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.
“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.
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...