New submitter apcyberax writes: 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.
of this story at Slashdot.