data protection act and fines

[gummy bears]

Hi All,

Recently I heard about a case where a man was being fined 100,000pounds (a life changing amount) as his ring door bell was recording his neighbour.

What if you don't have a hard drive or online recording, is it still possible to fall foul of some law or the data protection act only applies if you save the data?

Thanks

 

[JohnD]

I heard about

as his ring door bell was recording his neighbour

have you read the court report to find out what was really going on?

 

[gummy bears]

have you read the court report to find out what was really going on?

thanks for the reply, JohnD.

No - but I was hoping someone was going to explain the case. It does seems scary that someone can innocently setup a ring door bell and get fined 100,000 - so I'm guessing there was more to it than just that.

But my question still stands, if your equipment can only live view (no sound, as I think that was part of the problem for the mentioned case) and does not record does the data protection apply to you? And can you break some part of the law?

Thanks.

 

[Swwils]

He may be forced to pay up to that amount, it does not seem like the case was simple. I think audio recording is involved.

The Data Protection Act also has an associated code of practice. This code gives includes a number of recommendations to ensure compliance with the Data Protection Act requirements.

The ICO also produce a domestic CCTV guide that explain what you need to do and if the DPA applies to your use.

If your CCTV is just for live monitoring, it is unlikely that a proper use assessment has taken place and that it would fall fowl of either a privacy impact assesment or the basic grounds for having the system.

https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/domestic-cctv-systems-guidance-for-people-using-cctv/

 

[DIYSOS2018]

Link to this apparent case?

 

[gummy bears]

If your CCTV is just for live monitoring, it is unlikely that a proper use assessment has taken place and that it would fall fowl of either a privacy impact assesment or the basic grounds for having the system.

https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/domestic-cctv-systems-guidance-for-people-using-cctv/

thanks for the reply Swwils

 

[gummy bears]

Link to this apparent case?

Hi DIYSOS, thanks for your interest. Do you own a ring doorbell out of interest?

Could EVERY Ring doorbell customer face £100,000 fine after landmark ruling? | Daily Mail Online

 

[Old Salt]

I think the problem here was that it was recording audio and visitors next door, and despite being asked not to, the defendant continued to record and not alter the view his ring doorbell had of the neighbours property.
If you can only see your property boundaries you are generally okay. Mine is capable of blanking out some areas to prevent catching video of passersby etc.
My CCTV only records visitors to my property.

 

[DIYSOS2018]

Hi DIYSOS, thanks for your interest. Do you own a ring doorbell out of interest?

Could EVERY Ring doorbell customer face £100,000 fine after landmark ruling? | Daily Mail Online

Thanks. No not at all just find it interesting.

 

[secureiam]

@gummybears

the incident is a little more complicated than a ring door bell and £100k fine.

Having seen only summaries and interpretations of the findings.

The lady moved out due to her neighbour and his actions.
Coverage with the doorbell and other cameras.

No signage
Misuse of the data (sharing with neighbours claiming suspicious activity)
Threatening neighbour (saying sending footage to police)
Claiming system wasn't recording on certain cameras but the court ruled it was
not seen evidence so can't comment.
Footage and audio outside of his boundary.
Complaints and issues raised were ignored by the defendant.

So it sounds like the neighbours weren't rubbing along very well and one was trying to play the upperhand and she proved her point in a court of law.

CCTV footage outside of your boundary needs to have clear signage
Privacy masks should be used if a privacy issue exists.
Talking to your neighbours and discussing the footage going to be covered and then what actually is covered may have left both sides in better positions.

The police used to have a different view, ie if you don't see inside someones home or garden/ property then its not a major issue.

The ico guidance is poor, they have including upto relatively recently advised differently on the same scenarios and they are often vague at best.

If you have issues with crime, make sure they are logged with the police (justification for CCTV).
Verbal abuse or threats made that are verbal, could be justification of having audio recordings. however they should not eaves drop on your neighbour going about their business in their garden.

Its complicated.

 

[Sally2000]

And of course the case was hyped up in the Daily Mail. No surprise there.

 

[secureiam]

Each case assessed on its Merits.

But my question still stands, if your equipment can only live view (no sound, as I think that was part of the problem for the mentioned case) and does not record does the data protection apply to you? And can you break some part of the law?

Live streaming of something other than within your boundary or an area you do not have permission for may be covered by different legislation.

I suspect its very complicated as it would have many factors including what your are doing with the live stream.

A live stream only has limited use in a security perspective unless someone monitors it all day long.

That's one for the lawyers

 

[bernardgreen]

Thing that worries me about systems like Ring door bells and security cameras is that many users do not use strong passwords which then makes it easy for hackers to take over the devices

https://www.digitaltrends.com/home/how-to-prevent-your-ring-smart-camera-from-being-hacked/

and also video stored on cloud servers has been accessed

https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/10/18177305/ring-employees-unencrypted-customer-video-amazon

Ring and similar systems do offer a degree of security and peace of mind to the owners but the owners do need to consider how secure is the storage and use of the video / data / audio that the system creates. If that is stored on a computor that is 100% secure ( ie no connection to WiFi or the internet ) and is in a locked cupboard to prevent it being accessed by un-authorised persons or stolen then Data Protection guidelines will ( almost certainly ) have been complied with..

 

[mattylad]

The ICO guidance on domestic CCTV does mention that you should have a sign up like Secure says, however I seen no reference to any law that requires it.

As for putting your computer in a locked cupboard, where does it say that it needs to be?
Being inside the house which has locked doors is ample enough to cover "secure" storage.

My neighbour has a camera on the front of his house that points to where he would park his car on the street.
No one really cares about it, he does not tell anyone he is sending the data to the police or capturing audio, it's just sitting there.

We have cameras all around us when walking through a town centre etc, I never see any signs on them.

If your not recording but only watching a camera and it's capturing some public areas then it is no different to your being there and watching them or filming them with a hand camera.
There is no expectation or privacy when in public, you can film and take photos of almost everything when in public.

 

[^woody^]

It's a typically stupid way in which laws designed for one thing suddenly start to be used for other things for which they were never intended. Expect the ambulance chasers shortly.

If you read the ICO's own guidance, every single video doorbell could be interpreted as breaking the law.

But on a positive note, you could make a nice profit from all the subject access requests from neighbours and random passer-bys who will be alarmed at their loss of privacy while they are just nipping down the shop for some milk in their PJs.