Court rules that Ring video doorbell invaded neighbor's privacy

[simitra]

A judge in the UK has ruled that a homeowner's Ring Video Doorbell constituted an invasion of their neighbor's privacy, in a court case that could potentially have implications for how smart security cameras are designed and used.

The homeowner who installed the smart doorbell and another security camera, faces a substantial fine after the judge upheld a claim by his neighbor, that the doorbell's video and audio recording features broke data laws and could contribute to harassment.

I have one of these devices (not ring but similar) as I am elderly, disabled and live alone in a "nice" area. After two attempted break ins I installed CCTV and a full security system with panic alarms. I use it to monitor callers and only open the door when I am expecting a visitor or when a package is being delivered. I use it to dismiss sales people and others I do not wish to engage with.

I think there is far more to that story than is being reported.

From what I understand it was because the camera was pointed at a public car park not his private property. He also did not have any signs up saying 'CCTV'. Ring doorbells come with a little sticker you need to put up.

But as PP said there is definitely more to it than he simply had a Ring doorbell and security camera. The neighbour who complained had moved out of her house as she felt so watched. So definitely more to it

Yes I have the feeling too! The report said that the home owner was showing his NDN his renovations and security system and she became alarmed at the pictures the various cameras could capture.

There was also some mention of an ongoing "dispute" so it sounds like there was considerabe discussion/activity before the case got to court. Given the delay imposed by covid and the cost of prosecuring such a case I agree that there is probably some unreported background which sheds further light.

I doubt very much if most people's neighbours have the money to begin such a case,

My front door is up the side of the house. So my door bell only shows the person standing immediately in front of the door - not passers by or the other properties in the street.

prosecuring = prosecuting

There was an allegation of some form of harassment. I think the media have just focused on the Ring doorbell aspect of the story. I.dont see it opening the floodgates for everyone who's neighbour has one. As pp said, there's definitely more to it

There’s something odd going on.

The GDPR explicitly excludes processing data for domestic purposes from its scope. I suspect that the judge has found he is harassing his neighbour and therefore his actions can no longer be considered purely domestic.

For non harassers, using a ring doorbell should not pose any problem.

If the camera was pointed at a public car park then it would have shown numerous people going about their business, in the way that the cameras in the car parks of other buildings such as stores and supermarkets do. There was some mention of a camera pointing directly into the NDNs garden which would be out of order.

There was a photo of the houses. His house wasn't next door to hers and besides a Ring doorbell is limited to what it can see
All you'd see is someone walking past your house & again going by the photos there seemed to he another path to her house which avoided hers.

Would be interesting to hear the actual true version of what went on rather than making the news story about Ring

I read the sentencing details last night (don't have the link on my phone;sorry) but the summary is that the defendant was clearly a massive throbber, gave conflicting statements in court, pointless witnesses etc. Predictably the media have run with the 'shocking' headline only.

Just having a ring doorbell & CCTV covering your own property/public areas ( & a bit of reasonable overspill onto neighbours driveway, as would be expected) is perfectly fine.

Judgment details here:

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Fairhurst-v-Woodard-Judgment-1.pdf

Thanks for the link. Its clear that the defendent harassed the complainent by threatening to install even more invasive equipment.

I think one of the issues was the security system was recording sound including regular conversations. At the time, it was not an option to turn that off on Ring (I think it now is). But that was judged a big invasion of privacy.