[nixgeek]

How? I’m curious if you can share any case precedent, particularly examples of such a high amount being awarded?

In most U.S. jurisdictions, including WA (which has some of the more stringent law regulating recording), if you’re stood on their property or even on the street, surveillance of you is legal. About the only obligation you may have is to post signage.

Recording audio conversations is a bit trickier. In WA, they have RCW 9.73.110 [1] which does make provision for any cameras “within [the] building” recording audio — it’s therefore generally best for exterior cameras to *not* record audio given WA is a two-party consent state (with a few exceptions).

Edit: Looks like the person making this ESP32-based solution is in Ireland, which has its own peculiarities but with a bit of effort, it seems like you’d have no issues there either [2].

[1] https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73.110

[2] https://smartzone.ie/are-home-cctv-systems-legal-in-ireland-...

[blitzar]

I am referring to surveillence of myself on my property.

UK: https://www.brettwilson.co.uk/blog/neighbour-cctv-harassment...

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Fairhurs...

Previously - Scotland: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=854e9b90-2dab...

Daily Mail on the issue: Could EVERY doorbell camera owner face £100,000 fine after landmark ruling? How inadvertently filming neighbours and storing footage breaches their privacy under new data protection laws https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10087671/EVERY-Ring...

Depending on the specific circumstances, the domestic use of CCTV could be challenged if its use amounted to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

[nixgeek]

“Up to £100k”, damages don’t appear to have been decided in that case based on a Google? It’s also a case which has some egregious aspects to it, which the Daily Mail is ignoring in their haste to write another sensationalist headline.

Some of the analysis away from the front pages has been interesting [1] though:

“During the hearing, some of the main issues under investigation related to:

the field and depth of view of each camera, in particular whether they couldn't ‘see’ Dr Fairhurst or her visitors entering and leaving her property, her car, or the car park;

the sensitivity of their microphones;

the extent to which the devices activated themselves automatically, or were triggered, to capture, transmit or record video images and/or associated audio from the field of view;

whether Mr Woodard consulted neighbours sufficiently before installation or provided adequate notices or warnings after installation of the equipment; and

how and for what purpose Mr Woodard stored and processed the data produced by his devices.”

It looks like neighbor tried to solve this without a court case and he was perhaps not receptive to that approach.

[1] https://www.traverssmith.com/knowledge/knowledge-container/f...

[eternityforest]

That's kind of awful if someone trying to make themself safer with no intention to harass can be sued for that much.

This is exactly why I mostly like privacy laws but think they go slightly too far.