Ring doorbell harassment gdpr
Discussion
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/7838269/man-...
Got to be more to this?
A simple sticker is the answer?!
Got to be more to this?
A simple sticker is the answer?!
I dont use ring, but do have quite a bit of cctv including one right above the door.
I’ve masked off all areas that overlook neighbours rear gardens.
At the front I’ve masked anything you wouldn’t be able to see stood on a public footpath.
And finally i’ve placed a gdpr complaint cctv poster up with contact details - so hopefully i’m good.
I’ve masked off all areas that overlook neighbours rear gardens.
At the front I’ve masked anything you wouldn’t be able to see stood on a public footpath.
And finally i’ve placed a gdpr complaint cctv poster up with contact details - so hopefully i’m good.
efcgriswold said:
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/7838269/man-...
Got to be more to this?
A simple sticker is the answer?!
It says he fitted four devices, so unless like all PHrs he has 4 entrance doors, I guess there are other cameras dotted around? Shoddy journalism as per usual.Got to be more to this?
A simple sticker is the answer?!
Well, I will have to resit my gdpr training, as I thought it didn't apply to individuals.
Though it seems only some aspects of data processing related to household activities are exempt.
The other point is how the newspaper gets the figure of £100k that "may" have to be paid.
It seems totally incomprehensible how this amount of damage could be awarded, when victims of other crimes get nothing.
Unless it includes £99k of legal fees..?
Though it seems only some aspects of data processing related to household activities are exempt.
The other point is how the newspaper gets the figure of £100k that "may" have to be paid.
It seems totally incomprehensible how this amount of damage could be awarded, when victims of other crimes get nothing.
Unless it includes £99k of legal fees..?
Ian Geary said:
Well, I will have to resit my gdpr training, as I thought it didn't apply to individuals.
Though it seems only some aspects of data processing related to household activities are exempt.
The other point is how the newspaper gets the figure of £100k that "may" have to be paid.
It seems totally incomprehensible how this amount of damage could be awarded, when victims of other crimes get nothing.
Unless it includes £99k of legal fees..?
Possibly. Other neighbours also have ring systems but we’re not included in the action by the claimant. I’m guessing that the harassment was more in person and cctv just a small part of it. Though it seems only some aspects of data processing related to household activities are exempt.
The other point is how the newspaper gets the figure of £100k that "may" have to be paid.
It seems totally incomprehensible how this amount of damage could be awarded, when victims of other crimes get nothing.
Unless it includes £99k of legal fees..?
El stovey said:
“Facing the prospect of”
The Scottish sun
Lots of it doesn’t really add up and I’m not sure the article is particularly accurate tbh.
Yeh agreed theres quite a bit of BS in there, but as i posted above even a private dwelling cant just wack cameras up everywhere without any notices - lots of people do and they are in murky waters.The Scottish sun
Lots of it doesn’t really add up and I’m not sure the article is particularly accurate tbh.
As I said, I masked neighbors rear gardens, any neighbors windows out the front (just to be safe) and have a gdpr compliant notice up.
From the horse’s mouth:
https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/domestic-cctv...
.:ian:. said:
It says he fitted four devices, so unless like all PHrs he has 4 entrance doors, I guess there are other cameras dotted around? Shoddy journalism as per usual.
Ring cameras don’t all have doorbells…. It’s just other cameras placed around but accessed through the same app.People need to apply common sense and not film into their neighbours property. The Sun story doesn’t detail what exactly was being filmed but to get to court like that it must have been covering more than just a private area.
I set up a camera in my back garden to cover the path from the gate and across the back of my house. It is mounted so as not to film the public street or anything in my neighbours garden. I also took the time to discuss with my neighbour and show them the area it covered so they didn’t just see a camera on the fence and start wondering. End result is no complaints.
If you stick something on the front of your house that can film a neighbouring property without permission the you are asking for trouble. Even filming into the public road could upset people, even if not illegal (provided you have a sign, respond to subsist access requests etc.).
I set up a camera in my back garden to cover the path from the gate and across the back of my house. It is mounted so as not to film the public street or anything in my neighbours garden. I also took the time to discuss with my neighbour and show them the area it covered so they didn’t just see a camera on the fence and start wondering. End result is no complaints.
If you stick something on the front of your house that can film a neighbouring property without permission the you are asking for trouble. Even filming into the public road could upset people, even if not illegal (provided you have a sign, respond to subsist access requests etc.).
I've got a CCTV style small camera tucked away in the top right of my garage roof's alcove - it is visible if you look for it.
It looks out over my driveway, the angle prevents my neighbour's driveway (which is not separated from mine by anything but visual style) from being captured, well, maybe an inch of it or so. My neighbours either side know it is there, not sure about other people in the street.
What is visible on screen is less than what would be visible if I looked out of the window. It does show the street and does capture the drives of the people opposite - the camera quality would be insufficient to see into any homes, it's also pointed downward to prevent this.
The camera has an SD card that records on a loop like a dash cam, I can access a few days of recordings from the App - it also has cloud storage for 24 hours of motion events. As such, data is being turned over at a fast rate and is not stored for more than a few days.
Anyone know if I am out of compliance in any way?
It looks out over my driveway, the angle prevents my neighbour's driveway (which is not separated from mine by anything but visual style) from being captured, well, maybe an inch of it or so. My neighbours either side know it is there, not sure about other people in the street.
What is visible on screen is less than what would be visible if I looked out of the window. It does show the street and does capture the drives of the people opposite - the camera quality would be insufficient to see into any homes, it's also pointed downward to prevent this.
The camera has an SD card that records on a loop like a dash cam, I can access a few days of recordings from the App - it also has cloud storage for 24 hours of motion events. As such, data is being turned over at a fast rate and is not stored for more than a few days.
Anyone know if I am out of compliance in any way?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10085561/...
So, the DM article is actually the better journalism here! Clearly his cars are parked away from his house in a public area so his cameras are probably intruding into neighbours property in order to see them.
So, the DM article is actually the better journalism here! Clearly his cars are parked away from his house in a public area so his cameras are probably intruding into neighbours property in order to see them.
We are currently in a long running dispute with a neighbour, some 4 years of harassment from him now, that has resulted in police action and solicitors' letters. Next step is the county court.
The police checked my CCTV and said I should get a better system that included sound recording to capture the neighbour's threats and abuse. Once installed the neighbour complained to the police. He claimed it invaded his property but it does not. He has an 8 foot hedge between us so the only time he can be seen is on the road in front of my house where he conducts his campaign to force us to sell up and move out - we have him recorded saying this right in front of the house - and as the courts have ruled, when in a public place you have no expectation of privacy.
The solicitors and the police have all agreed there is no problem with the CCTV coverage and the other neighbours have seen it and have asked me to keep it as is, so they are protected. Only a couple of months ago it recorded a prowler who had attempted to steal the dispute neighbour's X2 from the road.
In keeping with the ICO guidelines my CCTV erases after 8 days and as there is criminal activity by the neighbour including criminal damage and public order offences, I can keep the footage as evidence. The police did show him footage of one of his public order offences so he has seen it was not on his property.
My CCTV system is not connected to the internet or a phone, it is entirely independent and is kept in the rear bedroom. This way I don't watch the CCTV when there's nothing on the telly. I check it once a day and simply review any alerts shown on the timeline - more often squirrels and foxes.
The ICO guidelines also say this:
" If you follow our guidance and take all reasonable steps to comply with your data protection obligations, the ICO is unlikely to regard you as a regulatory risk. So the ICO would be unlikely to think that taking enforcement action against you was a proportionate use of its resources."
The police checked my CCTV and said I should get a better system that included sound recording to capture the neighbour's threats and abuse. Once installed the neighbour complained to the police. He claimed it invaded his property but it does not. He has an 8 foot hedge between us so the only time he can be seen is on the road in front of my house where he conducts his campaign to force us to sell up and move out - we have him recorded saying this right in front of the house - and as the courts have ruled, when in a public place you have no expectation of privacy.
The solicitors and the police have all agreed there is no problem with the CCTV coverage and the other neighbours have seen it and have asked me to keep it as is, so they are protected. Only a couple of months ago it recorded a prowler who had attempted to steal the dispute neighbour's X2 from the road.
In keeping with the ICO guidelines my CCTV erases after 8 days and as there is criminal activity by the neighbour including criminal damage and public order offences, I can keep the footage as evidence. The police did show him footage of one of his public order offences so he has seen it was not on his property.
My CCTV system is not connected to the internet or a phone, it is entirely independent and is kept in the rear bedroom. This way I don't watch the CCTV when there's nothing on the telly. I check it once a day and simply review any alerts shown on the timeline - more often squirrels and foxes.
The ICO guidelines also say this:
" If you follow our guidance and take all reasonable steps to comply with your data protection obligations, the ICO is unlikely to regard you as a regulatory risk. So the ICO would be unlikely to think that taking enforcement action against you was a proportionate use of its resources."
AJL308 said:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10085561/...
So, the DM article is actually the better journalism here! Clearly his cars are parked away from his house in a public area so his cameras are probably intruding into neighbours property in order to see them.
If you look at the pic of his blue S3 you can see the ring camera mounted on the shed above, it could be pointing at the neighbours back garden.So, the DM article is actually the better journalism here! Clearly his cars are parked away from his house in a public area so his cameras are probably intruding into neighbours property in order to see them.
Edited by whytheory on Wednesday 13th October 09:35
Does the County Court issue £100,000 fines?
Also its weird that the "Doctor" took her own case to the County Court rather than the ICO taking action.
Normally the ICO takes action because you fail to handle the data correctly, or if you publish the data in the public domain - for example.
I suspect there is a LOT more to this case than just the simple act of fitting CCTV.
Also its weird that the "Doctor" took her own case to the County Court rather than the ICO taking action.
Normally the ICO takes action because you fail to handle the data correctly, or if you publish the data in the public domain - for example.
I suspect there is a LOT more to this case than just the simple act of fitting CCTV.
The law is a little hazy, but if the camera is capturing only pictures within the bounds of the property (including the garden) then data protection laws don't apply. If it can see beyond then the camera operator has to provide some basic data protection compliance. Such as a mechanism for having data removed and showing the need (crime prevention).
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff