when you want privacy from snoopers.
https://www.androidcentral.com... [androidcentral.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That's a Samsung phone then? Or have they licensed it to anyone else?
Nope, haven't seen that. I do turn it off (along with that WOMBAT "magazine" thing occupying one side of the home screen possibilities) when I've had a new Samsung (repairs, theft, upgrades - more than I care to remember. That's insurance for you.) but when I've had an OS update, I've never had it turn back on. And I've never, in over a
Re:How is it different than stoplight cameras? (Score:5, Informative)
The rules on using CCTV are basically that if it captures any public areas you should register with the ICO as a data controller, and abide by GDPR rules. That means taking steps to minimize the amount of data collected to what is strictly necessary, e.g. by aiming the camera so that it only captures your property or areas where you have a legitimate interest in, and keeping the data for as short a time as possible to fulfil the purpose it was captured for. In the case of CCTV 30 days is at the very outside limit of how long you should be keeping the video for.
There is also the issue of privacy. You have to be very careful not to invade other people's privacy. Doorbell cameras are problematic because they typically record the street and house opposite yours, and maybe the neighbour's driveway. Capturing people passing in the street incidentally is okay as long as you aren't doing anything with that data, but being able to see your opposite neighbour's front door and having motion detection trigger every time they come or go probably isn't.
The government cameras generally rely on the legitimate interest defence that they are trying to keep an area safe and manage traffic, and have pointed the camera to avoid any privacy invasion.
Re: (Score:2)
But who should be responsible? The company that makes the camera or the person who installs it with a view of their neighbor?
If it's the company that is responsible, how far do we take that? All camera/phone/etc manufacturers?
Re: (Score:2)
The neighbour is responsible.
Having said that, there may be some liability, or regulatory pressure on the manufacturer, given that their goal is to have every install one of their doorbell cameras. Some documentation and something in the app to remind the user of their obligations, or maybe to force them to register with the ICO in order to set the camera up might be considered.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't apply to domestic CCTV, as ICO's website explains:
You don’t need to register with the ICO or pay a fee (this is a change from the previous law). However, you must maintain records of how and why you are capturing these images, and for how long you are keeping them. You may need to make these records available to the ICO on request.
https://ico.org.uk/your-data-m... [ico.org.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, but a lot of people buying these are commercial users. Long ago I installed some systems in shops, it was all low cost consumer grade stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
True. However, with regards to the story, the defendant wasn't supposed to have registered with ICO.
If everybody with Ring cameras and "dashcams" had to file complex paperwork with ICO and pay an annual fee, the British public would be very unhappy.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have a perimeter hedge or fence, you are generally OK for setting your cameras to view that
I suspect ... (Score:2)
Why does someone need audio for crime prevention recording?
Re: (Score:2)
Why does someone need audio for crime prevention recording?
Yes. That was clearer when the same story was published yesterday.
https://yro.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]
Full judgement (Score:2)
Re:Full judgement (Score:5, Informative)
Thanks. I skimmed through the judgement and the comments on the 1st Slashdot story.
His job was an "audio-visual technician". He was using his 4 camera system to harass his neighbour. One example, he sent her 2 still pictures of somebody near his car, and said that he had emailed them to the police. The person in the pictures was obviously the neighbour herself.
It was the harassment that led to the court case.
Re: Full judgement (Score:3)
Comes as no surprise (Score:2)
After all, Slashdot covered it just a few days ago... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, I swear /. post dupes to make it look like it has more articles than other sites
It's Groundhog Day on Slashdot..... DUPE! (Score:2)
This is proof that the Saturday greenlighters are either drunk/hungover, don't read Slashdot during the week, or have the working memory of a Gold Fish.
DUPE POST, and not mostly not about Amazon's Ring (Score:5, Informative)
This was about:
1) Audio being recorded
2) The non-ring camera put on a shed, high enough to see into the fenced in garden.
3) The fact that the cameras were old and did not have the modern feature to black out the properties not owned by the installer.
Basically, if you have a normal ring doorbell, this will never apply to you.
If you are stupid enough to get old cameras without black out function, with good microphones, and set them up to see over a fence, then you are a stalker and should be in trouble.
Facts of the case == common sense (Score:2)
Who developed this product? (Score:2)
We tend to think of companies and countries as monolithic, impersonal entities. But it is actual flesh and blood human beings who make these decisions and comes up with these kind of ideas. And what makes them be jerks of first order I can't fathom. Would a regular next door neighbor work without compunctions in the Soylent Green factory and file a
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Not everyone one reading slashdot is in the US.
Civil court might just be the start (Score:2)
I can imagine situations where the owner of a privacy-invading camera might wind up charged criminally. For example, nobody thinks much of a toddler running around naked in the back yard. Finding out that some neighbour has had a camera on them, though...
This is good AND bad (Score:2)
On the one hand, It's good that the judge came down on the side of privacy and threw mud in one of the countless eyes of the panopticon. On the other hand, a $137,000 fine? I suspect that if we took that as a percentage of the offender's net financial worth and scaled it to that of Amazon, Facebook, or Google, it would dwarf any fine that any of them has ever been subject to - and that's just not right.
Re: This is good AND bad (Score:3)
Lemme get this straight. (Score:1)
The government over there can spy on you at will.
But you can't even maintain security cameras, even though they ask for such footage in case you're burglarized or someone invades your home.
Re: (Score:3)
Nonsense. Millions of people have "dashcams" in their cars, which are unregulated. Domestic CCTV doesn't have to be registered with ICO.
If you use a professionally set-up 4 camera system to harass your neighbour over a sustained period of time, send threats involving the CCTV images, discuss with your neighbours about how you are are stalking her ... then the law might get involved.
Re: (Score:3)