Neighbour wins privacy row over smart doorbell and cameras
- Thread starter Ice Tea
- Start date
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Fairhurst-v-Woodard-Judgment-1.pdf
Some interesting comments within that.
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
Haha, excellent find. Hope he gets absolutely destroyed in damages after the year he’s out her through, and then his stupid lies to the court.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Conversation 40ft away?
Why
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
No they aren't. The laws already in place are fine enough.
This moron had a camera which didn't cover any of his own property. It doesn't matter if it covers other peoples property so long as it can be argued it's main purpose is to protect your own property. Therefore at least 50% of it should be covering your property.
Also why shouldn't they record sound? I see no reason not to. You do realise shops have cctv right? So do many shopping centres, arenas, football stadiums, etc. This was a one off. Anyone dumb enough to have a camera pointed nowhere near their own property obviously should get done for it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 8,064
Isn't this the legal case where there had been sustained invasion of privacy and harassment issues prior to this ruling; did the initial article miss out some key elements?
CCTV cameras generally point downwards towards the ground at a point of entry and don't record audio, I think the point being made here is you should be able to sit/sunbathe in your own garden without a neighbours device recording your actions and conversation.
People have a right to privacy, if some idiot wants to put cameras/microphones all over his property because he wants to pretend he's a contestant on Big Brother that's fine but you've still got to respect your neighbours right to privacy on their own premises.
People have a right to privacy, if some idiot wants to put cameras/microphones all over his property because he wants to pretend he's a contestant on Big Brother that's fine but you've still got to respect your neighbours right to privacy on their own premises.
Seems to - like the press have turned up and shown photos of the people outside their home but what would be more relevant is showing where the CCTV covers (and blurring out the bits which are the neighbours garden etc...)
The audio seems to be an issue with the doorbell but the issue with cameras seems to have been one the guy had covering his shed/car at the back (and including the neighbours garden) plus one at the front with included her from garden/gate.. rather than any footage from the ring camera.
It sounds like there are quite a few exacerbating factors in this particular case, but would be interesting if it set some kind of precedent for doorbell cameras.
I was under the impression that technically you need planning permission for any camera that can see anything other than your private property, but in practice this was never enforced. For example the police even recommend 'ring' cameras to people, without any caveats about making sure it only records their own property (when obviously for most houses a doorbell camera will record the road outside and other houses on the street as well as the owner's property).
Would be really interesting if it turns out that amazon can be held responsible for its ring doorbells breaching planning laws given how it manages the network. Biggest violation of planning law in history?
I was under the impression that technically you need planning permission for any camera that can see anything other than your private property, but in practice this was never enforced. For example the police even recommend 'ring' cameras to people, without any caveats about making sure it only records their own property (when obviously for most houses a doorbell camera will record the road outside and other houses on the street as well as the owner's property).
Would be really interesting if it turns out that amazon can be held responsible for its ring doorbells breaching planning laws given how it manages the network. Biggest violation of planning law in history?
When setting up a Ring doorbell camera the app runs you through all of the privacy and security features available. You kind of have to decide whether you want to enable them or not so not adding privacy zoning etc is a conscious decision etc. I'm new to doorbell cams but I got one recently and set it up to motion zone out my garden only. It is capable of recording audio all the way to the road across the garden but is only triggered when motion activates within the garden zone.
What I find amusing is that there are a small but loud mouthed minority of people who see stuff like this and claim their privacy is being breached. Yet these same people won't bat an eyelid at other things in daily life that actively spy on them by design and track their activities whether online or offline (where applicable). Some people just want something to moan about to feel some kind of self importance lol.
Do you genuinely think that a webcam is capable of resolving the details through the living room windows of multiple houses opposite? Seems a lot of these cases are falling foul of technical knowledge or lack off on what is actually possible these days and what isn't. A webcam is not capable of that sort of long range resolution. They are designed for short range. Has any of the neighbours actually gone to have a friendly chat to see what it's like? Imagine if one of the houses got broken into one day and his webcam captured a suspect or vehicle that could be used as evidence or something else that happens. There are pros and cons of everything really and it's up to people to weigh up a fine balance and deal with things in a sensible way.
What I find amusing is that there are a small but loud mouthed minority of people who see stuff like this and claim their privacy is being breached. Yet these same people won't bat an eyelid at other things in daily life that actively spy on them by design and track their activities whether online or offline (where applicable). Some people just want something to moan about to feel some kind of self importance lol.
Do you genuinely think that a webcam is capable of resolving the details through the living room windows of multiple houses opposite? Seems a lot of these cases are falling foul of technical knowledge or lack off on what is actually possible these days and what isn't. A webcam is not capable of that sort of long range resolution. They are designed for short range. Has any of the neighbours actually gone to have a friendly chat to see what it's like? Imagine if one of the houses got broken into one day and his webcam captured a suspect or vehicle that could be used as evidence or something else that happens. There are pros and cons of everything really and it's up to people to weigh up a fine balance and deal with things in a sensible way.
True if it is a webcam - higher end CCTV or some other types of video cameras/camcorders can do that though.
Where I live has external CCTV which caused some dispute with the neighbours - a bit of six to one half a dozen to the other but it could have been better positioned on the side in view of them even though the setup does not look into their property at all - if it had been mounted slightly lower down I doubt they'd have even noticed or bothered about it and would still have had the same view and out of reach of tampering more or less.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 22,383
- Location
- ST4
When I went out earlier tonight I made a point to cross over the road and have a closer look, it's not actually a webcam it's a 4K camcorder on a small tripod.
That's a little more different! Personally I'd have just had a friendly word and then got a feel for what it's all about. YOu can quickly gauge intentions/usage within a few moments and then work out whether it's legit or not.
No, its a overpriced doorbell.
You want a camera they pay for one that can get set up correctly that covers your own property.
Tbf. It wasn't the doorbell it was the camera on the shed that filmed her garden
And it has nothing to do with Ring anyway! I have now read multiple news articles on this story and they all headline Ring Doorbell camera cautions when the actual case is not even about a doorbell camera. I guess they needed to pad out the news article so here we are.
There were 4 cameras in discussion.
1 Ring Spotlight Camera on the shed
1 Ring Spotlight Camera on the neighbours wall (the main problem camera)
1 Ring Doorbell Camera by the door
1 Nest Window Camera in the window
Typical lazy journalism all around, unable to notice that Ring make more than just doorbell cameras.
I'm just about to recommission by IP Cameras / NVR.
The front cameras (there are 2 to cover the entire frontage), have masks set to black out my neighbours drives etc (so I can't see any single part of their property), but I can see the road in front of my house and the public green area opposite, I have a car parked on the road, which I want to obviously keep an eye on.. I've been under the impression that this is OK, as long as I don't record audio or video of anything the neighbours are doing on their 'land' then all is good? No issues in recording the public green opposite the public road where the car is parked?
The front cameras (there are 2 to cover the entire frontage), have masks set to black out my neighbours drives etc (so I can't see any single part of their property), but I can see the road in front of my house and the public green area opposite, I have a car parked on the road, which I want to obviously keep an eye on.. I've been under the impression that this is OK, as long as I don't record audio or video of anything the neighbours are doing on their 'land' then all is good? No issues in recording the public green opposite the public road where the car is parked?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
The fact the police have approached me 3 times in the past year to ask for me to go through footage to see if I saw anything happen on the main road tells me they don't care if your cameras aren't only covering your own property.
This guy had a camera that never covered any of his property at all. Any moron should have known that wasn't okay. So long as you can argue they are to protect your property it's fine.