{"id":8611,"date":"2021-10-27T12:13:29","date_gmt":"2021-10-27T12:13:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/TheNextWeb=1371162"},"modified":"2021-10-27T12:13:29","modified_gmt":"2021-10-27T12:13:29","slug":"installing-a-smart-doorbell-heres-how-to-do-it-without-being-fined","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.londonchiropracter.com\/?p=8611","title":{"rendered":"Installing a smart doorbell? Here\u2019s how to do it without being fined"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

As any local solicitor can tell you, some of the most bitter legal disputes originate from disagreements between neighbors<\/a>. Whether it\u2019s property boundaries, loud music, or parking spaces, what might initially be minor irritations can gradually lead to a full-blown court battle.<\/p>\n

A relatively recent development in neighbor conflicts are clashes centered on home surveillance products, such as CCTV cameras<\/a> and smart doorbells<\/a>. These technologies, which may capture footage beyond the householder\u2019s property, can pit householders against neighbors who feel their homes and private lives are being unfairly spied upon.<\/p>\n

Indeed, a UK judge recently ruled<\/a> that a man\u2019s home security system invaded his neighbor\u2019s privacy, and he now faces a fine of up to \u00a3100,000<\/a>. So what are the privacy implications of this technology, and what do people need to know if they have, or are considering installing a smart doorbell?<\/p>\n

The use of surveillance technologies is governed by a range of measures. Some provide advice and guidance, like the surveillance camera code of practice<\/a>, which sets out principles for operators<\/a> to follow. Others are legal requirements, such as the rules for collection and processing of personal data under the Data Protection Act 2018<\/a> and the UK General Data Protection Regulation<\/a> (GDPR).<\/p>\n

These measures aim to ensure that any use of surveillance technologies is for legitimate purposes, proportionate, and compliant with relevant legal obligations. A key concern is that surveillance should, as far as possible, be with the informed consent of those surveilled.<\/p>\n

Where do smart doorbells fit in?<\/h2>\n

Purely \u201cdomestic use\u201d of personal data by a private individual is exempted<\/a> from the data protection legislation \u2013 for example, your list of addresses for sending Christmas cards. But it\u2019s well established that home surveillance systems, including CCTV and smart doorbells, are subject to UK data protection legislation.<\/p>\n

A key case<\/a> in 2014 looked at the use of a home CCTV system by a Mr. Ryne\u0161 in the Czech Republic. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held that while Ryne\u0161\u2019s CCTV system was installed for a legitimate purpose \u2013 the protection of his property and personal security \u2013 the data collection went beyond that permitted solely for domestic use. This is because it collected personal data from a public space, including a footpath and the entrance to his neighbor\u2019s house opposite.<\/p>\n

With this ruling, the CJEU confirmed that domestic surveillance systems fall within the scope of the data protection legislation where they capture data beyond the boundaries of the homeowner\u2019s property. This interpretation remains applicable under UK law for now, although the UK government could potentially alter the scope of the \u201cdomestic exemption\u201d now that the UK has left the EU.<\/p>\n

While this case and others<\/a> that have followed since didn\u2019t involve smart doorbells specifically, the principle is the same. The case of Fairhurst vs Woodard<\/a> in the English County Court in October 2021 reinforces the view that the courts are likely to take a dim view of those who fail to use home surveillance equipment in a way that respects the rights of other people, including their neighbors.<\/p>\n

Woodard installed a range of surveillance technology, including CCTV cameras and a smart doorbell, for home security purposes. But these could record video and audio well beyond the boundaries of his property. He then actively misled his neighbor, Fairhurst, as to how and when the cameras operated. The court found Woodard to have breached his data protection obligation to process data in a lawful and transparent way, and to have collected personal data without a specified or lawful purpose, as required by the Data Protection Act 2018 and the GDPR.<\/p>\n

The court did recognize that home security could be a legitimate purpose for collection of data that would otherwise breach a neighbor\u2019s right to privacy if the collection was reasonable and proportionate for that purpose. For example, in relation to Woodard\u2019s Amazon Ring doorbell, the court held that capture of incidental personal data (such as video of Fairhurst walking past) was permissible. However, the capture of audio at a significant distance exceeded what was reasonable for the purposes, as did the fact the system\u2019s viewing range recorded large areas of Fairhursts property, including her side gate, garden, and parking space.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s worth noting that Woodard\u2019s use of his home surveillance system, and his interaction with Fairhurst concerning that use, also led to a successful action for harassment against him.<\/p>\n

\n

#GDPR<\/a>: Interesting case, with potential implications for others?
“Neighbour wins privacy row over smart doorbell and cameras” \u2013 BBC News https:\/\/t.co\/QhAMp0XC3d<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2014 Julian Wellings (@expertiseontap) October 14, 2021<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Some tips<\/h2>\n

If you\u2019re considering installing a home surveillance system, such as a smart doorbell, you should:<\/p>\n