Smart door bell harassment - 100K

Teken

Teken

Known around here
Aug 11, 2020
2,039
3,579
Canada
I thought this article was interesting yet confusing at the same time. The UK is one of the most surveilled countries in the world. Almost every open space is monitored by video security.

The article doesn’t really explain how the cameras were used to harass the long time member?!? Besides when the lady confronted the other person and became Aggressive

Harassment normally speaking is ongoing or initiated by another. The article doesn’t mention the ring owner talking threw the device to harass or threaten the lady. Nor does it indicate he initiated any communication through the ring devices.

They make reference to the DPA & GDPR and the personal data wasn’t processed in a fair & proper manner?!?

Does this mean share it with her? Retention time say only 5 days vs 30?

Anyone who has more insight about the two laws or the article would love to know the why’s!

flip.it

Man faces paying £100,000 to neighbour because smart doorbell caused harassment

His neighbour said her life was under 'continuous visual surveillance'.
flip.it flip.it
 
  • Like
Reactions: mat200
A little bit more insight from this article:

flip.it

Plumber ordered to pay neighbour £100,000 in Ring doorbell row may lose home

A PLUMBER is terrified he will lose his home after being ordered to pay his neighbour £100,000 because his Ring doorbell allegedly invaded her privacy. Jon Woodard, 45, was told yesterday that he m…
flip.it flip.it

One would have to assume this case would be appealed?!? Based on the photos the camera can’t even see her house. Never mind she didn’t even live there for three years?!?
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Parley
Aparently the case wasn't really about the door camera. He had another camera on his shed that looked out over his neighbour's garden and parking area. The judge was most critical of the fact that the cameras were also recording conversations in the neighbour's garden.

Try this article from the BBC:
 
Last edited:
NielK said:
Aparently the case wasn't really about the door camera. He had another camera on his shed that looked out over his neighbour's garden and parking area. The judge was most critical of the fact that the cameras were also recording conversations in the neighbour's garden.

Try this article from the BBC:

Click to expand...

This is the same information in my other link. I gather it’s the audio portion that is at issue even though this assumes a person is living outside - forever?!?

The part I’m having a hard time understanding is no where do they say the ring door bell guy is overtly monitoring the neighbor. It’s just the simple fact it’s recording which also doesn’t say if it’s 24.7.365 vs motion triggered.

I also find it ironic that of all places (UK) are saying that’s not OK! Almost every square block has CCTV somewhere in the guise of safety & security.

I’m also at a loss how the judge came up with $100K as penalty??? Murders & rapists don’t even get that kind of penalty after being convicted of said crime.

I feel sorry for this guy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bp2008, Old Timer, TonyR and 2 others
Teken said:
This is the same information in my other link. I gather it’s the audio portion that is at issue even though this assumes a person is living outside - forever?!?

The part I’m having a hard time understanding is no where do they say the ring door bell guy is overtly monitoring the neighbor. It’s just the simple fact it’s recording which also doesn’t say if it’s 24.7.365 vs motion triggered.

I also find it ironic that of all places (UK) are saying that’s not OK! Almost every square block has CCTV somewhere in the guise of safety & security.

I’m also at a loss how the judge came up with $100K as penalty??? Murders & rapists don’t even get that kind of penalty after being convicted of said crime.

I feel sorry for this guy.
Click to expand...
It does seem an extreme punishment. If you look at the stats for CCTV in the UK, we had 5-6 million at the end of 2020. Interestingly, only small fraction of them (under 5%) are run by the state/local authorities. The rest are run by private businesses and homeowners. London has a lot of CCTVs, (nearly 700k) but even then, only a small minority are run by the authorities.

The guy in this particular case only had two. Imagine if the UK homeowners all had as many cameras as the typical IPCamTalk contributor :-)
 
  • Like
Reactions: SouthernYankee, TonyR and sebastiantombs
NielK said:
It does seem an extreme punishment. If you look at the stats for CCTV in the UK, we had 5-6 million at the end of 2020. Interestingly, only small fraction of them (under 5%) are run by the state/local authorities. The rest are run by private businesses and homeowners. London has a lot of CCTVs, (nearly 700k) but even then, only a small minority are run by the authorities.

The guy in this particular case only had two. Imagine if the UK homeowners all had as many cameras as the typical IPCamTalk contributor :-)
Click to expand...

That’s what I was driving at along with given that example. Are people saying he would have gotten away vs received the same punishment?!?

I would love to know the details relating to this case. I mean he could have literally deleted everything before going to court unless the hardware was seized before he could. Perhaps he used the Ring cloud service and the courts asked Amazon to archive the entire contents thus proving how the camera was set and programmed.

Given one portion of the article indicates audio & recording was changed by a update. That could have been used as a technical out in his favour.

Also, no where does it say why the ring guy would not appeal the decision to a higher court?!? I feel the judge is making an example out of this guy for whatever reason because it’s not like he was being a pervert peering in a window or do they ever say he was literally monitoring the neighbour every chance he got.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TonyR and sebastiantombs
It would be interesting to see the actual clips that caused so much offence.

I also think it’s the audio recording that is the real issue.

My 2 front driveway cams do also record parts of the pavement and road directly outside of my house and my neighbours opposite which are partially in view are appreciative of this especially with the recent spate of catalytic converter thefts.

I think the judge is probably old school and out of touch with reality and as said above has made an example by awarding a ridiculous amount of damages. I’m sure the guy is going to appeal and to think it all started when he invited her in to see the home improvements he had made.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sphinxicus and sebastiantombs
Heck, one of my neighbors came to me for assistance when his log splitter was stolen because one of my cameras has a partial view of his driveway. Another has asked me to keep an eye on his mailbox because he's had mail stolen.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: TonyR, user8963, TVille and 1 other person
IAmATeaf said:
It would be interesting to see the actual clips that caused so much offence.

I also think it’s the audio recording that is the real issue.

My 2 front driveway cams do also record parts of the pavement and road directly outside of my house and my neighbours opposite which are partially in view are appreciative of this especially with the recent spate of catalytic converter thefts.

I think the judge is probably old school and out of touch with reality and as said above has made an example by awarding a ridiculous amount of damages. I’m sure the guy is going to appeal and to think it all started when he invited her in to see the home improvements he had made.
Click to expand...

I know recording audio is a serious balancing act depending upon where you live and respect that to the Nth degree. But let’s be serious it’s a Ring cam and it’s not by any stretch of the imagination top shelf!

Can you imagine any of the Dahua / Hikvision cameras that all of us use today?!? The judge cites 40 feet OMG that’s crazy listening skills?!?

Many of us can literally hear people and things exceeding 80 feet! Those using directional bullet microphones push 100 feet easily and can hear a fart in the wind.

I have to assume the British privacy laws cited up above are very much related to what we call in NA two party consent. I can only imagine the fall out if this guy had a PTZ programmed by one of our esteemed colleagues that had auto tracking?!?

The judge would have flipped her lid saying You’re literally following her which technically is true but it’s completely automated once set up!

The guy would probably be in jail serving 999999 years based on this cook’s judgment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sebastiantombs
Teken said:
Another article that highlights the audio capture is the crux of the huge 100K penalty.

flip.it

Your Amazon Ring camera could land you in trouble with the law, after shock ruling

A judge has ruled that a man infringed his neighbor's privacy with an Amazon Ring doorbell camera
flip.it flip.it
Click to expand...

That article also states that he put a cam up on his neighbours wall? If he did and she objected then I wonder if that was another reason for the dispute?

I have heard before that here in the UK the recording of audio can be contentious, in fact before getting my 5231-ze cams from Andy I looked into it but then thought what the hell, I’ll just mute the audio if I have any issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sphinxicus
IAmATeaf said:
That article also states that he put a cam up on his neighbours wall? If he did and she objected then I wonder if that was another reason for the dispute?

I have heard before that here in the UK the recording of audio can be contentious, in fact before getting my 5231-ze cams from Andy I looked into it but then thought what the hell, I’ll just mute the audio if I have any issues.
Click to expand...

Yeah I had to take a double take on that part as the other articles indicated the second one was installed on his shed. But, if in fact it was on her property I really can’t fault the lady.

Now, if it was on his own shed I really can’t say that was out of bounds. Unless it was mounted in a way that could view into a persons home like a bedroom that would be crossing the line.

At this point I honestly don’t know which is true shed vs home owners building?!?
 
Teken said:
At this point I honestly don’t know which is true shed vs home owners building?!?
Click to expand...
It depends, I guess.....where you spend the majority of your time is supposedly your "living quarters", which, of course if you're married, could be the garage or your tool shed! :lol:

Man...if only someone would start a Go Fund Me page for the poor bastid!
 
  • Like
Reactions: cyberwolf_uk, Old Timer and sebastiantombs
TonyR said:
It depends, I guess.....where you spend the majority of your time is supposedly your "living quarters", which, of course if you're married, could be the garage or your tool shed! :lol:

Man...if only someone would start a Go Fund Me page for the poor bastid!
Click to expand...



Some us probably spend more time in the shed (Man Cave) than at home!
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Crows and sebastiantombs
My man cave is at the opposite end of the house or down in the basement. No need for a cot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NightLife and Old Timer
As somebody from the UK I feel the government / courts change the rules to fit the narrative at times... This is just stupid, when I read about it some days ago my head was in my hands.... Yet another stupid rule passed by the courts... yet rapists and people with kiddy sh1t get a caution!! :angry:
We have weak leadership from the top and nobody to challenge them as I have as much chance of getting in power than the opposition at the moment. I believe there was a little bit more to it than just a simple Ring camera but it has set a very dangerous path......
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sphinxicus and sebastiantombs
cyberwolf_uk said:
As somebody from the UK I feel the government / courts change the rules to fit the narrative at times... This is just stupid, when I read about it some days ago my head was in my hands.... Yet another stupid rule passed by the courts... yet rapists and people with kiddy sh1t get a caution!! :angry:
We have weak leadership from the top and nobody to challenge them as I have as much chance of getting in power than the opposition at the moment. I believe there was a little bit more to it than just a simple Ring camera but it has set a very dangerous path......
Click to expand...

Another forum member has provided a YouTube video that outlines more of the facts. It appears the Ring person is completely guilty on two of the three counts.

Now, whether 100K Sterling is justified I just don’t know!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Griswalduk
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom