Security cameras and doorbells

[Broccers]

https://www.theregister.com/2021/10/13/ ... rotection/

How is this an intrusion of privacy 2 doors sway?

Is there more to this story? I've looked but can't find any information.

Makes you wonder.

[Beany]

The case was sparked by audio-visual technician Woodard installing yet another camera on a neighbour's wall after falsely claiming an "armed criminal gang" tried to steal his car – putting a communal car park and its access road under full surveillance.

Well that's rude. Communal areas aren't his areas to monitor.

Ruling in Fairhurst's favour, Her Honour Judge Melissa Clarke said that while Woodard's rights to film his doorstep were stronger than his neighbour's right to walk around free from CCTV surveillance, Woodard couldn't lawfully record audio from the camera, which was sensitive enough to pick up conversations more than 40 feet away:

"I am satisfied that the extent of range to which these devices can capture audio is well beyond the range of video that they capture, and in my view cannot be said to be reasonable for the purpose for which the devices are used by the Defendant, since the legitimate aim for which they are said to be used, namely crime prevention, could surely be achieved by something less".

"A great deal of the purpose could be achieved without audio at all," added the judge.

Guy is a nosy cock. And that explains how the cameras can affect someone two doors away.

The gang wasn't armed. Neither was Woodard telling the truth when he reassured his neighbours that the new camera was a "dummy". When Fairhurst's partner Dr Ruggero Franich took a close look at the camera lens, Woodard immediately phoned her claiming the homeowner whose wall he installed it on was "in a panic" because of "a strange man" outside her house.

The following morning Fairhurst spoke to the homeowner, who "said she knew nothing about any such activity the previous evening" and "had not been in touch with" Woodard.

After a shouting match caused Fairhurst to flee from her home, the CCTV fanatic later called the police on Franich, supplying cops camera imagery of him as he parked his car in Fairhurst's driveway and collected her post.

HHJ Clarke went on to describe Woodard as "stuck in a web of his own lies" as he tried to explain all of this in court, adding later that she found his evidence "entirely unbelievable" unless supported by others.

Guys a bullshitting attention whore.

Woodard, of 87 Cromwell Avenue, Thame, was found to have breached the Data Protection Act 2018 and harassed Fairhurst. He gave his side of the story in an interview with the Daily Mail.

He fucked about and found out. The DPA is taken pretty seriously.

Is there more to this story? I've looked but can't find any information.

It's literally all there in the article.

[Jobbo]

Or even read the court judgment: https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/fairhurst-v-woodard/

[Mito Man]

If he wants to film the communal car park he should just just buy a Tesla, 360 degree incognito CCTV

[Broccers]

Highly unlikely she's going to get 100k.

[Jobbo]

Highly unlikely she's going to get 100k.

That figure isn't mentioned in the story you linked, the judgment or this thread until you raised it. You've given yourself away as a Daily Mail reader again, Broccers

[Broccers]

It's all over twitter lad.

https://mobile.twitter.com/search?src=r ... 20doorbell

[Jobbo]

https://www.theregister.com/2021/10/13/ ... rotection/

How is this an intrusion of privacy 2 doors sway?

Is there more to this story? I've looked but can't find any information.

Makes you wonder.

Seems you must have been a bit blind.

[Beany]

It's all over twitter lad.

https://mobile.twitter.com/search?src=r ... 20doorbell

The only place it's referenced is in tabloid headlines, and they're almost certainly pulling that figure out of their arse by just looking at the guidelines for DPA breaches.

It's like saying someone convicted for murder COULD GET A WHOLE LIFE TERM. Yeah, they might, but it's unlikely.

[Broccers]

So no discussion about cameras or door bell devices just the usual Broccers baiting.

Need to up your game fellas

[Beany]

There's nothing to discuss.

The only reason this why to court is because the guy in question was being a fucking weirdo. It's not setting a precedent, it's an implementation of existing law which is very clear on the matter that you should, on a best effort basis, only record what is appropriate with any camera device.

The original article you linked from The Register covered that pretty clearly.

[Jobbo]

[drcarlos]

I have some, fairly cheap wireless 4 cam setup from ebay they point at my property only, I got them after the inlaws had the cat stolen from the Celica and thought a bit of CCTV might have been useful.

They don't do sound but do motion detect however that's turned off at the moment (might switch it back on for the front door cam only though) as it's a pain and I have no wish to watch a squirrel run across my garden every 10 mins.

They are purely there if I need some playback after an incident and as deterrent.

[drcarlos]

Based on that picture will the neighbour that's closer to the claimant also have to pay up as their Ring doorbell will doubtless cover more of her property?
They've demonstrated in court the ring doorbell had sound settings that could not be changed and the camera angle is too wide, also are Amazon jointly liable?

[Mito Man]

How has Mr Woodard gone from an AV tech to a plumber now

[dinny_g]

I demand to know how much his house is worth!!!

[Jobbo]

Based on that picture will the neighbour that's closer to the claimant also have to pay up as their Ring doorbell will doubtless cover more of her property?
They've demonstrated in court the ring doorbell had sound settings that could not be changed and the camera angle is too wide, also are Amazon jointly liable?

The court found that the recording of video by the doorbell was incidental and permitted (para 134 of the judgment). That presumably means the camera angle was not too wide?

Amazon won't be liable because it comes down to where the doorbell is mounted, which is not in their control. I can imagine there'll be a firmware update regarding the audio recording very shortly though.

[dinny_g]

I demand to know how much his house is worth!!!

Never mind = the mail has me covered = £250,000

Now if I could just have a few pictures of Mr Woodard pointing at things, I'll be done..

[drcarlos]

Based on that picture will the neighbour that's closer to the claimant also have to pay up as their Ring doorbell will doubtless cover more of her property?
They've demonstrated in court the ring doorbell had sound settings that could not be changed and the camera angle is too wide, also are Amazon jointly liable?

The court found that the recording of video by the doorbell was incidental and permitted (para 134 of the judgment). That presumably means the camera angle was not too wide?

Amazon won't be liable because it comes down to where the doorbell is mounted, which is not in their control. I can imagine there'll be a firmware update regarding the audio recording very shortly though.

I missed that bit, but I'm sure I read the firmware was done in 2020 in the judgement.

[Jobbo]

I missed that bit, but I'm sure I read the firmware was done in 2020 in the judgement.

You're right - the judgment does indeed say that and I missed it. So Amazon corrected the issue before it got to court; a further reason why they should not be liable.