-
That is not what the judge said.
It's how I read the article. Is the actual ruling available anywhere accessible?
A video doorbell that directly looks out onto a public space, viewable from the public street, this is fine as it isn't an invasion of privacy to observe a public area
My understanding is you need to put up warning notices with details of the data controller and respond to subject access requests. I've never seen such notices associated with householder cameras and in this case it sounds like they did not respond appropriately (perhaps to a deleting request).
You could argue the data controller is obvious on a house but plenty of blocks of flats have cameras, no notices and it isn't at all obvious who is responsible for them.
jellybaby-
This was the original detail: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-58911296
He mounted a camera on the shed at the rear, including having audio enabled there.
(Surely there's a link to the actual ruling rather than press repeating other press months later)
-
It's how I read the article. Is the actual ruling available anywhere accessible?
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Fairhurst-v-Woodard-Judgment-1.pdf
[Edit] too slow
Velocio
NotThamesWater
That is not what the judge said.
The person in question installed multiple devices looking into private spaces... i.e. their back garden, and implicitly the neighbours back gardens and overlooked rooms. It also had audio recording enabled, which is an invasion of privacy in public spaces too... as you may observe someone at 20m but not hear them.... but these devices permit that.
A video doorbell that directly looks out onto a public space, viewable from the public street, this is fine as it isn't an invasion of privacy to observe a public area (unless an area specific by-law is applied, i.e. outside some gov buildings). But you shouldn't enable audio detection, and ideally should enforce an observed zone that doesn't overlook others.