2 minute read
Editorial
Grade 2 Wired
Grade 2 Wireless
Advertisement
Grade 3 Anti-masking
Discover more: capture.texe.com
www.psimagazine.co.uk
EDITORIAL
Court on camera
Sometimes the cheaper option can ultimately be the most expensive
There’s an old adage that goes along the lines of “when you use a professional tradesperson you are not just paying for their time and materials, you are paying for their expertise”. It’s a statement that applies exceedingly well in the world of security system installations as outlinedin a recent court case that could leave one DIY-er severely out of pocket.
In early October a judge ruled that security cameras and a Ring doorbell installed by Oxfordshire homeowner Jon Woodard "unjustifiably invaded" the privacy of his neighbour Dr Mary Fairhurst and ultimately broke data laws and contributed to harassment. Even though Mr Woodard installed the devices in good faith as a deterrent against burglars he now faces a hefty fine, believed to be in the region of up to £100,000.
The fine is in relation to a video doorbell and a surveillance camera he set up, one to record visitors and one to keep an eye on his car in the car park. Unfortunately in setting up the systems he failed to take into consideration that he was capturing the movements of people visiting his neighbour plus he a had a considerable view into Dr Fairhurst’s back garden via the Wi-Fi camera fitted to his shed.
The doctor only found out about the installation when Mr Woodard was showing her around the renovations to his house and was "alarmed and appalled" to discover the shed camera providing footage being monitored on his smartphone. Following a series of disputes the doctor moved out of her home.
Judge Melissa Clarke said the video images and audio files that the Ring doorbell and cameras captured of the neighbour were her personal data. The ruling stated that the devices’ ability to capture conversations at ranges of between 40ft and 68ft (12m-20m) away was excessive.
“The extent of range to which these devices can capture audio is well beyond the range of video that they capture, and in my view cannot be said to be reasonable for the purpose for which the devices are used by the defendant, since the legitimate aim for which they are said to be used, namely crime prevention, could surely be achieved by something less,” said the Judge.
At the time of going to press we await the final decision of the court, with Mr Woodard potentially facing bankruptcy. Meanwhile Amazon has urged Ring owners to be aware when fitting devices saying: “We strongly encourage our customers to respect their neighbours’ privacy and comply with any applicable laws when using their Ring product.”
It is not the fault of the Ring technology that this court case happened it is purely down to the installation and the fact that the DIY units were fitted by someone unaware of the laws regarding surveillance and personal data.
Expertise is a valuable commodity indeed.
