In the UK this recently led to a £100,000 fine: "A judge has ruled that security cameras and a Ring doorbell installed in a house in Oxfordshire 'unjustifiably invaded' the privacy of a neighbour ... the devices ... broke data laws and contributed to harassment."[0]
back
2 comments
>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.
...and...
>She said that she found the audio data that could capture conversations "even more problematic and detrimental than video data".
So it wasn't just a doorbell aimed at the street. It was the totality of the video and audio surveillance of an area that the neighbour could reasonably expect to be somewhat private.
Yes I saw that, amazing ruling. I wonder will it have much affect on behaviour (e.g. reduced sales of Ring)
I am shocked about this:
>Judge Melissa Clarke found that audio data collected by cameras on a shed, in a driveway and on the Ring doorbell was processed unlawfully. She noted that at the time it was not possible to turn off the audio recording facility - that happened in an update in 2020.
I would have assumed all camera makers implemented a software toggle to disable audio recording. It seems like a basic function to avoid violating laws against recording audio when you are not party to the conversation. It is Amazon though, so I guess I should not be surprised.