I can't afford a ring camera subscription ( not that id want one) let alone a UA-cam channel one. I always hope one day there will be free clear transparent full advise for Harrasment and Stalking as im sure it could save a life. If these actions were nipped in the bud by the person being stalked earlier on, by them knowing their rights, their protection would come quicker.. There is no free access to help in law for anyone in harassment or stalking unless you are the accused.
not a lawyer nor in the UK either but i find it weird that the non-expectation of privacy in public didn't come up. however its true that if the camera was pointing into the neighbour's yard or something that would be a breach of privacy, there is also the use of someone's likeness that comes into account. for sure if videos of a person was published or shared without consent that would probably be a breach of privacy as well however.
@RR Extra No Daniel (BlackBeltBarrister) is not a Freemason, this question has been asked numerous time and the answer is No, although he does know some.
This is the second home in which ua-cam.com/users/postUgkx0jZ_lGlDVJhDnmagEU8gn47cmfPNlLQU we've replaced our "regular" doorbell with a Ring video doorbell and we really enjoy it. It is very easy to install and it works very well, with a clear picture through the app and good in-home use (we added the chime, which is also easy to install and doesn't require another thought to use).
A lot of people in this comment section haven't actually watched the video. It's an extremely reasonable judgement that means you're perfectly within your right to own a few CCTV cameras, but, amazingly, you might get into trouble if you're harassing your neighbours, surveilling them without their permission, or shining a floodlight though their front window at all hours of the night. And no, I'm pretty confident you're not allowed to do that in Texas either.
in the united states there is case law that says you have no expectation of privacy in public. so if your not on their property and it can be seen from public or your property you can record it. audio would be a different matter, especially if your cctv camera is capable and you do record audio and you do not have a sign indicating both audio and video are being done. in order for it to be legal it must be obvious, such as a person on the street with a cell phone recording.. people know the cell phone audio records so its obvious if they are holding it in a manner consistant with using it as a recording device that it will capture audio. you might have heard of 1 party consent states and 2 party consent states. 1 party consent states refer to recording conversations -that they are a part of- without needing consent of the other party. people can run afoul of this if they are secretly recording like this and the person gets a phone call and has a conversation on the phone -that the person doing the recording is not a part of- and the person on the phone is not aware of a recording being made, the person recording could face criminal charges of what some states call wire tapping, or something like it depending on the circumstances -does not apply to a conversation the person recording is a part of-. if they are not secretly recording then those charges would not apply (if you told them you are recording because it is not obvious, or you are obviously recording). 2 party consent states it mostly applies to phone calls but also applies when not on phone and its not obvious your recording and not in public (how it applies in public can get tricky). as for a light, you can get drapes and use them to create privacy
It was a stupid judgment. I've got all these cameras including a light that goes on every time they detect motion and I live in a flat, I'd like to see my neighbours make me remove them. My car had its windscreen smashed which is why I got them. If I remove my cameras that I have pointing on the car park which alerts me if anyone goes near my car, are they going to pay for my car if it gets damaged? They also record audio
Don’t apologise for the length of the video, it was a good thorough overview. Thanks for all you legal insights, they are appreciated by this mature law student 😉
The reporting on this case has been wildly misleading. It's all been reported as being about a ring doorbell, but the ring doorbell has virtually nothing to do with it (in this case), with it being about a much more intrusive recording system, and the attitude of the householder who had it all installed.
i was about to comment this... ll of them going on about the ring door bell yet it was actually because the dude had cameras pointing into his neighbours garden for no valid reason. essentially if you have cameras make sure they are of your property
@John F Yes, but that comes under the Public Safety Act (not sure of the year, but no doubt its been updated a lot of times). Its not recording sound and only criminal activity should be stored after being recorded for the purpose of Prosecuting. Every day to day goings on will not be stored or filed, in less again, the recording shows criminal activity. However I do understand what you mean.
So he installed cameras that overlooked his neighbor and floodlights that lit up his neighbour's house, without speaking to his neighbour, then lied that the cameras were nonoperational, then threatened to send footage of his neighbour to other neighbours and police (when no crime had been committed). In other words, acted like a complete creep and arsehole. And now there is firm precedent that you can have cameras, but don't be a creep/arsehole about it. This sounds like a win.
Yes the issues you discuss are very real. As an installer of security systems and CCTV, I am very careful where cameras point and my advice to customers. This group of issues is very well understood in the Pro security industry. While the details and the specifics may vary from country to country and across local authorities, the general principles remain the same. Just as a matter of interest, pretty much all modern CCTV equipment will record audio in some quantity and detail, but, almost without exception, that feature is turned off as a factory default, we almost never record audio. Recording audio is a legal minefield, very few professionals want to tiptoe thru. This group of issues has become, somewhat more of a concern in recent years as the, recording time, image quality and low light performance of CCTV systems has dramatically improved.
Hi BB, great video again. Very informative. My cameras (4) aren't particularly good - actually chosen because they are only useful within the boundary of my property. The two on the rear of the house can only "see" my garden, shed and extent of the high fences. The front two are useful up to a range of about five metres. I was visited by the police a few months ago as the neighbour across the road had a break in and they wanted to see if it had been captured. Unfortunately for my neighbour the footage was useless due to the low res image and reach beyond my front drive. Fortunately for me though, it proved that the privacy of others wasn't compromised. My next door neighbour did object when I put them up a few years ago as she didn't want me to record her "comings and goings" as the track of her vehicle is across the front of my property but I declined her objections. It is a sticky subject though and I foresee many issues in the future, Ironic in our evermore "recorded" society.
We had a problem set of people down the street, who for no reason, started targeting us and even trying to damage my car. The little girl, on orders from her mother, sprayed something into my mother face. The police were called obviously, and they suggested, and almost insisted, that I set up a camera on the front window to catch her in the act. So I did. We caught her, and now they're gone. I have a camera set up at my front window now, 24/7, and I'll never remove it. it watches over my car, so it's doing what it's intended to do.
@JoeM why are you panicked?? this case clearly shows as long as you are not a knob about anything the camera will be ok they didn't even get the guy on nuisance for the lights flashing in the windows. Just don't threaten people with the use of cameras and the images they capture, make sure the cameras have a legal purpose and that is what they do, be aware of GDPR like don't log and store data that has no reason to be logged and stored and if a neighbour asks for it to not go over their property tweak the angle or block portion of the field of view. For most normal people this is completely fine and civil way of acting.
@JoeM The law is clear even with this judgement and it hasn't been deemed unlawful to film outside of your own property, law is not as black and white as you seem to think it is even murder can be justified. think about the camera as a person if you are going about your business and hear your neighbour talking or see them going to their car everything is fine but if you start watching over the fence for hours, writing down what they say then threatening so tell the police they have commit crimes, showing other neighbours your notes on them. then things turn into this case and you might have legal issues. When a case goes to court that is literally just a ring doorbell and the owner gets a fine then that is the time to worry not over this case.
@JoeM as i understand it he was doing things like telling her he was sending footage to police then never sending it and thus causing her alarm and distress, also sharing information on her with other neighbours, lying as you say about false cameras and telling her he had set up secret cameras to monitor her. From my limited understanding this case was much more about his aggressive and threatening behaviour with the cameras than the cameras themselves. the parts of the claim that they got against him was GDPR which is easy to solve just have it delete the video once a week or whatever and don't start harassing people with the data, and allow people to see their own data if requested to. And the other part was harassment which is all the things he did with her image and data, not that the data existed but his use of that data. The judge ruled the camera overlooking her property was not nuisance, this strengthened the president for the right to record in public. From the @Blackbeltbarrister 's explanation privacy laws regarding rights to film people in public were not considered in the judgement other than GDPR. The whole framing of this case has been about the ring camera for clicks but really it is much more about neighbours using cameras for harassment and clarification of GDPR.
What a perfectly reasonable judgement - had been thinking of buying one of these types of devices, but I'm very close to a couple of neighbors - will certainly double check with them before fitting anything external.
Viewing this from USA, this judgement seems to be overly restrictive to me. A person should be perfectly able to record video of all areas of their property even if 12 cameras were used. As to neighbors, it seems to me that cameras should be placed to minimize viewing of neighboring private properties, but within the limits of what is reasonably practical. For example, I shouldn't be prevented from recording the outside of my shed because there is no way to mount a camera that does not record a slight portion of a neighbors property. And audio recordings can be as helpful as video recordings - and there should a reasonable middle ground that perhaps allows recording audio from near the center of a property but avoids it near a property line. Tesla cars can record video from several external cameras - and other cars will likely follow suit going forward. Should this security feature be disabled because the video recordings may capture images from outside the owner's property?
@@atrinder8944 But no-one has the right to privacy from public. I get what you are saying and I agree, but anything that can be seen from a public space is legal. Maybe the Barrister can clear this one up.
Excellent timing... just spent the weekend fitting multiple Ring cameras at my parent's house. While you can't restrict the field of view easily, it's the work of seconds to set the camera zone of interest up to only cover your own property.
This is reassuring information as my neighbors and I have cameras due to mail theft. A man in a rental van was following the Fedex and UPS trucks to get into the apartment lobby, taking whatever he wanted, unquestioned. We posted pictures of him around the building and never saw him again. No sound and very specific views.
If a neighbour had a motion activated camera that was pointing at my property, I would be tempted to dress up as a grey alien or ghost or something and have a bit of fun for a few minutes in the middle of the night (on my own land of course). It would be interesting to see how they would react.
Fantastic video. Thank you so much. I had a neighbour who put up CCTV cameras and it was recording my front door and me leaving and coming home. Also recording my voice conversations with my partner when we'd sunbathe in front garden in the summer. She was a single mother who was so jealous of me moving in with her neighbour and start spreading vile and untrue roumers about me. She used to wait until me and my partner would come home in the evenings and shout vile and hateful stuff at us. Little does she know her own camera was the best evidence we have as it's coming to court. She's still stuck in her little corporation house paid for by taxpayer spying on people daily as she has nothing else to do and no man in his right mind would go near her. So it was a case of 'Hoisted by her own petard'. We've since moved to a much nicer neighborhood and have heard she's now harassing the new tennents of our old house. So delighted not to have to look at her pig ugly face again.
Had someone move in next door and set up cameras all around. They pointed one of their cams directly at my house so what i did was a back yard cleanup and had to walk by the cam every few minutes to dump trash, which means they are alerted every time i walked by. I must have passed in front at least 30 times which meant they were alerted 60 times going and coming back. Well next day noticed cams were pointed back to their own yard. That was funny.
Thank you for a very comprehensive summation and review! Interested to hear your general thoughts on a camera positioned such that it covers own property and public Highway only (not neighbours), since previous videos you have posted suggest there is no automatic or assumed right to privacy in a public space. I feel this is fundamentally different to a shared communal space, but as always it’s not that simple!
I was thinking precisely this! Would be interested to know the answer. Especially given the police request and use CCTV that captures movements on the public highway and this doesn't appear to be a Data Protection issue
I have a ring door bell camera. My neighbour across the Road as cameras all round his property. On two occasions we have been thanked by the Police for information in which was used in a court case in the jailing of two burglars that the Police had been after in the area for several years. More recently last week in the breaking in and stealing of contents of a car and a van. This is on going.
@@willmagicman1289 the Police only used the recording to identify who they were. Not in evidence as they both pleaded guilty. They were well known to them for targeting the elderly. The other on going case caught a well known criminal who targeted carriers vehicle
I have several cameras covering all the elevations of my house including a ring doorbell at the front, my neighbours are aware that they all record and that their gardens are covered in the field of view as well as part of the public highway at the front of both properties The cameras came in handy last weekend when a drunk , uninsured driver ploughed into their car outside on the road in the middle of the night
@@AA-be9rn Yes I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the police called and said thanks for the cctv footage but we’ve had to let the driver off for hurt feelings and we’re prosecuting you for harassment
@@liveloud9894 Absolutely this is the future were taking images will out way crime in an offence but the police ask for evidence, I've never agreed with removal of human rights but i do now for a massive overhaul.
My neighbour has a ring doorbell on their front door and a ring camera overlooking our shared driveway and garages. I'm fine with the video recording but to learn today that they record audio as well if absolutely frightening. I'm well pissed off and feel like taking it down for him.
Agreed, just left a comment regarding the press coverage of it. They would have you believe that anyone with a Ring doorbell is open for civil action. Very few news reports go into any of the reasons behind the judgment, and the very specific circumstances behind the case. But, nothing new there for main stream media.!!
Having read the judgment, the defendant did himself no favours and the damage to credibility was against him. The question I posed on linkedin was: if one can film in public (inc audio) without issue then why is it different if you film a public street from a private property? Can someone in the know explain the difference? I have seen subsequently that is from a ECJ case (2014?) but unfortunately I have not seen any reasoning rather just the ECJ computer says, so it says. Before anyone says, I am not a gdpr lawyer.
@Steve Gee I looked into this and there is an ECJ decision which makes it clear that private cctv of a public area will resulted in data protection issues. This I think was a Czech case back in 2014
First, the judgement was based on the UK's Data Protection Act (DPA) 2018, not the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Second, the ICO who uphold the DPA state on their website that the DPA does not apply "If you collect information about individuals for any reason other than your own personal, family or household purposes, you need to comply." They also go on to state in a section answering "Does it apply to me?": "You will not need to comply if you only use the information for your own personal, family or household purposes - eg personal social media activity, private letters and emails, or use of your own household gadgets."
I must admit, I was always under the impression that GDPR only applies to organisations and businesses, not private individuals. Back in 2014 I had my camcorder set up in my window, capturing a time-lapse. Long story short, someone complained to the police, but the police said I was well within my rights to have a camera filming from my window... 🤷♂️
@@theaylesburycyclist8756 The issue would only arise if you then use that footage to intimidate your neighbours, which appears to be the issue in this case, you are no longer using the data for its intended use.
*If you live in a newish home with external electric / gas meter boxes,* any criminal can simply open the electric box and switch off your homes power. This disables the internet router and any of these new 'security' systems that depend on WiFi are rendered useless! The suppliers do not offer this, but you would need a UPS connected to the system AND the router.
Not removing mine it gives me peace of mind during these dark evening’s. Let’s me know who is prowling around in my garden and who is at the door before I open it.
That's it isn't it, 4am this morning I caught two going through mine to get to the neighbours then across the gated community to the otherside, ruddy joke...
@@Arcticnick I bet there will be more now this reduction in benefits has come into effect, certain parts of the country I love visiting have it harder than other's.... It must be really hard for some families to get by and I can understand why some have resulted to stealing... I remember a time when people's could walk out of a job into another, non of this CV scenario that separates... A good days work for good pay and on there doorstep too.... not having to travel ninety minutes to work at a cost of a days wages as in some cases... I feel for these people's... Thirty years ago nothing was broke except the police and court systems...
I will have to tell you a funny story that is similar to the lights part of this but involves a barking dog. Years ago my mum and dad had a dog that hardly ever barked when it was in the garden. Well one particular night the dog was in the garden about ten pm and started barking resulting with the next door neighbours phoning to complain. Next morning the neighbour phoned again to apologise and explain why. They found footprints in a flower bed. The dog was barking at someone trying to break into their back window
I glad I find this the man moved in put a camera listening to every word I've been saying for 7 weeks it's nearly in my room police have done nothing his put it half way down the wall so he can hear every thing how can police do nothing ?? Who should I call ???
I had 4 cctv cameras covering my basement area, the stairs, the communal path to the other flats in the house and the main pavement. They were installed because I had anti social neighbours who were making my life unbearable. I had full permission from my Housing Association and the Police. They provided enough evidence for two different prosecutions - the teenage son was caught on audio swearing and threatening me and breaching his ASBO and got 240 hours community service. The Mum's boyfriend was caught vandalising one of the cameras and got fined £50 and had to pay compensation. I also caught a fight on their last day before they were evicting and on a separate occasion my motorbike and a neighbour's bike being knocked over by a Royal Mail van. I now only have a Ring doorbell which just covers my door area and a main camera which cover the motorbike parking bay.
@@willmagicman1289 Mine was relatively minor, but the exhaust was still £1000+. My neighbours Harley had more damage and took longer to repair. The Royal Mail van had driven into a parking space and clipped the bikes and they toppled over. Everything was caught on video, but they still didnt instantly except responsibility and settle the claim so it dragged on for many weeks resulting in expensive hire bikes and a big bill.
@@Alan-xxxxxx Yeah companies sometimes do that. An Iceland van reversed onto my drive and did 1500 pounds worth of damage to my vehicle. Their insurers denied liability right up until the point where my solicitors arranged a court date and reminded them that CCTV footage clearly showed their idiot driver doing the deed then driving away. At that point they finally settled. This is why CCTV or a dashcam is necessary now, because these bastards try to avoid paying out even when their client is so obviously at fault.
I asked the police and my neighbour housing officer to see if I could put up a camera pointing directly at my car and a doorbell and said yes. Exactly the same issues with ASB in my area. We had instances of lads trying front doors in the early hours. So I was concerned for my safety so they said yes go for it!
The defendant does not sound like a reasonable person. My CCTV system views areas outside of my property but it doesn't capture them, the system allows me to mark areas which I don't want recorded. The audio is activated when a person has entered my property and travelled 15m to my door. They will then be recorded in HD video and audio. The police has used my footage to take action against a person who was abusive to my daughter.
So you can be filmed in stores and town centre street's but its not ok to protect your property, next it will be dashcams in cars .I have my ring doorbell for various reasons and will not be removing it for anyone.
We had a problem family in our street back in 2000. They made peoples' lives a misery, particularly the elderly. My neighbour, who at the time was in her 70s, was one of their victims. Police and council refused to do anything except issue ASBOs which the youths of this family used as a badge of honour. Other people in the street were fed up with this family so we got together and formed a residents' association, made up of both council and private householders. Three of us put up CCTV. I had mine trained on both my neighbour's garden and my own, plus the parking bays across the street. My camera did have audio on it which recorded the foul language and threats from these youths when they decided to harrass my neighbour by sitting on her wall, throwing rubbish into her garden and threatening her with violence. All the footage was shown to the relevant authorities (the police and Council), also our MP at the time. The recordings were on video - it was before USB sticks and digital CCTV cameras so couldn't be uploaded to the internet like they can now. Eventually, the police and Council took action and the problem family were evicted. We have had no problems in our street since. Sadly, my neighbour passed away age 91 a few years ago. She was a good friend. My CCTV camera broke down years ago and I haven't replaced it. Sounds like this man was totally OTT.
Pythonaria What is written on the vehicle? Is it POLICE or police? They sound the same, but be clear. They are not the same thing. POLICE are a Service CORPORATION -Much like McDonalds All CORPORATE names are written in the ALL CAPS iteration When you actually 'see' what it is you are looking at and pay attention you will become aware of this fact. You need to be awake for that. Remember, Zombies have eyes but cannot see - Ears and cannot hear. When you study Law for a couple of decades you will learn that. The reason you are not taught Law in that CORPORATE GOVERNMENT indoctrination institution you refer to as school is because these things are not for the vulgar to know. Neither does it serve the EL-ite that you know it It is not secret, but it is 'secretive' and the majority of people just do not pay attention to detail. A human failing often leads to premature or catastrophic death. An incident will occur that will catch you off guard and kill you. I learned that as a pilot during my long - 30 year - Military Career
@@andrew_koala2974 I see what you're saying. In this case, the police were not to blame as they did take action against this family. It was the Courts who let them off time and time again. Social Services were involved with this family and had been for years. The "do-gooders" claimed that people in our street were making malicious accusations towards this family, in other words, they tried to turn the perpetrators into the victims. Once we had video evidence which was compiled over several months, it proved what we were all saying was correct. A meeting was arranged in the local hall with all the relevant authorities - the police, Council representatives, the ASBO people, local councillors and our MP. My elderly neighbour's son attended the meeting. What they didn't know was he was a Barrister. When he stood up at the meeting and spoke, it was a joy to behold as the whole lot on the stage were visibly squirming - especially when he informed them he was prepared to act for the whole street pro bono. The hall was packed out that night, it was standing room only and it's a big hall. Bear in mind this was 20 years ago. The police then are very different to the police now. Although the politicisation had already begun, it wasn't nearly so bad as it is now.
I have set my doorbell to just come on when it is rung and then I can see/hear the person who I would guess has consented to being on camera because they pressed the big button under the camera! It isn't actually recorded so I guess it's not an issue under data protection.
This is going to cause a huge issue when it comes to trades people considering almost everyone has cameras protecting their vehicles and sheds/garages now due to the police and legal system constantly failing to care, investigate, catch or protect peoples livelihoods when it comes to criminals carrying out peel and steal etc on vans and storage units. I suppose I can always put up a PIR activated flame thrower with signage stating "trespassers will be burnt, survivors will be crispy".
Oddly cameras viewing any outdoor area are with very rare exceptions fine. Its the lights and in most cases the audio that's the real problem. Many states require 2 party consent for audio recording and shining bright lights at other peoples houses can be considered harassment. Pointing security lights inward at your own property is hard to challenge.
Thames Valley police often call for door bell footage in the vicinity of a crime. My doorbell only records for 30 seconds and only when activated by a humans approach to my door. The activation zone is restricted to within my property. However, when activated it records the entire view of the video camera. I dont know how it could possibly record anything going on on the pavement, in the road, or by my neighbours front garden unless activated by a human approach to my door.
Thats a good point, activation zones are useful but if the whole camera view is recorded, and it covers other peoples private property, its a issue. It would be better if only the activation zones were recorded.
Excellent video, so glad I watched it ...This case was highly simplified by most media outlets to the point of being misleading! I have ring floodlight cameras front and back with the alarm and doorbell. This case worried me and I considered my own position regarding these. The Ring system is a very affordable way to provide peace of mind when away from home, but the floodlight cameras are highly configurable with regards to what they capture. Easy to disable sound recording and set zones that don't trigger recording and to black out viewing / recording areas altogether i.e. neighbouring properties. But I wonder from a GDPR point of view whether I should complete a DPIA?
This case seems to hinge on the misuse of the data collected (intimidation) rather than its legitimate collection for security or crime prevention reasons, the judgement appears to be entirely correct in this case, will be interesting to see if it is appealed and is looked at by the higher courts.
Shardlake Examined by a higher COURT NOT looked at by the higher courts Note that choice of words and correct grammar is critical in the application of Law. You have to educate yourself to a higher level by undertaking a lot of reading and increasing your vocabulary. Now tell me how many types of English are there. I know already that your answer will be incorrect COMMENT REFERENCE: Shardlake.2021102140500
@@andrew_koala2974 Punctuation is one category of rules that fall under the umbrella of grammar. In fact, punctuation is critical to many common grammar rules .
@@andrew_koala2974 American English, English English, Australian English , Canadian English and more if you count dialects. Language is not objective; it is subjective to the ways in which society constructs it.
Give the neighbour the recording devices and shpw them how to work them Then if You have a issue you want to review - you can go ask them for the playback. In that way - they are the custodian of the data which includes both them and you - and they have control over what you can review.
You are obviously unable to grasp the situation or indeed the reason for the judgment.Very little to do with this ring camera.Your spiteful little comments are a reflection of your ignorance.Grow up..
Since the story broke in the national press I've spoken to 3 neighbours who were almost paranoid about the subject. What little knowledge they did have came from a tabloid article. What little knowledge l had, and a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, is that anyone can take photos or videos in a public place, subject to certain "common sense" conditions. If you aim your camera at someone's children or a bedroom window that's a bit too weird in anyone's book. Likewise if you frequently take images or videos the same person without their permission. But perhaps people may fall foul of the law quite innocently and that's where advice like yours is invaluable, so thank you for explaining it so succinctly.
Most important is that each case is dealt with on it's own merits, situation can vary immensely. This case is a reference point of historical guidance, it's seems that the COURTS views of audio recording and storage is the main breach of DPA . Just wonder if an appeal is pending!!!
Wasn't it rather how the data was used i.e. to harass his neighbour which was deemed a breach. The court seem to be okay with using a video doorbell just to see who was walking up your path or ringing the bell.
The lights can be an issue if they are disturbing the neighbors and video taping over a fence that is presumed to be for privacy is not legal. But other than that it is legal to record anything in the public that you want.
So this is interesting. How would this court case affect parking mode Dashcams? My understanding of this situation is, my car is my property. Parked within a space that i own. How does it recording 24/7 apply with this particular court case? As it is on loop recording to ensure security of my vehicle. Additionally where it is parked is already covered by communal camera systems. But other spaces are also technically private property.
Collecting the footage is not the issue, what you do with it is, that seems to be the factor in this case, using footage to intimidate, not for the purpose it was intended - crime prevention.
@@shardlake but according to the outcome in this court case collecting footage is the issue as recording people coming and going, for example collecting patterns in which your neighbours enter and leave the street is a breach of gdpr according to this.
Photography ( including videography ) in a public place is NOT illegal . My dashcam also records 24/7 in parking mode and looks down my drive and therefore onto the street in front of my house . I never normally look at the footage which is overwritten every 24 hours or so , thus I am satisfied there is no breach of GDPR ; footage would only be looked at in the event of an incident being captured
There's a lot of cruel weirdos out there & UK has a terrible conviction rate for rape so it could be quite worrying if men are recording people each day & possibly planning to brutally attack & torture them. Merely saying "honestly I'm only going to look at the footage if something happens" may not be reassuring. But you have a right to secure your home with cameras. So IMO (i'm not lawyer) try hard not to do anything apart from cameras that might let people totally hammer you for costs on a harassment claim
My neighbour opposite me as a camera that looks directly at my house. There house sits higher up than mine and the bell camera points directly at my front window. I have spoke to them and i was shown the video on there phone. I was told it does not show much. It clearly shows my house and the houses either side. I think that i will be sending a letter by registered post. Also remember that Amazon can study these camera images.
This was really interesting as the typical press report was not clear but the long and short of this it was all down to two neighbours disagreeing with each other, the fact that the doorbell and cameras are just to clickbait for the media headline.
What about a Tesla? Or indeed any car with cameras that record when the car is parked. I'm thinking the World has moved on and, yet again, the Courts are struggling to catch up.
The issue was the misuse of the data, not collecting it, in this case the defendant used the data to intimidate the plaintiff, he was not using the cameras purely for the security purpose he claimed.
@@collincovid6950 I think you are allowed to aim your own cctv on the streets or anh public location, I found out, council cctv don't use audio. Although people can ask for subject access request, of the data controller of that cctv, if it is aimed on public locations, that is obviously for crimes, missing person cases etc that would benefit from a home owners cctv footage.
I think the same law applies, if it is in a public place then it is ok, if it is in a private place and you did not have permission to record there, then you probably have to turn it off.
Very well explained thanks. I don't like that the neighbouring business's security camera can see into my bathroom but on the other hand it makes it less likely that anyone's going to throw a brick through the window & climb in.
@@willmagicman1289 I don't have a bathroom window: the kitchen window overlooks the bathroom. I just keep the curtains shut. Opening & closing curtains everyday is a lot of work. If I had the money I'd get robot curtains. Robots don't ever make mistakes.
What about a mini Blink camera that is setup in a living room that *may* catch video/audio a communal courtyard garden through a patio door? Only collects when someone triggers camera (goes near patio doors) for 30 seconds. Already have obvious stickers on windows that CCTV is in use.
Of course, I live in an area where people don't live on top of each other like so many villages in the UK. Most of those cameras can have their triggering field limited.
Photography and videoing in a public place is not a crime and there’s no implied right to privacy in a public place, that’s why we’re filmed in petrol stations shops pretty much everywhere.
Correct, The plod just don't like it thats all, But we are the most monited country in the world with the most CCTV in our town and city's and that is just our Goverment watching us in the Uk,
Gary Jones Photography and video recording in a public place -- is the correct sentence. Don't screw up again. It is not difficult when you think about what you are writing Jones. We are not being FILMED - because FILM has not been used for almost three decades. Substitute Filmed for 'Recorded' Filmed is a specific description that is inaccurate for the reason stated above. Using the word Recorded is a more generic term. The problem is that you and most others have been so brainwashed into using the word FILMED that you find it difficult not to use it - Brainwashing is very effective and people do not realize what has been done to them. The same applies to the word PERSON. No one is born a PERSON - A PERSON is a CORPORATE fiction created in the 15th century for the purpose of conducting commerce. It is a DEAD Genderless entity that is im-PERSON-ating the living Soul, and has stolen the name and identity of the living soul. The only difference is that the PERSON has its name in ALL CAPS like the CORPSES in the cemetery. -- The FIRST NAME and LAST NAME - SURNAME were also created at that time. The living soul does not have a FIRST NAME and LAST NAME - SURNAME The living soul Man and WoMan (incorrectly pronounce wooman) have a 'Given Name' and 'Family Name' in Mixed Case Letters. ALL CORPORATE Names are in ALL CAPS Before you get to bed, look up in the Oxford Dictionary what PERSONA means. You will discover it is a Mask ... The PERSON is masking your true and real identity. Not knowing the difference between a Living Soul and a PERSON / INDIVIDUAL is how you are screwed in COURT SOME OF THE BEST GAMES ARE PLAYED IN A COURT Good luck and goodbye
@@OGGalleryCrew92 what do you mean the plod don’t like it? They love private cctv! Why do you think they keep looking for it when a crime has been committed?
Well presented video but leaves more questions than answers. For those of us who live in older cottages which look directly out onto the road the camera will only capture the area outside our boundaries. Our camera only activates when the button is pushed but at that stage it could inadvertently capture audio from passing members of the public. We don’t store anything on the cloud and delete everything daily but given the court decision it would appear the position of our home makes having advanced notification or time wasters on our doorstep is questionable.
An eminently sensible and reasonable judgement, analysed here by BBB in a clear and rational manner. A win all round for the law, for common sense and for decent behaviour, in my view. 👌✔
In such neighbour disputes, the existence or lack of previous skirmishes is often key. They are often the result of years of petty bickering, especially if the complainant was there before the alleged miscreant. An acquaintance of mine had to wait until the ‘neighbour from hell’ moved away before he could move himself. Every time a potential buyer arrived, his neighbour began his antisocial tirade. Naturally, such buyers quickly departed.
Umm I am having issues with my neighbour and CCTV, I dosent record any of his property but when he walks past my front you can see him! However It has caught him on multiple occasions kicking my doors of my van, and punching my wing mirrors in on my van as well. I do have multiple CCTV signs in view as well though.
Among others, I have 2 cameras to the front of my property facing in opposite, but overlapping, directions. Each can 'see' almost the full length of my short side street. No-one has ever had a problem with them. Neither has audio.
The other issue is of course what data does Amazon now hold on the subjects. The Ring (and all Amazon) equipment comes with a GDPR declaration and privacy/data policy. If you read it, you are consenting to a transfer of data to Amazon and Amazon's affiliates. So, in providing 3rd party data (neighbour, public etc.) to another 3rd party Amazon when technically that would be a breach in GDPR as you have no consent to transfer their data/footage/audio.... ??
Interesting thought but, the camera isn't on Amazon's property and only provide a cloud service TO the data controller (the person who operates and maintains the camera). It is the data controller that creates any data he processes, his responsibility. That includes, but is not limited to, where and how he stores the data. As an example, if I have a spreadsheet for guests' details at my hotel, sensitive stuff like name/address/copy of passport/licence... then upload that data to an unsecured server belonging to someone else, it is not their fault if that data becomes compromised. It is mine for not considering the safety of the data.
Even the police ask for your cctv footage if there is a crime in the area. 'I'm sorry officer, due to gdpr I can only discuss this with the perpertrator. As you are clearly not him we won't be able to discuss this with you'.
Hi, how about having a dash cam (Taxi/PHV) interior recording for security purposes (as some passengers nowadays make false claims & ruin driver's lives, what are the rights as a driver? Thank you.
Here in the US, if anything In your front or back yard can be see through a public thoroughfare (ie. the street) you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
From what you say it surely follows that anyone filming anything in public (outside the boundary of their property) has to comply with data protection requirements? I thought there was no right to privacy for people when they are out in public (e.g. walking on a public footpath). So why would a ring camera that captures someone walking past your property on the footpath be covered by data protection. Makes no sense. And another thing .... even if I got the approval of my neighbors - what about general passers by, people visiting the neighbors etc. Obviously you cant get their permission....
I think because it is mounted on a private property or from a private property. You can still film anything you like from a publicly accessible area. The guy can leave his door and go and look at the womans house all day. If it goes through and elecctronic lens from a private dwelling that must be different
However, security cameras capture footage for the purpose of “security” and the data used as such. Street photography on the other hand mainly captures images / video for entertainment or the purpose of documenting what is going on.
Spoke to my neighbour today about mine and apologised for not doing so BEFORE installing it, he said hed noticed it but really didnt mind as other people also have them. The peace of mind they offer is in my opinion invaluable. Thanx BBB, always informative and interesting video 👍
My main concern with RING doorbells (and similar products) is that all footage 24/7 is stored on Amazon servers outside the UK where data protection may not apply. I don't mind the old fashioned CCTV that records at home with no access to the internet. But as a delivery driver, every day I'm on the job, being recorded 5-10 times by a private multinational company incl face recognition - it's a bit freaky. I know Google does the same when I use my android phone. But at least there's a benefit for me too. So the question is who I'm going to ask to remove video footage of my person? The person who owns the doorbell? He may not even be aware that such footage exists.
Amazon (AWS to be precise) has 3 data centres in the UK. For simple reason of cost, noone would bother to ship the data across the world if they can keep it locally. Not to mention latency and resulting bandwidth limits when transferring data across the ocean.
Also GDPR applies if the subject is a citizen of the European Union. GPDR was introduced while UK was in the EU and so was put in to UK law and then subsequently kept in post brexit.
The issue here was abuses as a data controller. Apparently she asked to see the scope of the cameras and he denied. That is a breach of the data protection act. As a data controller you have obligations to be transparent with people's data if you are filming them from private property onto public/another private property. The problem here was the shed camera anyway, not the ring camera which doesn't even face the neighbour's house.
I purchased CCTV to film two adjoining houses (rented out) being used for drug manufacture and distribution and I would be happy as a law abiding person to be prosecuted for GDPR and banged up for doing so!
I have a ring doorbell. In the app for it you can set the proximity within the app to outline your property. If you don't then it would annoy you every time a car or person went past the property.
Have a story: I buy and sell on eBay. As a bit of interest, I sometimes have a look where some things are headed - it's actually quite interesting - like a sofa based tour of Great Britain. I sell the most unusual of goods and so they must be going to interesting buyers.. I'd gotten a factory siren really cheap. I was going to use it for fun things but it was far too loud. It had to go. I listed it online and waited. Starting price £4 the bids quickly came in. I sold it for 10x what I'd paid. I was happy. Being so unusual, I checked the buyers address. I was stunned. I won't name the location but suffice to say the buyer was slightly OTT with security. They lived mid-terrace and their entire section of roof had a layer of steel mesh over it. The windows had internal and external bars on them. I counted 8 alarm boxes on the walls - 4 front and 4 at the rear, I lost count of the security cameras. I often wonder if their neighbours enjoyed the siren he'd purchased off me.
I have one on my front door, but use block out zones as well as a recording activation area so I don't capture the neighbours. They actaully were happy I had one as its a great deterrent for antisocial behavour, and they have one as well now.
Interesting case! Does this mean that Supermarkets can use cameras to record customers when they pay at self service tills. They are not recording the actual transaction but the customer! My local supermarket has over 100 hundred cameras in the checkout area. Legitimate purpose or intrusive data capture?
@@StevieProton Every supermarket in my area has a sign up about 5m away from the public areas affected by their cameras, so, yes, they just realised signs are more cost effective
Here in Oz, a person has a right to privacy where there is a 'reasonalbe expectation of privacy'. Eg, in the privacy of their own home, or behind the fence in their own back yard. All test cases must pass the reasonableness' test. If my fence is high enough that you would not ordinarily be able to see over it, then I am entilted to privacy from security cameras looking over it.
I got told by police in the UK this year was only May time, That CCTV footage took off your own cctv can "NOT" be used in a court of law as it can have been doctored it has got to be off another cctv of the same incident !
@@OGGalleryCrew92 that is incorrect, footage can be used in court, however a defence team could argue what your saying and it could come under scrutiny and points of law could be argued out between defence and prosecution teams in front of the judge before the trial starts but if it is deemed to have not been altered in any way the judge can rule in favour and allow it to be used.
My house is directly onto a pavement at the front. My car is street parked nearby. I have two cameras, one at each end of the house. One records the front of the house and the other records my parked car. There is no communal area. By default, all movement in the street is therefore recorded 24hrs a day. Immediate neighbours are not concerned, but the occupants of the entire street will be recorded at some stage. Recording are only ever viewed if an 'incident' occurs. Puzzling .......
@@notsohairybiker ... Simon, there's no obvious answer. We are recorded every minute of the day by the 'State' so if someone isn't happy with my cameras, then tough !
My circumstance is same as yours Neil pointing down to the pavement above my front door, with passing traffic the sound has allways been bizarre and so have just turned audio off in settings and hope it makes it legal, and as other people have pointed out if you have a dashcam in your car on 24 hour mode what's the difference, think this will be overturned in high court.
Nope some people are of a "it's not my fault" attitude even if they are drink driving. Friendly conversations do not work with many people. I have one guy on the enclosed estate where I live who is about the most racist person I have ever met. EG peeing through peoples letter boxes verbal abuse and even threatening one tiny 67yo lady. Do you honestly think a person like that can be reasoned with?
@@gordonlawrence1448 The lady was psychologically obsessed that she was being spied upon and being stalked a state of mind that wasn't justified in this country absolutely saturated with cctv, you really don't believe for one moment that all cameras recording are clearly defined and clearly visible.
My neighbour has a ring doorbell. I have disputed it with the housing association for 6 months. They have ignored my complaints. She lives next-door. Our doors are 1ft apart. I live in a One up, One down. She captures my comings and goings as well as anybody visiting my home. Recording audio at my front door. It's outrageous how my rights to live a private, peaceful life have been ignored. Last week Clarion threatened to take my privacy screen down. They now class the area outside my door a communal area. Clarion keep moving the goal posts. I have in writing and email stating they are not allowed in communal areas. Clarion housing have treated me terribly. I am at my wits end. This has really effected my life. I don't no what to do.
Would it have been the same if the camera was attached to his car. Because we can record everything we can see from a public place. I was a bit worried about my DashCam😬
Under normal circumstances it is fine to film in a public place, it's not against the law, but it may be on private land. Usually on private land the landowner will have a sign indicating that filming is prohibited.
How do you go about raising a case like this? My neighbour installed a floodlight camera which seems to point at my property. I have asked them if they could move it to point directly at their gate but they refused instead of my house (it seems to be a wide angle camera with their gate being at the edge of it's view). The police said "it's a civil matter" and the ICO said "we'll write to them but we have no power to force them to move it". I contacted a local solicitor who said "it may not be cost effective to issue a solicitor letter" which I take to mean that they simply didn't want to take the case on.
Find some way to make it a nuisance to be pointing at your property and they'll soon shift it. ie a flood light or laser pointer which comes on when theirs does and blows out the image on the camera.
Mine records in a loop. I put a pretty substantial memory card in it, so it's probably a fairly long loop. i would have thought that the fact the footage is automatically deleted after relatively short time and not routinely (or in my case ever) reviewed would make a fair difference to the legitimate purpose aspect.
I think a dashcam is fine. There are a lot of nuances in the GDPR but generally speaking if your system is installed for a lawful purpose (i.e. preventing crime), you don't keep the footage any longer than necessary (most dashcams will automatically overwrite old footage within hours or days ar most) and you don't use the footage for other purposes (harassing your neighbours, for example) then there shouldn't be a problem.
I live in a 1st floor flat with another flat above mine, and so therefore share a common close entrance. My upstairs neighbours are (unfortunately) junkies. After they moved in I've had nothing but problems, packages being stolen, there door has been kicked in countless times so I installed a ring doorbell camera. The police have requested footage from it on numerous occasions now including when a visitor to their property (another junkie) went upstairs brandishing a foot long knife. I refuse point blank to turn off audio recording on the camera as I habitually check my camera before leaving home so I know it is safe to do so. My neighbour has actually tried to use my camera footage to make false allegations against a third party which after the police have reviewed the footage then warned my neighbour about wasting police time. To hell with DPA, my camera will continue to record video AND audio.
Alex Wilson there door has been kicked in ? Where is There exactly? What is that place? Did you ever learn the difference between Their and There? I would also suggest you do not know the difference between ON and on nor the difference between Passing and overtaking.
@@andrew_koala2974 *Yawn* One mistake which I noticed after posting and then couldn't be bothered to go back and edit. You can suggest anything you like, it doesn't make it true. But at least I didn't feel the need to capitalise the word 'there' in the middle of a sentence. Go troll elsewhere as you'll receive no more responses from me.
![What To Do If You Get Sued But You Don't Have The Money [Walkthrough]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yI1UQuT_qok/mqdefault.jpg)
Try this next: ua-cam.com/video/i_bqIbVT6a0/v-deo.html
Exclusive courses: blackbeltbarrister.com/
I can't afford a ring camera subscription ( not that id want one) let alone a UA-cam channel one. I always hope one day there will be free clear transparent full advise for Harrasment and Stalking as im sure it could save a life. If these actions were nipped in the bud by the person being stalked earlier on, by them knowing their rights, their protection would come quicker.. There is no free access to help in law for anyone in harassment or stalking unless you are the accused.
May I ask if there are laws regarding internal private cctv cameras as I have found none.
not a lawyer nor in the UK either but i find it weird that the non-expectation of privacy in public didn't come up. however its true that if the camera was pointing into the neighbour's yard or something that would be a breach of privacy, there is also the use of someone's likeness that comes into account. for sure if videos of a person was published or shared without consent that would probably be a breach of privacy as well however.
Yes and no rules on dash cams outside schools.....
@RR Extra No Daniel (BlackBeltBarrister) is not a Freemason, this question has been asked numerous time and the answer is No, although he does know some.
This is the second home in which ua-cam.com/users/postUgkx0jZ_lGlDVJhDnmagEU8gn47cmfPNlLQU we've replaced our "regular" doorbell with a Ring video doorbell and we really enjoy it. It is very easy to install and it works very well, with a clear picture through the app and good in-home use (we added the chime, which is also easy to install and doesn't require another thought to use).
A lot of people in this comment section haven't actually watched the video. It's an extremely reasonable judgement that means you're perfectly within your right to own a few CCTV cameras, but, amazingly, you might get into trouble if you're harassing your neighbours, surveilling them without their permission, or shining a floodlight though their front window at all hours of the night. And no, I'm pretty confident you're not allowed to do that in Texas either.
This a uk law not the us
in the united states there is case law that says you have no expectation of privacy in public. so if your not on their property and it can be seen from public or your property you can record it. audio would be a different matter, especially if your cctv camera is capable and you do record audio and you do not have a sign indicating both audio and video are being done. in order for it to be legal it must be obvious, such as a person on the street with a cell phone recording.. people know the cell phone audio records so its obvious if they are holding it in a manner consistant with using it as a recording device that it will capture audio. you might have heard of 1 party consent states and 2 party consent states. 1 party consent states refer to recording conversations -that they are a part of- without needing consent of the other party. people can run afoul of this if they are secretly recording like this and the person gets a phone call and has a conversation on the phone -that the person doing the recording is not a part of- and the person on the phone is not aware of a recording being made, the person recording could face criminal charges of what some states call wire tapping, or something like it depending on the circumstances -does not apply to a conversation the person recording is a part of-. if they are not secretly recording then those charges would not apply (if you told them you are recording because it is not obvious, or you are obviously recording). 2 party consent states it mostly applies to phone calls but also applies when not on phone and its not obvious your recording and not in public (how it applies in public can get tricky).
as for a light, you can get drapes and use them to create privacy
It was a stupid judgment. I've got all these cameras including a light that goes on every time they detect motion and I live in a flat, I'd like to see my neighbours make me remove them. My car had its windscreen smashed which is why I got them. If I remove my cameras that I have pointing on the car park which alerts me if anyone goes near my car, are they going to pay for my car if it gets damaged? They also record audio
Don’t apologise for the length of the video, it was a good thorough overview. Thanks for all you legal insights, they are appreciated by this mature law student 😉
Thank you for saying so 😉
Yet again, there's so much more to this case than initially meets the eye.
The reporting on this case has been wildly misleading. It's all been reported as being about a ring doorbell, but the ring doorbell has virtually nothing to do with it (in this case), with it being about a much more intrusive recording system, and the attitude of the householder who had it all installed.
Exactly my point! 👍
I agree and was going to say this. The media only report, out of context, about the ring doorbell and nothing else.
i was about to comment this... ll of them going on about the ring door bell yet it was actually because the dude had cameras pointing into his neighbours garden for no valid reason.
essentially if you have cameras make sure they are of your property
Any video recording system on your own property CANNOT BE INTRUSIVE.
@John F
Yes, but that comes under the Public Safety Act (not sure of the year, but no doubt its been updated a lot of times).
Its not recording sound and only criminal activity should be stored after being recorded for the purpose of Prosecuting.
Every day to day goings on will not be stored or filed, in less again, the recording shows criminal activity.
However I do understand what you mean.
So he installed cameras that overlooked his neighbor and floodlights that lit up his neighbour's house, without speaking to his neighbour, then lied that the cameras were nonoperational, then threatened to send footage of his neighbour to other neighbours and police (when no crime had been committed). In other words, acted like a complete creep and arsehole. And now there is firm precedent that you can have cameras, but don't be a creep/arsehole about it. This sounds like a win.
Clearly a simple case of neighbours not getting on with each other and airing their dirty laundry in the courts.
Dont agree, Harassment using surveillance is intimidation and tantamount to stalking I am in it it is very real
Yes the issues you discuss are very real.
As an installer of security systems and CCTV, I am very careful where cameras point and my advice to customers.
This group of issues is very well understood in the Pro security industry.
While the details and the specifics may vary from country to country and across local authorities, the general principles remain the same.
Just as a matter of interest, pretty much all modern CCTV equipment will record audio in some quantity and detail, but, almost without exception, that feature is turned off as a factory default, we almost never record audio. Recording audio is a legal minefield, very few professionals want to tiptoe thru.
This group of issues has become, somewhat more of a concern in recent years as the, recording time, image quality and low light performance of CCTV systems has dramatically improved.
Items contained within, one Ring camera, one UK 50 page judgement and instruction manual. 😃😂😃😂😃😂😃😂😃😂😃😂
In 300 different languages, don't forget.!😀
I expect that just fine 🆘 👀 🥁 .
@@Stuart_George Hahaha!
Classic 😂
You are right, it does ring a bell !!
Hi BB, great video again. Very informative. My cameras (4) aren't particularly good - actually chosen because they are only useful within the boundary of my property. The two on the rear of the house can only "see" my garden, shed and extent of the high fences. The front two are useful up to a range of about five metres. I was visited by the police a few months ago as the neighbour across the road had a break in and they wanted to see if it had been captured. Unfortunately for my neighbour the footage was useless due to the low res image and reach beyond my front drive. Fortunately for me though, it proved that the privacy of others wasn't compromised. My next door neighbour did object when I put them up a few years ago as she didn't want me to record her "comings and goings" as the track of her vehicle is across the front of my property but I declined her objections. It is a sticky subject though and I foresee many issues in the future, Ironic in our evermore "recorded" society.
We had a problem set of people down the street, who for no reason, started targeting us and even trying to damage my car. The little girl, on orders from her mother, sprayed something into my mother face. The police were called obviously, and they suggested, and almost insisted, that I set up a camera on the front window to catch her in the act. So I did. We caught her, and now they're gone. I have a camera set up at my front window now, 24/7, and I'll never remove it. it watches over my car, so it's doing what it's intended to do.
That complies with gdpr, it's doing what it's intended to do.
@JoeM People should not be naked in their garden anyway? I'm hoping that was a joke.
@JoeM why are you panicked?? this case clearly shows as long as you are not a knob about anything the camera will be ok they didn't even get the guy on nuisance for the lights flashing in the windows.
Just don't threaten people with the use of cameras and the images they capture,
make sure the cameras have a legal purpose and that is what they do,
be aware of GDPR like don't log and store data that has no reason to be logged and stored and
if a neighbour asks for it to not go over their property tweak the angle or block portion of the field of view.
For most normal people this is completely fine and civil way of acting.
@JoeM The law is clear even with this judgement and it hasn't been deemed unlawful to film outside of your own property, law is not as black and white as you seem to think it is even murder can be justified.
think about the camera as a person if you are going about your business and hear your neighbour talking or see them going to their car everything is fine
but if you start watching over the fence for hours, writing down what they say then threatening so tell the police they have commit crimes, showing other neighbours your notes on them. then things turn into this case and you might have legal issues.
When a case goes to court that is literally just a ring doorbell and the owner gets a fine then that is the time to worry not over this case.
@JoeM as i understand it he was doing things like telling her he was sending footage to police then never sending it and thus causing her alarm and distress, also sharing information on her with other neighbours, lying as you say about false cameras and telling her he had set up secret cameras to monitor her.
From my limited understanding this case was much more about his aggressive and threatening behaviour with the cameras than the cameras themselves.
the parts of the claim that they got against him was GDPR which is easy to solve just have it delete the video once a week or whatever and don't start harassing people with the data, and allow people to see their own data if requested to.
And the other part was harassment which is all the things he did with her image and data, not that the data existed but his use of that data.
The judge ruled the camera overlooking her property was not nuisance, this strengthened the president for the right to record in public.
From the @Blackbeltbarrister 's explanation privacy laws regarding rights to film people in public were not considered in the judgement other than GDPR.
The whole framing of this case has been about the ring camera for clicks but really it is much more about neighbours using cameras for harassment and clarification of GDPR.
What a perfectly reasonable judgement - had been thinking of buying one of these types of devices, but I'm very close to a couple of neighbors - will certainly double check with them before fitting anything external.
Viewing this from USA, this judgement seems to be overly restrictive to me. A person should be perfectly able to record video of all areas of their property even if 12 cameras were used. As to neighbors, it seems to me that cameras should be placed to minimize viewing of neighboring private properties, but within the limits of what is reasonably practical. For example, I shouldn't be prevented from recording the outside of my shed because there is no way to mount a camera that does not record a slight portion of a neighbors property. And audio recordings can be as helpful as video recordings - and there should a reasonable middle ground that perhaps allows recording audio from near the center of a property but avoids it near a property line.
Tesla cars can record video from several external cameras - and other cars will likely follow suit going forward. Should this security feature be disabled because the video recordings may capture images from outside the owner's property?
@@JasonEDragon You forget to mention the obxnoxious floodlights that were overly bright and poorly aimed.
And yet we are watched by cctv cameras outside of our homes everywhere
John F. And they have been very busy recently...You don’t need to move far, before one has captured you!!
These cameras were capturing her while on her own property.
@@atrinder8944 What do you think street cameras do? I could take you to many cameras that could be classed as invading peoples homes
@@thewhinjaninja3610 then the owner of that home has the right to not be filmed on their own property.
@@atrinder8944 But no-one has the right to privacy from public. I get what you are saying and I agree, but anything that can be seen from a public space is legal. Maybe the Barrister can clear this one up.
Excellent timing... just spent the weekend fitting multiple Ring cameras at my parent's house.
While you can't restrict the field of view easily, it's the work of seconds to set the camera zone of interest up to only cover your own property.
This is reassuring information as my neighbors and I have cameras due to mail theft. A man in a rental van was following the Fedex and UPS trucks to get into the apartment lobby, taking whatever he wanted, unquestioned. We posted pictures of him around the building and never saw him again. No sound and very specific views.
You have the natural right to record anything you experience on or from your own property.
Two of my neighbours (opposite me) have CCTV fitted. One of them happens to catch my car. No complaints from me.👍🙂👍
"Harassment"
It is sooooooooo nice to hear this word pronounced correctly! Thanks, BBB. 😁
If a neighbour had a motion activated camera that was pointing at my property, I would be tempted to dress up as a grey alien or ghost or something and have a bit of fun for a few minutes in the middle of the night (on my own land of course). It would be interesting to see how they would react.
Believe it or not they can have you charged with stalking...
Far too funny 😂🤣😂🤣
Fantastic video. Thank you so much. I had a neighbour who put up CCTV cameras and it was recording my front door and me leaving and coming home. Also recording my voice conversations with my partner when we'd sunbathe in front garden in the summer. She was a single mother who was so jealous of me moving in with her neighbour and start spreading vile and untrue roumers about me. She used to wait until me and my partner would come home in the evenings and shout vile and hateful stuff at us. Little does she know her own camera was the best evidence we have as it's coming to court. She's still stuck in her little corporation house paid for by taxpayer spying on people daily as she has nothing else to do and no man in his right mind would go near her. So it was a case of 'Hoisted by her own petard'. We've since moved to a much nicer neighborhood and have heard she's now harassing the new tennents of our old house. So delighted not to have to look at her pig ugly face again.
Clearly there's probably more to this un-neighbourly relationship between these two adversaries than revealed in this case...
Agreed
Possible irrelevant for disclosure issue of one degree can't be proved to be relative to another ergo stricken out?
Genuine question
Imagine the complaining neighbour is burgled surely they would want cctv looked at!👍
Let's hope they are
Not really, according to the judgement.
Had someone move in next door and set up cameras all around. They pointed one of their cams directly at my house so what i did was a back yard cleanup and had to walk by the cam every few minutes to dump trash, which means they are alerted every time i walked by. I must have passed in front at least 30 times which meant they were alerted 60 times going and coming back. Well next day noticed cams were pointed back to their own yard. That was funny.
Thank you for a very comprehensive summation and review! Interested to hear your general thoughts on a camera positioned such that it covers own property and public Highway only (not neighbours), since previous videos you have posted suggest there is no automatic or assumed right to privacy in a public space. I feel this is fundamentally different to a shared communal space, but as always it’s not that simple!
I was thinking precisely this! Would be interested to know the answer. Especially given the police request and use CCTV that captures movements on the public highway and this doesn't appear to be a Data Protection issue
I have a ring door bell camera. My neighbour across the Road as cameras all round his property. On two occasions we have been thanked by the Police for information in which was used in a court case in the jailing of two burglars that the Police had been after in the area for several years. More recently last week in the breaking in and stealing of contents of a car and a van. This is on going.
@@willmagicman1289 the Police only used the recording to identify who they were. Not in evidence as they both pleaded guilty. They were well known to them for targeting the elderly. The other on going case caught a well known criminal who targeted carriers vehicle
I have several cameras covering all the elevations of my house including a ring doorbell at the front, my neighbours are aware that they all record and that their gardens are covered in the field of view as well as part of the public highway at the front of both properties
The cameras came in handy last weekend when a drunk , uninsured driver ploughed into their car outside on the road in the middle of the night
They were lucky my cousin and her husbands car were parked in their own drive and the car the Police were chasing turned in and smashed into both.
The way things are going that drunk driver will be able to sue them for filming him in public from a private area.
@@AA-be9rn Yes I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the police called and said thanks for the cctv footage but we’ve had to let the driver off for hurt feelings and we’re prosecuting you for harassment
@@liveloud9894 Absolutely this is the future were taking images will out way crime in an offence but the police ask for evidence, I've never agreed with removal of human rights but i do now for a massive overhaul.
My neighbour has a ring doorbell on their front door and a ring camera overlooking our shared driveway and garages. I'm fine with the video recording but to learn today that they record audio as well if absolutely frightening. I'm well pissed off and feel like taking it down for him.
A stark difference between the sensational media and your clear cogent explanation.
Exactly what I thought 🤣
Agreed, just left a comment regarding the press coverage of it. They would have you believe that anyone with a Ring doorbell is open for civil action. Very few news reports go into any of the reasons behind the judgment, and the very specific circumstances behind the case.
But, nothing new there for main stream media.!!
@@Stuart_George Yes it is like being at school and the media are the pupils shouting out the lesson.
Having read the judgment, the defendant did himself no favours and the damage to credibility was against him. The question I posed on linkedin was: if one can film in public (inc audio) without issue then why is it different if you film a public street from a private property? Can someone in the know explain the difference? I have seen subsequently that is from a ECJ case (2014?) but unfortunately I have not seen any reasoning rather just the ECJ computer says, so it says. Before anyone says, I am not a gdpr lawyer.
The very same thing occured to me, being a photographer.
@Steve Gee I looked into this and there is an ECJ decision which makes it clear that private cctv of a public area will resulted in data protection issues. This I think was a Czech case back in 2014
First, the judgement was based on the UK's Data Protection Act (DPA) 2018, not the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
Second, the ICO who uphold the DPA state on their website that the DPA does not apply "If you collect information about individuals for any reason other than your own personal, family or household purposes, you need to comply." They also go on to state in a section answering "Does it apply to me?": "You will not need to comply if you only use the information for your own personal, family or household purposes - eg personal social media activity, private letters and emails, or use of your own household gadgets."
I must admit, I was always under the impression that GDPR only applies to organisations and businesses, not private individuals. Back in 2014 I had my camcorder set up in my window, capturing a time-lapse. Long story short, someone complained to the police, but the police said I was well within my rights to have a camera filming from my window... 🤷♂️
@@theaylesburycyclist8756 The issue would only arise if you then use that footage to intimidate your neighbours, which appears to be the issue in this case, you are no longer using the data for its intended use.
*If you live in a newish home with external electric / gas meter boxes,* any criminal can simply open the electric box and switch off your homes power. This disables the internet router and any of these new 'security' systems that depend on WiFi are rendered useless! The suppliers do not offer this, but you would need a UPS connected to the system AND the router.
Not removing mine it gives me peace of mind during these dark evening’s. Let’s me know who is prowling around in my garden and who is at the door before I open it.
That's it isn't it, 4am this morning I caught two going through mine to get to the neighbours then across the gated community to the otherside, ruddy joke...
As long as you are reasonable with how you are processing what is being recorded I'm sure there will be no issues.
Mine is targeted!
@@Arcticnick I bet there will be more now this reduction in benefits has come into effect, certain parts of the country I love visiting have it harder than other's.... It must be really hard for some families to get by and I can understand why some have resulted to stealing...
I remember a time when people's could walk out of a job into another, non of this CV scenario that separates...
A good days work for good pay and on there doorstep too.... not having to travel ninety minutes to work at a cost of a days wages as in some cases... I feel for these people's... Thirty years ago nothing was broke except the police and court systems...
... without milk or sugar..... or tea.
I will have to tell you a funny story that is similar to the lights part of this but involves a barking dog.
Years ago my mum and dad had a dog that hardly ever barked when it was in the garden.
Well one particular night the dog was in the garden about ten pm and started barking resulting with the next door neighbours phoning to complain.
Next morning the neighbour phoned again to apologise and explain why.
They found footprints in a flower bed.
The dog was barking at someone trying to break into their back window
Your timing is impeccable!
Maybe it was also your great timing, too.
I glad I find this the man moved in put a camera listening to every word I've been saying for 7 weeks it's nearly in my room police have done nothing his put it half way down the wall so he can hear every thing how can police do nothing ?? Who should I call ???
I had 4 cctv cameras covering my basement area, the stairs, the communal path to the other flats in the house and the main pavement. They were installed because I had anti social neighbours who were making my life unbearable. I had full permission from my Housing Association and the Police. They provided enough evidence for two different prosecutions - the teenage son was caught on audio swearing and threatening me and breaching his ASBO and got 240 hours community service. The Mum's boyfriend was caught vandalising one of the cameras and got fined £50 and had to pay compensation.
I also caught a fight on their last day before they were evicting and on a separate occasion my motorbike and a neighbour's bike being knocked over by a Royal Mail van.
I now only have a Ring doorbell which just covers my door area and a main camera which cover the motorbike parking bay.
@@willmagicman1289 Mine was relatively minor, but the exhaust was still £1000+. My neighbours Harley had more damage and took longer to repair. The Royal Mail van had driven into a parking space and clipped the bikes and they toppled over. Everything was caught on video, but they still didnt instantly except responsibility and settle the claim so it dragged on for many weeks resulting in expensive hire bikes and a big bill.
@@Alan-xxxxxx Yeah companies sometimes do that. An Iceland van reversed onto my drive and did 1500 pounds worth of damage to my vehicle. Their insurers denied liability right up until the point where my solicitors arranged a court date and reminded them that CCTV footage clearly showed their idiot driver doing the deed then driving away. At that point they finally settled. This is why CCTV or a dashcam is necessary now, because these bastards try to avoid paying out even when their client is so obviously at fault.
I asked the police and my neighbour housing officer to see if I could put up a camera pointing directly at my car and a doorbell and said yes. Exactly the same issues with ASB in my area. We had instances of lads trying front doors in the early hours. So I was concerned for my safety so they said yes go for it!
The defendant does not sound like a reasonable person.
My CCTV system views areas outside of my property but it doesn't capture them, the system allows me to mark areas which I don't want recorded. The audio is activated when a person has entered my property and travelled 15m to my door. They will then be recorded in HD video and audio. The police has used my footage to take action against a person who was abusive to my daughter.
Never thought I'd watch a video about the legal ramifications of doorbell ownership, or that one would ever exist to be watched.
What do you think after watching it
The doorbell was innocent , the owner not so much .
its in the uk
"Doorbell ownership ! " 😃😂😃😂😃😂😃😂😃😂😃😂😃
She should become a burka.
So you can be filmed in stores and town centre street's but its not ok to protect your property, next it will be dashcams in cars .I have my ring doorbell for various reasons and will not be removing it for anyone.
We had a problem family in our street back in 2000. They made peoples' lives a misery, particularly the elderly. My neighbour, who at the time was in her 70s, was one of their victims. Police and council refused to do anything except issue ASBOs which the youths of this family used as a badge of honour. Other people in the street were fed up with this family so we got together and formed a residents' association, made up of both council and private householders. Three of us put up CCTV. I had mine trained on both my neighbour's garden and my own, plus the parking bays across the street. My camera did have audio on it which recorded the foul language and threats from these youths when they decided to harrass my neighbour by sitting on her wall, throwing rubbish into her garden and threatening her with violence. All the footage was shown to the relevant authorities (the police and Council), also our MP at the time. The recordings were on video - it was before USB sticks and digital CCTV cameras so couldn't be uploaded to the internet like they can now. Eventually, the police and Council took action and the problem family were evicted. We have had no problems in our street since. Sadly, my neighbour passed away age 91 a few years ago. She was a good friend. My CCTV camera broke down years ago and I haven't replaced it. Sounds like this man was totally OTT.
wow, well done.
Pythonaria
What is written on the vehicle?
Is it POLICE or police?
They sound the same, but be clear. They are not the same thing.
POLICE are a Service CORPORATION -Much like McDonalds
All CORPORATE names are written in the ALL CAPS iteration
When you actually 'see' what it is you are looking at and pay attention
you will become aware of this fact.
You need to be awake for that.
Remember, Zombies have eyes but cannot see - Ears and cannot hear.
When you study Law for a couple of decades you will learn that.
The reason you are not taught Law in that CORPORATE GOVERNMENT
indoctrination institution you refer to as school is because these things
are not for the vulgar to know. Neither does it serve the EL-ite that you know it
It is not secret, but it is 'secretive' and the majority of people just do not
pay attention to detail.
A human failing often leads to premature or catastrophic death.
An incident will occur that will catch you off guard and kill you.
I learned that as a pilot during my long - 30 year - Military Career
@@andrew_koala2974 I see what you're saying. In this case, the police were not to blame as they did take action against this family. It was the Courts who let them off time and time again. Social Services were involved with this family and had been for years. The "do-gooders" claimed that people in our street were making malicious accusations towards this family, in other words, they tried to turn the perpetrators into the victims. Once we had video evidence which was compiled over several months, it proved what we were all saying was correct. A meeting was arranged in the local hall with all the relevant authorities - the police, Council representatives, the ASBO people, local councillors and our MP. My elderly neighbour's son attended the meeting. What they didn't know was he was a Barrister. When he stood up at the meeting and spoke, it was a joy to behold as the whole lot on the stage were visibly squirming - especially when he informed them he was prepared to act for the whole street pro bono. The hall was packed out that night, it was standing room only and it's a big hall.
Bear in mind this was 20 years ago. The police then are very different to the police now. Although the politicisation had already begun, it wasn't nearly so bad as it is now.
I have set my doorbell to just come on when it is rung and then I can see/hear the person who I would guess has consented to being on camera because they pressed the big button under the camera! It isn't actually recorded so I guess it's not an issue under data protection.
This is going to cause a huge issue when it comes to trades people considering almost everyone has cameras protecting their vehicles and sheds/garages now due to the police and legal system constantly failing to care, investigate, catch or protect peoples livelihoods when it comes to criminals carrying out peel and steal etc on vans and storage units.
I suppose I can always put up a PIR activated flame thrower with signage stating "trespassers will be burnt, survivors will be crispy".
Oddly cameras viewing any outdoor area are with very rare exceptions fine. Its the lights and in most cases the audio that's the real problem. Many states require 2 party consent for audio recording and shining bright lights at other peoples houses can be considered harassment. Pointing security lights inward at your own property is hard to challenge.
Thames Valley police often call for door bell footage in the vicinity of a crime.
My doorbell only records for 30 seconds and only when activated by a humans approach to my door. The activation zone is restricted to within my property. However, when activated it records the entire view of the video camera.
I dont know how it could possibly record anything going on on the pavement, in the road, or by my neighbours front garden unless activated by a human approach to my door.
Thats a good point, activation zones are useful but if the whole camera view is recorded, and it covers other peoples private property, its a issue. It would be better if only the activation zones were recorded.
Excellent video, so glad I watched it ...This case was highly simplified by most media outlets to the point of being misleading! I have ring floodlight cameras front and back with the alarm and doorbell. This case worried me and I considered my own position regarding these. The Ring system is a very affordable way to provide peace of mind when away from home, but the floodlight cameras are highly configurable with regards to what they capture. Easy to disable sound recording and set zones that don't trigger recording and to black out viewing / recording areas altogether i.e. neighbouring properties. But I wonder from a GDPR point of view whether I should complete a DPIA?
This case seems to hinge on the misuse of the data collected (intimidation) rather than its legitimate collection for security or crime prevention reasons, the judgement appears to be entirely correct in this case, will be interesting to see if it is appealed and is looked at by the higher courts.
I agree it raises issues as people do share stuff like this on social media. The next door app is rife with stuff like this.
Shardlake
Examined by a higher COURT
NOT
looked at by the higher courts
Note that choice of words and correct grammar is critical in the application of Law.
You have to educate yourself to a higher level by undertaking a lot of reading
and increasing your vocabulary.
Now tell me how many types of English are there.
I know already that your answer will be incorrect
COMMENT REFERENCE: Shardlake.2021102140500
yes, the defendants were using the cctv to deliberately monitor his neighbours
@@andrew_koala2974 Punctuation is one category of rules that fall under the umbrella of grammar. In fact, punctuation is critical to many common grammar rules .
@@andrew_koala2974 American English, English English, Australian English , Canadian English and more if you count dialects. Language is not objective; it is subjective to the ways in which society constructs it.
Give the neighbour the recording devices and shpw them how to work them Then if You have a issue you want to review - you can go ask them for the playback. In that way - they are the custodian of the data which includes both them and you - and they have control over what you can review.
This sounded absolutely insane until I realized it was in the U.K., then it made sense.
In what way insane?
You are obviously unable to grasp the situation or indeed the reason for the judgment.Very little to do with this ring camera.Your spiteful little comments are a reflection of your ignorance.Grow up..
Since the story broke in the national press I've spoken to 3 neighbours who were almost paranoid about the subject. What little knowledge they did have came from a tabloid article. What little knowledge l had, and a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, is that anyone can take photos or videos in a public place, subject to certain "common sense" conditions. If you aim your camera at someone's children or a bedroom window that's a bit too weird in anyone's book. Likewise if you frequently take images or videos the same person without their permission. But perhaps people may fall foul of the law quite innocently and that's where advice like yours is invaluable, so thank you for explaining it so succinctly.
Most important is that each case is dealt with on it's own merits, situation can vary immensely. This case is a reference point of historical guidance, it's seems that the COURTS views of audio recording and storage is the main breach of DPA . Just wonder if an appeal is pending!!!
Wasn't it rather how the data was used i.e. to harass his neighbour which was deemed a breach. The court seem to be okay with using a video doorbell just to see who was walking up your path or ringing the bell.
The lights can be an issue if they are disturbing the neighbors and video taping over a fence that is presumed to be for privacy is not legal. But other than that it is legal to record anything in the public that you want.
So this is interesting.
How would this court case affect parking mode Dashcams?
My understanding of this situation is, my car is my property. Parked within a space that i own.
How does it recording 24/7 apply with this particular court case?
As it is on loop recording to ensure security of my vehicle.
Additionally where it is parked is already covered by communal camera systems. But other spaces are also technically private property.
Collecting the footage is not the issue, what you do with it is, that seems to be the factor in this case, using footage to intimidate, not for the purpose it was intended - crime prevention.
@@shardlake but according to the outcome in this court case collecting footage is the issue as recording people coming and going, for example collecting patterns in which your neighbours enter and leave the street is a breach of gdpr according to this.
@@gamadame4476 The govt are collecting data on us all coming and going with anpr
Photography ( including videography ) in a public place is NOT illegal . My dashcam also records 24/7 in parking mode and looks down my drive and therefore onto the street in front of my house . I never normally look at the footage which is overwritten every 24 hours or so , thus I am satisfied there is no breach of GDPR ; footage would only be looked at in the event of an incident being captured
There's a lot of cruel weirdos out there & UK has a terrible conviction rate for rape so it could be quite worrying if men are recording people each day & possibly planning to brutally attack & torture them. Merely saying "honestly I'm only going to look at the footage if something happens" may not be reassuring. But you have a right to secure your home with cameras. So IMO (i'm not lawyer) try hard not to do anything apart from cameras that might let people totally hammer you for costs on a harassment claim
Just bought one. Anyone that has a problem simply has something to hide.
@@WSmith_1984 exhibit A people, exhibit A
My neighbour opposite me as a camera that looks directly at my house. There house sits higher up than mine and the bell camera points directly at my front window. I have spoke to them and i was shown the video on there phone. I was told it does not show much. It clearly shows my house and the houses either side. I think that i will be sending a letter by registered post. Also remember that Amazon can study these camera images.
Great video... it raises a further issue of an after-market dashcam which continues to record when the car is parked. 🤔
Thank you ever so much for producing this.
🙏
This was really interesting as the typical press report was not clear but the long and short of this it was all down to two neighbours disagreeing with each other, the fact that the doorbell and cameras are just to clickbait for the media headline.
What about a Tesla? Or indeed any car with cameras that record when the car is parked. I'm thinking the World has moved on and, yet again, the Courts are struggling to catch up.
Good point and why are street cameras, we have one from the council in our road, allowed, if we are not?
@@collincovid6950 I imagine the ruling will be overturned at appeal the whole thing seems stupid.
The issue was the misuse of the data, not collecting it, in this case the defendant used the data to intimidate the plaintiff, he was not using the cameras purely for the security purpose he claimed.
@@collincovid6950 I think you are allowed to aim your own cctv on the streets or anh public location, I found out, council cctv don't use audio.
Although people can ask for subject access request, of the data controller of that cctv, if it is aimed on public locations, that is obviously for crimes, missing person cases etc that would benefit from a home owners cctv footage.
I think the same law applies, if it is in a public place then it is ok, if it is in a private place and you did not have permission to record there, then you probably have to turn it off.
Very well explained thanks. I don't like that the neighbouring business's security camera can see into my bathroom but on the other hand it makes it less likely that anyone's going to throw a brick through the window & climb in.
@@willmagicman1289 I don't have a bathroom window: the kitchen window overlooks the bathroom. I just keep the curtains shut. Opening & closing curtains everyday is a lot of work. If I had the money I'd get robot curtains. Robots don't ever make mistakes.
@@willmagicman1289 knob too big must pee whilst standing in kitchen
What about a mini Blink camera that is setup in a living room that *may* catch video/audio a communal courtyard garden through a patio door? Only collects when someone triggers camera (goes near patio doors) for 30 seconds.
Already have obvious stickers on windows that CCTV is in use.
Of course, I live in an area where people don't live on top of each other like so many villages in the UK. Most of those cameras can have their triggering field limited.
Photography and videoing in a public place is not a crime and there’s no implied right to privacy in a public place, that’s why we’re filmed in petrol stations shops pretty much everywhere.
Correct, The plod just don't like it thats all, But we are the most monited country in the world with the most CCTV in our town and city's and that is just our Goverment watching us in the Uk,
Gary Jones
Photography and video recording in a public place -- is the correct sentence.
Don't screw up again. It is not difficult when you think about what you are writing Jones.
We are not being FILMED - because FILM has not been used for almost three decades.
Substitute Filmed for 'Recorded'
Filmed is a specific description that is inaccurate for the reason stated above.
Using the word Recorded is a more generic term.
The problem is that you and most others have been so brainwashed into using
the word FILMED that you find it difficult not to use it -
Brainwashing is very effective and people do not realize what has been done to them.
The same applies to the word PERSON.
No one is born a PERSON -
A PERSON is a CORPORATE fiction created in the 15th century for the purpose of
conducting commerce. It is a DEAD Genderless entity that is im-PERSON-ating
the living Soul, and has stolen the name and identity of the living soul.
The only difference is that the PERSON has its name in ALL CAPS like the CORPSES
in the cemetery. -- The FIRST NAME and LAST NAME - SURNAME were also created
at that time.
The living soul does not have a FIRST NAME and LAST NAME - SURNAME
The living soul Man and WoMan (incorrectly pronounce wooman)
have a 'Given Name' and 'Family Name' in Mixed Case Letters.
ALL CORPORATE Names are in ALL CAPS
Before you get to bed, look up in the Oxford Dictionary what PERSONA means.
You will discover it is a Mask ...
The PERSON is masking your true and real identity.
Not knowing the difference between a Living Soul and a PERSON / INDIVIDUAL
is how you are screwed in COURT
SOME OF THE BEST GAMES ARE PLAYED IN A COURT
Good luck and goodbye
@@OGGalleryCrew92 what do you mean the plod don’t like it? They love private cctv! Why do you think they keep looking for it when a crime has been committed?
@@OGGalleryCrew92 You clearly have never been to China 🇨🇳 then?
Funny how we never hear of people walking free from court after using this defence."It wasn't me ,it was my legal fiction!"
Well presented video but leaves more questions than answers. For those of us who live in older cottages which look directly out onto the road the camera will only capture the area outside our boundaries. Our camera only activates when the button is pushed but at that stage it could inadvertently capture audio from passing members of the public. We don’t store anything on the cloud and delete everything daily but given the court decision it would appear the position of our home makes having advanced notification or time wasters on our doorstep is questionable.
An eminently sensible and reasonable judgement, analysed here by BBB in a clear and rational manner. A win all round for the law, for common sense and for decent behaviour, in my view. 👌✔
Thank you 😊 🙏
In such neighbour disputes, the existence or lack of previous skirmishes is often key. They are often the result of years of petty bickering, especially if the complainant was there before the alleged miscreant. An acquaintance of mine had to wait until the ‘neighbour from hell’ moved away before he could move himself. Every time a potential buyer arrived, his neighbour began his antisocial tirade. Naturally, such buyers quickly departed.
Umm I am having issues with my neighbour and CCTV, I dosent record any of his property but when he walks past my front you can see him! However It has caught him on multiple occasions kicking my doors of my van, and punching my wing mirrors in on my van as well. I do have multiple CCTV signs in view as well though.
Nice neighbours you have
Balaclava, dark night, baseball bat, problem solved.👍😃
I wouldn't take mine down . safety reasons medical. Responce.
Used to gather evidence of a crime is fine. Interesting one with Wayne Cousins though
If you value your privacy and dont want to be including in the central data base, you,ll stay as far away as possible from these.
“ the law is an ass”- Charles Dickens, two hundred years ago. Some things never change.
"The law is *a* ass"
George Chapman 1654 apparently he stole it too, he just published it in a play..
"fuck tha police" NWA lol.
Its got worse. That is the law at its best, now it gets the good far too often
@@jibicusmaximus4827 eh?
Among others, I have 2 cameras to the front of my property facing in opposite, but overlapping, directions. Each can 'see' almost the full length of my short side street. No-one has ever had a problem with them. Neither has audio.
The other issue is of course what data does Amazon now hold on the subjects. The Ring (and all Amazon) equipment comes with a GDPR declaration and privacy/data policy. If you read it, you are consenting to a transfer of data to Amazon and Amazon's affiliates. So, in providing 3rd party data (neighbour, public etc.) to another 3rd party Amazon when technically that would be a breach in GDPR as you have no consent to transfer their data/footage/audio.... ??
Interesting thought but, the camera isn't on Amazon's property and only provide a cloud service TO the data controller (the person who operates and maintains the camera). It is the data controller that creates any data he processes, his responsibility. That includes, but is not limited to, where and how he stores the data.
As an example, if I have a spreadsheet for guests' details at my hotel, sensitive stuff like name/address/copy of passport/licence... then upload that data to an unsecured server belonging to someone else, it is not their fault if that data becomes compromised. It is mine for not considering the safety of the data.
I am surprised that camera and shining light over neighbour's property is not a nuisance. I am looking forward to seeing the video on that.
What about the position where someone moves in and the cameras are already installed ie fixed on the wall etc.?
Even the police ask for your cctv footage if there is a crime in the area. 'I'm sorry officer, due to gdpr I can only discuss this with the perpertrator. As you are clearly not him we won't be able to discuss this with you'.
Hi, how about having a dash cam (Taxi/PHV) interior recording for security purposes (as some passengers nowadays make false claims & ruin driver's lives, what are the rights as a driver? Thank you.
This is a great question, because like a restaurant or bar, it's simultaneously your property, kiiind of a public space, and a place of business.
Here in the US, if anything In your front or back yard can be see through a public thoroughfare (ie. the street) you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
From what you say it surely follows that anyone filming anything in public (outside the boundary of their property) has to comply with data protection requirements? I thought there was no right to privacy for people when they are out in public (e.g. walking on a public footpath). So why would a ring camera that captures someone walking past your property on the footpath be covered by data protection. Makes no sense. And another thing .... even if I got the approval of my neighbors - what about general passers by, people visiting the neighbors etc. Obviously you cant get their permission....
Exactly... This ruling has now effectively made street photography illegal... 🤷♂️🙄
yes, agreedM I don't understand it either.
I think because it is mounted on a private property or from a private property. You can still film anything you like from a publicly accessible area. The guy can leave his door and go and look at the womans house all day. If it goes through and elecctronic lens from a private dwelling that must be different
However, security cameras capture footage for the purpose of “security” and the data used as such.
Street photography on the other hand mainly captures images / video for entertainment or the purpose of documenting what is going on.
Spoke to my neighbour today about mine and apologised for not doing so BEFORE installing it, he said hed noticed it but really didnt mind as other people also have them. The peace of mind they offer is in my opinion invaluable.
Thanx BBB, always informative and interesting video 👍
back in the day (pre 2000's) life was good. And private.
My main concern with RING doorbells (and similar products) is that all footage 24/7 is stored on Amazon servers outside the UK where data protection may not apply.
I don't mind the old fashioned CCTV that records at home with no access to the internet.
But as a delivery driver, every day I'm on the job, being recorded 5-10 times by a private multinational company incl face recognition - it's a bit freaky.
I know Google does the same when I use my android phone. But at least there's a benefit for me too.
So the question is who I'm going to ask to remove video footage of my person? The person who owns the doorbell? He may not even be aware that such footage exists.
Amazon (AWS to be precise) has 3 data centres in the UK. For simple reason of cost, noone would bother to ship the data across the world if they can keep it locally. Not to mention latency and resulting bandwidth limits when transferring data across the ocean.
Also GDPR applies if the subject is a citizen of the European Union. GPDR was introduced while UK was in the EU and so was put in to UK law and then subsequently kept in post brexit.
The issue here was abuses as a data controller. Apparently she asked to see the scope of the cameras and he denied. That is a breach of the data protection act. As a data controller you have obligations to be transparent with people's data if you are filming them from private property onto public/another private property.
The problem here was the shed camera anyway, not the ring camera which doesn't even face the neighbour's house.
I purchased CCTV to film two adjoining houses (rented out) being used for drug manufacture and distribution and I would be happy as a law abiding person to be prosecuted for GDPR and banged up for doing so!
yep people capture illegal activities, at which they get a slap on the hand while we'd get locked up what??????????????????
I have a ring doorbell. In the app for it you can set the proximity within the app to outline your property. If you don't then it would annoy you every time a car or person went past the property.
Have a story:
I buy and sell on eBay. As a bit of interest, I sometimes have a look where some things are headed - it's actually quite interesting - like a sofa based tour of Great Britain. I sell the most unusual of goods and so they must be going to interesting buyers..
I'd gotten a factory siren really cheap. I was going to use it for fun things but it was far too loud. It had to go.
I listed it online and waited. Starting price £4 the bids quickly came in. I sold it for 10x what I'd paid. I was happy.
Being so unusual, I checked the buyers address. I was stunned.
I won't name the location but suffice to say the buyer was slightly OTT with security. They lived mid-terrace and their entire section of roof had a layer of steel mesh over it. The windows had internal and external bars on them. I counted 8 alarm boxes on the walls - 4 front and 4 at the rear, I lost count of the security cameras.
I often wonder if their neighbours enjoyed the siren he'd purchased off me.
wonder what their deal was..maybe just a crazy with too much money? something sinister? bbrrr.. who knows lol.
No one's going to sue m. My Ring bell is a pile of poo, it's stopped working properly after 18 months.
I have one on my front door, but use block out zones as well as a recording activation area so I don't capture the neighbours. They actaully were happy I had one as its a great deterrent for antisocial behavour, and they have one as well now.
tvand.....
* have one now, as well.
It activates to a movement within the defined zones but records everything within its field.
Our cops and neighbors all love 💕 them !
Interesting case! Does this mean that Supermarkets can use cameras to record customers when they pay at self service tills. They are not recording the actual transaction but the customer! My local supermarket has over 100 hundred cameras in the checkout area. Legitimate purpose or intrusive data capture?
@@StevieProton Every supermarket in my area has a sign up about 5m away from the public areas affected by their cameras, so, yes, they just realised signs are more cost effective
Here in Oz, a person has a right to privacy where there is a 'reasonalbe expectation of privacy'. Eg, in the privacy of their own home, or behind the fence in their own back yard. All test cases must pass the reasonableness' test.
If my fence is high enough that you would not ordinarily be able to see over it, then I am entilted to privacy from security cameras looking over it.
If the camera could help play back a robbery or a murder then I'm sure the judge wouldn't be moaning over who it was recording.
I got told by police in the UK this year was only May time, That CCTV footage took off your own cctv can "NOT" be used in a court of law as it can have been doctored it has got to be off another cctv of the same incident !
@@OGGalleryCrew92 that is incorrect, footage can be used in court, however a defence team could argue what your saying and it could come under scrutiny and points of law could be argued out between defence and prosecution teams in front of the judge before the trial starts but if it is deemed to have not been altered in any way the judge can rule in favour and allow it to be used.
My house is directly onto a pavement at the front. My car is street parked nearby. I have two cameras, one at each end of the house. One records the front of the house and the other records my parked car. There is no communal area.
By default, all movement in the street is therefore recorded 24hrs a day. Immediate neighbours are not concerned, but the occupants of the entire street will be recorded at some stage. Recording are only ever viewed if an 'incident' occurs.
Puzzling .......
My system is the same as yours Neil, I did have property stolen from my car parked on the street, hence the monitoring and recording cctv cameras.
@@notsohairybiker ... Simon, there's no obvious answer. We are recorded every minute of the day by the 'State' so if someone isn't happy with my cameras, then tough !
My circumstance is same as yours Neil pointing down to the pavement above my front door, with passing traffic the sound has allways been bizarre and so have just turned audio off in settings and hope it makes it legal, and as other people have pointed out if you have a dashcam in your car on 24 hour mode what's the difference, think this will be overturned in high court.
People put cameras up because they have bad neighbours who have damaged cars and property, I bet you could have a friendly conversation over this
exactly, or they steal parcels
And if your in a good area the bad ones come around shopping 😃😂😃😂😃😂😃😂😃😂😃
Asshole neighbours is exactly why we put up CCTV
Nope some people are of a "it's not my fault" attitude even if they are drink driving. Friendly conversations do not work with many people. I have one guy on the enclosed estate where I live who is about the most racist person I have ever met. EG peeing through peoples letter boxes verbal abuse and even threatening one tiny 67yo lady. Do you honestly think a person like that can be reasoned with?
@@gordonlawrence1448 The lady was psychologically obsessed that she was being spied upon and being stalked a state of mind that wasn't justified in this country absolutely saturated with cctv, you really don't believe for one moment that all cameras recording are clearly defined and clearly visible.
My neighbour has a ring doorbell. I have disputed it with the housing association for 6 months. They have ignored my complaints. She lives next-door. Our doors are 1ft apart. I live in a One up, One down. She captures my comings and goings as well as anybody visiting my home. Recording audio at my front door. It's outrageous how my rights to live a private, peaceful life have been ignored. Last week Clarion threatened to take my privacy screen down. They now class the area outside my door a communal area. Clarion keep moving the goal posts. I have in writing and email stating they are not allowed in communal areas. Clarion housing have treated me terribly. I am at my wits end. This has really effected my life. I don't no what to do.
Would it have been the same if the camera was attached to his car. Because we can record everything we can see from a public place. I was a bit worried about my DashCam😬
I was thinking exactly the same.
Under normal circumstances it is fine to film in a public place, it's not against the law, but it may be on private land. Usually on private land the landowner will have a sign indicating that filming is prohibited.
I don't think a sign can overwrite the law?
Good summary, think I'll go and check...
How do you go about raising a case like this?
My neighbour installed a floodlight camera which seems to point at my property. I have asked them if they could move it to point directly at their gate but they refused instead of my house (it seems to be a wide angle camera with their gate being at the edge of it's view).
The police said "it's a civil matter" and the ICO said "we'll write to them but we have no power to force them to move it".
I contacted a local solicitor who said "it may not be cost effective to issue a solicitor letter" which I take to mean that they simply didn't want to take the case on.
Find some way to make it a nuisance to be pointing at your property and they'll soon shift it. ie a flood light or laser pointer which comes on when theirs does and blows out the image on the camera.
Many modern cameras have the ability to set 'privacy zones' where images that overlook neighbours property can be blanked out.
An incisive dissection of rights and abuse. Thanks for that.
and yet every man and his dog can pull out a phone and record just about anything bonkers .
Not true.
@@salerio61 proofs in the pudding ,so very true.
I'm really happy with this ruling.
Is this any different to permanently on dash cams where a car can be parked on a drive facing the houses opposite ?
Very good point. Once parked they can be so close
I believe leaving it recording whilst in for service is spying.
Mine records in a loop. I put a pretty substantial memory card in it, so it's probably a fairly long loop.
i would have thought that the fact the footage is automatically deleted after relatively short time and not routinely (or in my case ever) reviewed would make a fair difference to the legitimate purpose aspect.
@Ed Straker he breached GDPR because the court decided keeping video of your neighbour to harassment isn't a valid use of their data.
I think a dashcam is fine. There are a lot of nuances in the GDPR but generally speaking if your system is installed for a lawful purpose (i.e. preventing crime), you don't keep the footage any longer than necessary (most dashcams will automatically overwrite old footage within hours or days ar most) and you don't use the footage for other purposes (harassing your neighbours, for example) then there shouldn't be a problem.
I live in a 1st floor flat with another flat above mine, and so therefore share a common close entrance. My upstairs neighbours are (unfortunately) junkies. After they moved in I've had nothing but problems, packages being stolen, there door has been kicked in countless times so I installed a ring doorbell camera.
The police have requested footage from it on numerous occasions now including when a visitor to their property (another junkie) went upstairs brandishing a foot long knife. I refuse point blank to turn off audio recording on the camera as I habitually check my camera before leaving home so I know it is safe to do so.
My neighbour has actually tried to use my camera footage to make false allegations against a third party which after the police have reviewed the footage then warned my neighbour about wasting police time.
To hell with DPA, my camera will continue to record video AND audio.
Alex Wilson
there door has been kicked in ?
Where is There exactly? What is that place?
Did you ever learn the difference between Their and There?
I would also suggest you do not know the difference between
ON and on nor the difference between Passing and overtaking.
@@andrew_koala2974 *Yawn* One mistake which I noticed after posting and then couldn't be bothered to go back and edit.
You can suggest anything you like, it doesn't make it true. But at least I didn't feel the need to capitalise the word 'there' in the middle of a sentence.
Go troll elsewhere as you'll receive no more responses from me.