agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,619
Likes: 4,193
|
Post by agent69 on Oct 14, 2021 9:56:44 GMT
An interesting decision in court regarding the use of Amazon ring door bells, caused by the device recording information from outside the limits of the owners property. The judge found:
1) the images and audio files captured on the Ring devices were classed as her personal data.
2) the owner had failed to process data in a 'fair or transparent manner' in accordance with his role as a 'data controller' as laid out by the Information Commissioner.
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 3,875
Likes: 2,313
|
Post by keitha on Oct 14, 2021 15:20:09 GMT
www.ludlowadvertiser.co.uk/news/national/uk-today/19646523.amazon-ring-doorbell-ruled-breach-uk-data-protection-act-will-banned/Several issues for me :- You can setup a zone that says don't pickup movement, but as soon as it detects movement it records over the whole area The issue seems to be more in this case that whatever he claims the defendant seemed to enjoy winding up the claimant to be frank my view is she over reacted to the first camera and he didn't realise the hole he was digging, I assume that before it got to court he had warning letters etc. I think also the judge saying they shouldn't record outside your property line causes a huge issue in terraced streets perhaps the bigger issue is the range at which they can pickup voices etc Where does this leave Council etc CCTV presumably if they don't pickup audio that's ok ? I know of several terraced houses near me with CCTV systems either in the windows looking onto the street or in a couple of cases mounted on the walls
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,211
Likes: 6,016
|
Post by registerme on Oct 14, 2021 16:38:10 GMT
I know of several terraced houses near me with CCTV systems either in the windows looking onto the street or in a couple of cases mounted on the walls I put a fake one up just to give any potential miscreants food for thought.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,892
Likes: 2,767
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Oct 14, 2021 18:50:45 GMT
I do have one and other cctv also none of which is trained on my neighbours.
I don't understand where the £100K figure comes from. Surely not the general uselessness of county court judges?
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on Oct 14, 2021 20:11:22 GMT
I bought one around a year ago, not taken it out of the box yet... i'm extremely worried that it may have wires to connect.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,011
Likes: 4,822
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 15, 2021 7:40:56 GMT
There's a lot more to this than just "a doorbell". The houses aren't facing each other. They're on the same side of the road, but not even immediate neighbours. The multiple cameras in question were not covering just his property, but monitoring the common parking area behind the houses, including the other party's property - and he was distributing footage to a What's App group. The £100k figure is the maximum possible. The court will almost certainly award nothing LIKE that figure. Costs, though... <wince> Full judgement - www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Fairhurst-v-Woodard-Judgment-1.pdf(Please excuse the Wail-sourced image)
|
|
|
Post by overthehill on Oct 15, 2021 9:45:52 GMT
The internet up until now is the technology wild west, the ultimate false sense of security when writing, saying or doing whatever you want because you're doing it in your own house and it's your right, no criminal laws apply or will be enforced. You can understand why people think the internet is a free for all because everyday they see the internet fraud, illegal activity and filth but the government and protective law organisations are impotent and just watch it happening.
I don't understand why you need to put stuff like this online unless you have two households watching each other's property. Facebook is to blame of course, their time is coming. Never used it once, in fact I don't use anything which fills the screen with irrelevant garbage, adverts or tells you what you should be doing.
There will be a caravan parked outside next week!
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 3,875
Likes: 2,313
|
Post by keitha on Oct 15, 2021 10:02:18 GMT
I do have one and other cctv also none of which is trained on my neighbours. I don't understand where the £100K figure comes from. Surely not the general uselessness of county court judges? effectively a payment of damages for invasion of privacy, I'd guess in the normal run of things it would have been a lot less, but my reading of the information is that he was being deliberately provocative. One assumes long before it got to court that he had warning letters from solicitors etc and ignored them. The usage or misuse of her personal data regarding voice recording I'd guess that at some point he was showing videos or playing sound clips to 3rd parties (eg his mates in the pub or other neighbours )
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,892
Likes: 2,767
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Oct 15, 2021 12:40:43 GMT
I do have one and other cctv also none of which is trained on my neighbours. I don't understand where the £100K figure comes from. Surely not the general uselessness of county court judges? effectively a payment of damages for invasion of privacy, I'd guess in the normal run of things it would have been a lot less, but my reading of the information is that he was being deliberately provocative. One assumes long before it got to court that he had warning letters from solicitors etc and ignored them. The usage or misuse of her personal data regarding voice recording I'd guess that at some point he was showing videos or playing sound clips to 3rd parties (eg his mates in the pub or other neighbours ) Yes that would be fair enough if plenty of warning was given - still high though IMO unless he is very wealthy. Thats the problem with press reports - you only typically get one side of the story.
|
|
aj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 345
Likes: 452
|
Post by aj on Oct 15, 2021 14:28:09 GMT
Besides lying/hostility/harassment of his neighbours, the problem the defendant had is he seems to believe that putting cameras everywhere would protect his property.
Unfortunately when he was robbed, all they took was his £200 smart camera... and the footage he got of the crime was useless.
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Oct 15, 2021 14:52:05 GMT
effectively a payment of damages for invasion of privacy, I'd guess in the normal run of things it would have been a lot less, but my reading of the information is that he was being deliberately provocative. One assumes long before it got to court that he had warning letters from solicitors etc and ignored them. The usage or misuse of her personal data regarding voice recording I'd guess that at some point he was showing videos or playing sound clips to 3rd parties (eg his mates in the pub or other neighbours ) Yes that would be fair enough if plenty of warning was given - still high though IMO unless he is very wealthy. Thats the problem with press reports - you only typically get one side of the story. I'm not sure about 'only one side of the story' though. I read that link (what was it, the Daily Wail?) and it seemed pretty clear to me from the judges comments they reported that there was a lot lot more to this. Esp. as they are not even immediate next door neighbours. I suspect the guy has been a complete and utter *****. Very occasionally the law is an ass. In this instance, I suspect its more a case of the defendant having been a complete a**e.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2021 14:58:22 GMT
So perverts and peeping toms can be clobbered with civil damages for making unwanted videos and audio recordings of other peoples private property? Excellent news
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,892
Likes: 2,767
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Oct 15, 2021 16:16:19 GMT
So perverts and peeping toms can be clobbered with civil damages for making unwanted videos and audio recordings of other peoples private property? Excellent news No. They go to jail and rightly so.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,892
Likes: 2,767
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Oct 15, 2021 16:19:15 GMT
Yes that would be fair enough if plenty of warning was given - still high though IMO unless he is very wealthy. Thats the problem with press reports - you only typically get one side of the story. I'm not sure about 'only one side of the story' though. I read that link (what was it, the Daily Wail?) and it seemed pretty clear to me from the judges comments they reported that there was a lot lot more to this. Esp. as they are not even immediate next door neighbours. I suspect the guy has been a complete and utter *****. Very occasionally the law is an ass. In this instance, I suspect its more a case of the defendant having been a complete a**e. Perhaps but my point was that if you haven't read the case you really don't know. The DM is a great example of a paper that usually leans to one side or the other hence why I assume you wouldn't get the full story by reading the entire article. They were clearly on the side of the bloke that has to pay 100K so may have omitted details from the case.
|
|
|
Post by mfaxford on Oct 15, 2021 18:38:15 GMT
Perhaps but my point was that if you haven't read the case you really don't know. The DM is a great example of a paper that usually leans to one side or the other hence why I assume you wouldn't get the full story by reading the entire article. They were clearly on the side of the bloke that has to pay 100K so may have omitted details from the case. I think the article about this in The Times was a bit more balanced and informative. I think that was saying the fine was up to £100k, it also commented that he'd been sharing the footage in a Whatsapp group. I was slightly put off by the fails online article when they seemed to be confused themselves:
|
|