Data Protection Law & Ring Doorbells

“Did the course of conduct not amount to harassment because it was (i) pursued for the purposes of preventing or detecting crime; and/or (ii) in the particular circumstances, reasonable? This is where Mr. Rushton focussed his submissions for the Defendant. He submits that the Driveway Camera was installed for the purposes of preventing or detecting crime in circumstances where the Defendant had just had a terrifying encounter with a gang of criminals.

In closing, he submitted that the Claimant showed “no understanding or compassion of how the theft of his security device affected him” and deprecated the Claimant for showing him no empathy for his true motive in installing it. This sounds to me like victim-blaming.

The Court is unimpressed by arguments that women who are being bulldozed and intimidated by men should show them empathy and understanding for the circumstances which ‘made them’ do it. Mr. Rushton submits that the Defendant’s actions were reasonable within the factual matrix of this terrifying incident, and the Claimant was “unduly sensitive”. I strongly disagree.”

“I consider that the balance between the legitimate interests of the Defendant and the right of the Claimant to privacy and home life are met in relation to the processing of video personal data from the Ring Doorbell, and I am so satisfied. That is because any video personal data of the Claimant is likely to be collected only incidentally as she walks past unless the Claimant stands on the Defendant’s door and rings his doorbell.

I consider that his legitimate interest in protecting his home whether he is there or not is not overridden by her right to avoid such incidental collection on a public street, albeit in the vicinity of her home…

In relation to the Driveway Camera which was trained on the Claimant’s property including her side gate, garden, and her car parking spaces, I do not consider that the Defendant has satisfied me that this is necessary for the purposes of his legitimate interests. The Driveway Camera only collects data from outside the Defendant’s property; it does not view his cars or shed or anyone approaching his property from the front or rear.

Therefore, it is not legitimate for the Defendant to carry out video and audio surveillance of a road leading to a car park used by others in which he maintains two parking spaces could be protected in a lesser way that does not sacrifice the privacy of the Claimant and the other users of the Driveway, for example by a camera that does have a close focus on only the cars in his parking spaces.

The Defendant says that he could not afford a camera with a more restricted view but he puts no evidence about the cost of any such system before the court which presumably, as an audio-visual specialist, he would not find difficult to do, nor any evidence about his finances.

I note he has a high-performance Audi that he is seeking to protect so it seems unlikely that cost is an issue. If I am wrong about that, I consider that such interests are overridden by the Claimant’s right to privacy in her own home, to leave from and return to her house and entertain visitors without her video personal data being captured.

Again, the audio personal data collected and processed by means of this Driveway Camera is even more problematic and detrimental than video data in my opinion. For those reasons I am satisfied that the Defendant’s processing of the Claimant’s personal data by means of the Driveway Camera is not lawful.”

“In relation to the audio personal data collected by the Shed Camera, Driveway Camera, and Ring Doorbell, I remind myself of the third principle, that personal data “shall be adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary in relation to the purposes for which they are processed”. This is the data minimisation principle.

I am satisfied that 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.

A great deal of the purpose could be achieved without audio at all, as is the case with the bulk of CCTV systems in use in public places in this country, or by a microphone that only picks up sound within a small diameter of the device. That finding means that I am satisfied that the processing of such audio data by the Defendant as the data controller is not lawful.

The extent of the range means that personal data may be captured from people who are not even aware that the device is there, or that it records and processes audio personal data, or that it can do so from such a distance away, in breach of the first principle. The Claimant has fallen into each of these categories during the relevant time.

The living individuals whose conversation it captures may well be identifiable from the data itself or from other information which can be obtained from the data controller particularly in a case such as this where the Defendant knows and is familiar with his neighbours and can probably identify many of them by voice alone, and certainly identify them with both the audio and video data that these devices capture.”

How Nelsons can help

Kevin Modiri is a Partner in our expert Dispute Resolution team.

Should you be affected by a dispute involving a security system, please feel free to contact Kevin or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.