Ring Door bell

[Rosegoldfan]

I was going to buy one or eufy? This has put me off?
Anyone else worried?

AIBU?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10085561/amp/A-victory-privacy-Woman-100k-damages-neighbours-doorbell-cameras.html

Apologies for fail link

From that article it looks like he was capturing far more than his property, stentor to hide the cameras and then lying about it, so no, not worried. We've got a ring doorbell and just make sure we use it sensibly. It only covers our property and is clearly visible. Several of our neighbours also already have either ring doorbells or CCTV.

I can't comment on the rights on wrongs of a ring doorbell because I'm conflicted but that entire article is full to the brim with 'sad face' type images - a whole photoshoot!

This does concern me. We have a shared driveway and even editing the vision means anyone going to either of our houses can be seen.

@GrimDamnFanjo

This does concern me. We have a shared driveway and even editing the vision means anyone going to either of our houses can be seen.

Just to be clear. I've got the ring doorbell, but it's vision covers both houses.

I stilk like the idea of them. Just wondering if it will look over at my neighbours home.

I think reading between the lines of the reported case, there’s rather more going on there than the ring doorbell…
The reports from various newspapers have been circumspect to say the least - I suspect largely edited by the papers’ legal departments.

Can you set the viewing angle on them?

The link shows that the person with the Ring there covered way more than they should've. If she'd been the ndn then I sort of understand but she's nowhere near them.

We have one but have limited the sensors to just our path. Out of respect of my neighbours privacy. But majority of our neighbours now have them.
Due to my limited sensors It’s missed a car being broken into, a delivery driving having his van stolen! It did capture a person running away after vandalised their ex’s car ….but it was useless as you couldn’t tell who the person was as it was grainy! I was asked to provide it but only sent it into the police who came to our door to request it.
Ohh and a person peeing in our bush after a drunk night at the pub!

That's the problem with them. When added to UK housing stock they throw up all sorts of issues and too many people just don't want to hear of their legal obligations when they get one.

If anyone has one check where it covers and either reduce it's field of vision or look at the ICO info on how to legally process the data you are collecting and how to inform neighbours etc.

As I walk through town here I can see a lot of them and NOT ONE of them conforms to the law. Amazon, and other sellers, should also be tackled over this as they don't provide all the correct legislation with each purchase

I don't understand this story.

Both houses are on the same side of the road, facing the road, with a third house and a road separating them. How could a camera on his house possibly have filmed her garden? (Obviously it must have, as the court said it did.)

Even if he mounted a camera pointed sideways at her garden, why would she care enough to both move out then sue him? I wouldn't care if a neighbours camera looked at my garden.

As someone said, there's a lot more to this story than someone installing a ring camera in the normal way. (Article does say he had more than one.)

Both houses are on the same side of the road, facing the road, with a third house and a road separating them. How could a camera on his house possibly have filmed her garden? (Obviously it must have, as the court said it did.) He set up 4, 2 were dummies. and it is the shed camera that the Dr complained about. Footage from it must have shown her back garden or the judge wouldn't have found against him!

And it was the audio recordings that seemed to have been the most intrusive. As it picked up her conversations in her won back garden you can surely see she had a point!

I’ve posted before about this.

Due to a dispute (not with me) mine and the houses either side of me are surveyed by a number of cameras. My whole house. Driveway. Garage. 24/7. I can see the cameras from every room in my house. They have night vision, audio and swivel 360 degrees.

All because the surveying home owner got irrationally pissed off with their neighbour. That means mine and others are monitored all the time. It’s like being an unwilling contestant with no prize.

You end up keeping the curtains drawn, modifying your behaviour and activities on your own property etc. so it may look like one of those head tilt for sympathy stories, but when you’ve paid hundreds of thousands for your home you have a reasonable expectation to privacy.

When I’m out on the street in public I know damn well I’m captured on cctv hundreds of times a day. I expect this. I don’t expect for my whole life to be documented by a neighbour who retains the footage for his own purposes.

If your CCTV (or doorbell) captures images beyond your property boundary, such as your neighbours’ property or public streets and footpaths, then your use of the system is subject to the data protection laws.

This does not mean you are breaking the law. But it does mean that, as the CCTV user, you are a data controller. So you will need to comply with your legal obligations under the data protection laws.

You can still capture images, but you need to show you are doing it in ways that comply with the data protection laws and uphold the rights of the people whose images you are capturing.

There's a guide on the ICO website.
ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/domestic-cctv-systems-guidance-for-people-using-cctv/

Reading between the lines that chap in the DM didn't abide by any of the rules.

*unwilling contestant on big brother

It's how he used the data that caused the problem.
Our ring only captures our front door. I've never seen our neighbours on it except at our door

It wasn't the doorbell it was his ring floodlight camera that is the issue. You've alway been supposed to limit your cameras to your own property as much as possible (including partially covering the lense if necessary).
The knock on effect from this is that the rozzers will end up losing useful evidence in serious crime cases...

No, the knock on effect will be that neighbours won't be able to spy on neighbours, film people inside their own homes.

If the police want to catch more criminals then they need to have words with the government and get more funding. Private citizens should never be routinely expected to police their environs on behalf of the constabulary.

My understanding of the pictures was that the development they lived in featured small car parks around which a number of houses were built, with their gardens overlooking the car park. The defendant's ring floodlight camera was mounted to a shed in his garden which overlooked "his" spots in that car park, but also captured the surrounding area including the doctor's garden across the car park. It also meant she and other residents were seen crossing the car park to and from their homes.

I have one and to be honest they’re not the best anyway. By the time mine has connected the person knocking has usually walked off. Sometimes it doesn’t ring at all.

Nope doesn’t worry me. Our ring picks up the smallest area outside of our door, the other ring cameras face our car on our drive (not the street or next door) and the garden and just our garden.
As long as it just covers your property then you’re fine, also the pavement is also fine.

@HoardingSamphireSaurus

No, the knock on effect will be that neighbours won't be able to spy on neighbours, film people inside their own homes.

If the police want to catch more criminals then they need to have words with the government and get more funding. Private citizens should never be routinely expected to police their environs on behalf of the constabulary.

Plod are generally hopeless at catching criminals but very good at solving major crimes. Domestic CCTV footage has been a goldmine for many a murder investigation and losing that source of evidence because people fret about filming the pavement outside their house couldbe a significant hindrance.

You are permitted to capture images beyond the boundary of your property.

However if you do, you are subject to the data protection legislation, in the case reported in DM Judge said he breached UK GDPR by not handling her personal data in a 'fair and transparent manner'.

This could mean many things, such as not keeping the footage securely, sharing it, or not providing it when the neighbour had made a subject matter request.

If you are concerned about the legality of using CCTV or a doorbell camera you might like to read the guidance provided by the ICO.
ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/domestic-cctv-systems-guidance-for-people-using-cctv/

Is that article anything to do with the thread that was on here? Tried to find it and couldn’t.

I fucking hate them. My neighbours directly opposite had one that pointed directly at our house. They even sent me footage of me on the street playing with my son

I don't fucking know why everyone has to be filming everything all the time..

Also think there's more to this story. How would she even know that it could record conversations she was having in her garden? He must have mentioned to her something she had been saying. That would make me feel nervous.