SpyVeillance: Thread

[grarpamp]

Neighbor spats around globe setting case law...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-58911296
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Fairhurst-v-Woodard-Judgment-1.pdf

 A judge has ruled that security cameras and a Ring doorbell installed
in a house in Oxfordshire "unjustifiably invaded" the privacy of a
neighbour, in a case that could have implications for home
surveillance devices. Dr Mary Fairhurst claimed that the devices
installed on the house of neighbour Jon Woodard broke data laws and
contributed to harassment. The judge upheld both these claims. Mr
Woodard now faces a substantial fine. He claimed he installed the
devices in good faith as a deterrent against burglars.

The origin of the row stems from an invitation from Mr Woodard to his
neighbour Dr Fairhurst to have a tour of his home renovations, during
which she claimed he showed off his new security system. The judgement
reads that Dr Fairhurst was "alarmed and appalled" to notice that he
had a camera mounted on his shed and that footage from it was sent to
his smartphone. A series of disputes about the cameras followed, which
resulted in Dr Fairhurst moving out of her home. In the judgement it
was found that the Ring doorbell captured images of the claimant's
house and garden, while the shed camera covered almost the whole of
her garden and her parking space.