Neighbour wins privacy row over smart doorbell and cameras

this case doesn't set a legal precedent
Click to expand...

This all sounds like a non-story, some guy recording far too much including into a neighbours garden + audio of conversations. I'm not surprised the neighbour won a privacy row.
 
Some updated guidance and laws is all that's needed.

They should record movement and nothing else with an attempt from the owner to not point it at others front doors, although that's not always doable
 
Delvis said:
Some updated guidance and laws is all that's needed.

They should record movement and nothing else with an attempt from the owner to not point it at others front doors, although that's not always doable
Click to expand...

The purpose of door cams and cctv is to protect the house and see what happens. The pointing to other doors - you're right not doable. As some houses have doors down the side and look straight at their neighbour's door. A friend lives in a maisonette with her and neighbour's doors sharing the same porch and doors are at an angle.
 
Personally a door cam shouldn't be recording unless there's movement in its zone or someone's pressed the button
 
It means if you're on a free account such as with a nest doorbell, Google had better change it's service to include zoning within the free tier.
 
tom_e said:
No it's not it's a doorbell, if you want always on recording then you want a CCTV style camera.
Click to expand...
If it looks like a dog and it barks like a dog, then it's probably a dog.

How is a CCTV camera any different to a CCTV door bell? Why would the rules be any different for what is essentially a camera in a box? :confused:

The reason this is interesting is because it presumably 'changes' the rules for all cameras of any label?
 
tom_e said:
No it's not it's a doorbell, if you want always on recording then you want a CCTV style camera.
Click to expand...

If I have a label displayed showing a camera / mic is in use in this vicinity then I don't see how it differs from a CCTV camera. You're going to be picking up a certain amount of activity that is beyond your boundary in either case and are not inviting anyone to do something they shouldn't be doing in a public space.
 
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Fairhurst-v-Woodard-Judgment-1.pdf

Some interesting comments within that.

Mr Byrne was a good, straightforward witness. He was a previous neighbour who had moved away from Cromwell Avenue in 2005, and candidly accepted that his evidence that there were no cameras at No 87 in 2017 and 2018 was based on what the Defendant had told him in 2019. Accordingly it doesn’t take me further, save to wonder why the Defendant had called him.
Click to expand...

:cry:

The Driveway Camera
101. The position of the Driveway Camera high up on the gable end wall of No 85 and the description of the footage seen by neighbours is such that I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that:

i) from when it was installed, until it was removed, the Driveway Camera surveyed the area set out in the Claimant’s plan, including the Driveway (half of which is owned by the Claimant), the area where the bins are kept beneath the Driveway Camera, the side wall of the Claimant’s garden including the side gate, some of her garden visible over the side wall, her parking spaces save what was blocked from the field of view by the walls of her garden, and that part of the car park that the Claimant would access in order to enter and leave her parking spaces. None of the area that it surveyed encompasses the Defendant’s property. This could have been viewed at any time by the Defendant from his app, and the act of doing so would have triggered the floodlight of the Driveway Camera in the hours of darkness.

ii) the Driveway Camera (and the floodlight in the hours of darkness) would have been activated by any vehicle entering or leaving the car park by the Driveway, any pedestrian using the Driveway, any person leaving the Claimant’s side gate or accessing the bin storage via the Driveway, and any car leaving the Claimant’s car parking spaces.

iii) activation of the Driveway Camera also activated the audio function so that any conversations inter alia on the Driveway, in the Claimant’s back garden, or in the Claimant’s car parking spaces were susceptible to being heard and recorded.
Click to expand...

He had a camera mounted on his neighbours gable end wall, at high level, overlooking the next neighbour's property and garden but none of his own property, hardly surprising he's been done for it :p

The Defendant says that he could not afford a camera with a more restricted view but he puts no evidence about the cost of any such system before the court which presumably, as an audio-visual specialist, he would not find difficult to do, nor any evidence about his finances. I note he has a high-performance Audi that he is seeking to protect so it seems unlikely that cost is an issue.
Click to expand...

:cry:
 
Yeah the court case wasn't just about the cameras, it was the guy being a complete helmet for a several month period
 
Delvis said:
Personally a door cam shouldn't be recording unless there's movement in its zone or someone's pressed the button
Click to expand...
Even if it triggers well within your property it could be then recording part of someone else's property, so its not just about when its triggered but what its capturing when it is.
 
Duke said:
Even if it triggers well within your property it could be then recording part of someone else's property, so its not just about when its triggered but what its capturing when it is.
Click to expand...

As I said earlier you can't always not get someone else property in the view.

I figured some common sense would have to be used :p There's pointing it out your door then theres pointing it directly into your neighbours garden or front door
 
You can't have any cameras overlooking someone else's property. It can only overlooking your own, or public land.

I don't know why people think the rules don't apply just because it's a doorbell. It's even worse with those because Amazon is recording it all. It's filming private property without permission and then uploading it online, so there are data protection issues. Fines for breaching the data protection act can be huge.
 
Last edited:
House on the opposite side of the street to me has a webcam stuck in the window which affords him direct views into the front rooms of about three houses. Those in the houses affected have tried talking to him, but, despite him speaking perfect English, he plays the 'me no speak English' card each and every time. The police have been out a few times too, they've told him to get rid - he just ignores them.
 
Malevolence said:
House on the opposite side of the street to me has a webcam stuck in the window which affords him direct views into the front rooms of about three houses. Those in the houses affected have tried talking to him, but, despite him speaking perfect English, he plays the 'me no speak English' card each and every time. The police have been out a few times too, they've told him to get rid - he just ignores them.
Click to expand...

Strategically placed fake real estate signs. Or just stick a sheet of that nasty sticker stuff on his window.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom