Ring doorbells and the like might breach GDPR

[Ditto]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-58911296

 

This might make you think about checking what you record at school and home.

[bald_pig]

non-article really, of course pointing a camera at your neighbour's house/garden is a gdpr breach!

[Ditto]

non-article really, of course pointing a camera at your neighbour's house/garden is a gdpr breach!

 

I'm not so sure. I suspect many people are innocently recording more than their own property. This case might be extreme, but within domestic use I suspect it happens quite a bit. What is also interesting is to see the regulations tested in court and an outcome. Many aspects in DPA/GDPR don't have examples of being tested and this alone makes the report interesting - well, to me at least!

[elsiegee40]

GDPR does not apply to data held for domestic and personal reasons.

 

However, pointing any sort of cctv camera over someone’s property does go against their right to privacy.

 

Nothing has changed

[Ditto]

The BBC quote when referring to the judge, particularly in relation to audio recording: "That, she said, was in breach of UK data laws - both the UK Data Protection Act and UK GDPR." Who is wrong here - the judge or the BBC journalist?

[elsiegee40]

 

Well the ICO is pretty clear on the domestic purpose. So if the judge says GDPR is breached by personal cameras they’re wrong.

 

As I said, it breaches other laws concerning the right to privacy on your property and that is also covered by the ICO saying that exemptions to GDPR don’t let you off if you break other laws.

[mikeprice]

How does it work in the case of e.g. Ring doorbells

the data is held centrally by a commercial entity but is accessed by the owner

if I understand it correctly

 

so does this mean the exemption still applies or not??

[Ditto]

How does it work in the case of e.g. Ring doorbells

the data is held centrally by a commercial entity but is accessed by the owner

if I understand it correctly

 

so does this mean the exemption still applies or not??

It's interesting point to add. I have no doubt around breach of privacy laws, but what really caught my eye is the reference to GDPR. I'll probably come back to this, but if anyone is interested, the ruling (rather than the journalistic slant) is at https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Fairhurst-v-Woodard-Judgment-1.pdf. Interestingly, it quotes "UK GDPR" several times. @elsiegee40 makes a notable comment around domestic use, which I don't see referenced anywhere in the judgement. ICO of course publish very valuable interpretation of the legislation, but other authorities may make contradictory interpretations. But the judgement does quote "Article 82 of the UK GDPR provides for compensation for material or nonmaterial damage, including distress".

 

For me, the judgement is worth a read, if only for the write up on the assessments of witnesses! If the GDPR element is a mis-judgement, the defendant needs a better lawyer, but you'd think an appeal is on the way. With alleged circa £100k penalty riding on this, it'll be worth looking at this closely.

 

In terms of impact of the ruling, local SM is already showing a number of spooked users, most saying they will turn off sound recording. One local reported that they had bought Ring yesterday and they are thinking of returning it. Right or wrong, the judgement is already having an impact.

I suspect there is some mileage to go in this case, and if you Google the judge, you'll see she has been pulled up on 'misuse of power' by a court of appeal previously, so things can change. I'm feeling the need to summon @GrumbleDook, who I am sure has a much to add to the discussion.

 

Linking back to the school environment, perhaps more on a privacy the DPA basis, I would think it wise to review the coverage of your surveillance, especially if you have audio recording - although in the schools I have worked in, audio was never part of it.

Edited October 15, 2021 by elsiegee40

[elsiegee40]

In terms of impact of the ruling, local SM is already showing a number of spooked users, most saying they will turn off sound recording. One local reported that they had bought Ring yesterday and they are thinking of returning it. Right or wrong, the judgement is already having an impact.

 

I have a Ring security camera. I use it as a trail camera in my garden. It doesn’t look into anyone else’s property and the wildlife hasn’t threatened legal action yet

[localzuk]

[ATTACH]63392[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]63393[/ATTACH]

 

Well the ICO is pretty clear on the domestic purpose. So if the judge says GDPR is breached by personal cameras they’re wrong.

 

As I said, it breaches other laws concerning the right to privacy on your property and that is also covered by the ICO saying that exemptions to GDPR don’t let you off if you break other laws.

 

That doesn't seem to match the guidance on their site? https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/domestic-cctv-systems-guidance-for-people-using-cctv/

 

Specifically, if it catches areas that are not on your own property, then you're covered by GDPR and DPA2018.

 

Also, the big issue for me is the audio recording - there are very few exceptions where recording audio is allowed from what I remember!

[paulkerton]

The thing about video doorbells in particular, is that it's designed to catch people who are attempting to speak to you at the front door or conversely, someone attempting to boot your front door in.

Those are 99/100 times videoing public space, in which people have no right to privacy as it's a public space (and you can take a photograph and capture anyone in that public space in it and not break the law)

 

But if its security cameras other than a doorbell looking out into the street, and it's filming someone's back garden then that's a different kettle of fish entirely.

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

I have a Ring security camera. I use it as a trail camera in my garden. It doesn’t look into anyone else’s property and the wildlife hasn’t threatened legal action yet

[ATTACH]63396[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]63397[/ATTACH]

 

Now their is case law, they'll be badgering you before you know it.

 

[synaesthesia]

I have a Ring security camera. I use it as a trail camera in my garden. It doesn’t look into anyone else’s property and the wildlife hasn’t threatened legal action yet

[ATTACH]63396[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]63397[/ATTACH]

 

Best use of a Ring doorbell EVER.

[Ditto]

I have a Ring security camera. I use it as a trail camera in my garden. It doesn’t look into anyone else’s property and the wildlife hasn’t threatened legal action yet

[ATTACH]63396[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]63397[/ATTACH]

Yes, your use wouldn't trouble the judge I'm sure; own garden and GDPR is just for humans. Chris Packham might want that changed though! The following made me smile though - https://for-pets.co.uk/gdpr-privacy-policy/. I'm thinking of identifying as a badger, I wonder where that would leave me in terms of regulations?

[Ditto]

The thing about video doorbells in particular, is that it's designed to catch people who are attempting to speak to you at the front door or conversely, someone attempting to boot your front door in.

Those are 99/100 times videoing public space, in which people have no right to privacy as it's a public space (and you can take a photograph and capture anyone in that public space in it and not break the law)

 

But if its security cameras other than a doorbell looking out into the street, and it's filming someone's back garden then that's a different kettle of fish entirely.

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

 

 

Now their is case law, they'll be badgering you before you know it.

 

Apart from the pun , I think that's a very valid point, public versus private space recording. But again, that's the privacy part of law and my focus is on the judge's interpretation of DPA/GDPR. However, @localzuk has highlighted something important and is perhaps where the accused has fallen foul of GDPR, even covering public space.

Edited October 15, 2021 by Ditto

[Ditto]

That doesn't seem to match the guidance on their site? https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/domestic-cctv-systems-guidance-for-people-using-cctv/

 

Specifically, if it catches areas that are not on your own property, then you're covered by GDPR and DPA2018.

 

Also, the big issue for me is the audio recording - there are very few exceptions where recording audio is allowed from what I remember!

A really key observation. There are often conflicting aspects to laws and when cases go through the courts, the judicial interpretations and conclusions are important.

[synaesthesia]

Consent. It would be courtesy to say "I've fitted X device, do you have any concerns?" - it can be for their benefit too, they may however prefer the privacy and ask for it to be moved or blanked off. I agree it may be a little over the top on the ruling, however the audio thing does run true and a good reason why for general surveillance devices audio recording is avoided entirely. Plus signage should be in place - do Ring kits come with the appropriate signs?

[elsiegee40]

Consent. It would be courtesy to say "I've fitted X device, do you have any concerns?" - it can be for their benefit too, they may however prefer the privacy and ask for it to be moved or blanked off. I agree it may be a little over the top on the ruling, however the audio thing does run true and a good reason why for general surveillance devices audio recording is avoided entirely. Plus signage should be in place - do Ring kits come with the appropriate signs?

 

There was a warning sticker that came with my security camera. People probably don’t bother to use it though and don’t understand the legal implications of not doing so.

[Arthur]

[jmak]

I watched this at the weekend. Sounds like the main issue is that the guy with the security equipment is a complete ar$e. It's not just the Ring doorbell, he's got a parking area behind (outside the boundaries of) his property under surveillance of a pile of cameras and security devices. When his neighbour complained to him, he sent copies of the videos of the complainant to all his neighbours and told her he'd sent them to the police.

 

The privacy ruling is mostly about the audio recording and that private conversations have a reasonable likelihood of being captured incidentally, so therefore aren't covered by legislate use. From what I can see, the Ring doorbell only records audio when the video is recording. If you set the trigger area of the video recording, you shouldn't get long recordings of your neighbours and you can justify what is recorded as being for legitimate purposes.

 

This guy seems to deserve what he got!

[enjay]

The thing about video doorbells in particular, is that it's designed to catch people who are attempting to speak to you at the front door or conversely, someone attempting to boot your front door in.

Those are 99/100 times videoing public space, in which people have no right to privacy as it's a public space (and you can take a photograph and capture anyone in that public space in it and not break the law)

 

Is it that straightforward? A doorbell camera would indeed be showing public space (the street) but it is pointing at the front of the house opposite, so it also captures images through their front window, and that is private space. Or does it still count as public space since you can see it from somewhere public?

[paulkerton]

but it is pointing at the front of the house opposite, so it also captures images through their front window, and that is private space.

 

Well that's dependent on what they're doing at their front window to minimise the ease of visibility, surely?

 

You couldn't stand butt nekkid in your window without curtains, blinds or net curtains and then complain that people are being voyeurs as they walk past. It's about balance, isn't it?

[Rob_D]

Is it that straightforward? A doorbell camera would indeed be showing public space (the street) but it is pointing at the front of the house opposite, so it also captures images through their front window, and that is private space. Or does it still count as public space since you can see it from somewhere public?

 

 

Does the Ring have the ability to blank out sections of the screen?

[enjay]

Does the Ring have the ability to blank out sections of the screen?

 

That is more about CCTV, and stopping movement in certain areas from triggering the camera, e.g. so tree branches moving don't keep the camera recording 24/7. It isn't about not recording in a particular area of the screen.

[Primus]

That is more about CCTV, and stopping movement in certain areas from triggering the camera, e.g. so tree branches moving don't keep the camera recording 24/7. It isn't about not recording in a particular area of the screen.

 

No you can black out sections entirely from recording and viewing - eg. you could black out your neighbour's garden but have the camera record your own.