Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scottish Court Awards Damages For CCTV Camera Pointed At Neighbor's House (boingboing.net)

Posted by BeauHD on from the psychosocial-distress dept.

AmiMoJo quotes a report from BoingBoing: Edinburgh's Nahid Akram installed a CCTV system that let him record his downstairs neighbors Debbie and Tony Woolley in their back garden, capturing both images and audio of their private conversations, with a system that had the capacity to record continuously for five days. A Scottish court has ruled that the distress caused by their neighbor's camera entitled the Woolleys to $21,000 (17,000 British Pounds) in damages, without the need for them to demonstrate any actual financial loss. The judgment builds on a 2015 English court ruling against Google for spying on logged out Safari users, where the users were not required to show financial losses to receive compensation for private surveillance.

96 comments

  1. Re:Nahid Akram by amiga3D · · Score: 0

    The dead are truly peaceful.

  2. do I understand it right? by dimko · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If CCTV cam now records any part of someone's property its autowin in court? Did someone think to sue State of London for all those cameras around? One or two are bound to record someone's property.

    1. Re:do I understand it right? by rmdingler · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My fear is that this is the penalty for confusing the right of the individual to spy on the neighbor versus the obligation of the government to do so.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    2. Re: do I understand it right? by Shepanator · · Score: 5, Informative

      They only cover public areas, but if you are one of the few with a camera in view of your windows then you can send them a request to mask it. They have software that puts a black box over where your window is so bored operators can't see what you're having for breakfast.

    3. Re:do I understand it right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Read the actual court decision.

      The two parties each own part of a building, one on the upper and the other on the lower floor. Additionally, the two parties were hostile to each other. The judgement here is unlikely to apply to your imagined scenario.

    4. Re:do I understand it right? by Shimbo · · Score: 2

      If CCTV cam now records any part of someone's property its autowin in court? .

      No, that's a stupid interpretation. UK courts have regularly been much less tolerant of audio recordings, which rarely have a legitimate use without a warrant.

    5. Re:do I understand it right? by dbIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Autowin? I think the bit "capturing both images and audio of their private conversations" had a lot to do with it.
      There are a few laws about recording conversations without consent.

    6. Re:do I understand it right? by Capsaicin · · Score: 4, Informative

      do I understand it right?

      You give no indication that you do.

      If CCTV cam now records any part of someone's property its autowin in court?

      That would seem unlikely. What gave you that idea?

      Did someone think to sue State of London for all those cameras around?

      Is the City of London operating "all those cameras" in contravention of the Act?

      One or two are bound to record someone's property.

      And ...?

      In the event this case rested on the failure of the defendant "in her duties as data controller": in the first instance by her failure to become registered as such; and also in "breach[ing] her duty to comply with the data protection principles" under the Data Protection Act 1998. One suspects however, given the dramatic negative impact of defendant's action on plaintiffs' "use and enjoyment of their own home" that plaintiffs could also have succeeded under nuisance.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    7. Re:do I understand it right? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      I thought that Europeans can't achieve orgasm without being under constant CCTV surveillance? Obviously this guy is new there.

    8. Re: do I understand it right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can I record audio in my own home?

      Is there a limit on how sensitive a microphone I can use?

      How about restrictions on math I can use a computer to perform on that audio?

      How about cameras mounted inside my window pointed out?

    9. Re: do I understand it right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In the UK, you need to get planning permission to install a CCTV system, even if it is inside your windows. There is a case where a disabled man with a mobility scooter kept having it stolen by "yoofs". As a deteerent to prevent this happening, he had a CCTV system installed. It had the desired effect. Then the council jobsworths demanded that the system be deactivated because he did not get planning permission. His property was vandalized that night.

    10. Re: do I understand it right? by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      What's State of London?

    11. Re: do I understand it right? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Informative

      The law in this area is still developing in most places, including the UK, as we try to find a reasonable balance between the benefits of new technologies and their ability to infringe privacy in ways that weren't possible before.

      As for the ethics and what direction the laws ought to go in, I suggest that a sensible starting point is:

      1. If you're just observing activity on private property that any member of the public might observe incidentally while going about their ordinary business, that's probably OK.

      2. If you're using technology to observe activity on private property that would not be observed by an ordinary member of the public without unusual behaviour or the use of artificial aids, that might be a problem.

      3. If you're recording anything that is happening on private property, that might be a problem.

      For example, walking down the street and noticing that someone is in because their light is on and their window is uncovered: fine, anyone walking past would see the same thing. The other person can close their curtains if they want privacy and can reasonably be expected to know that someone walking past would see inside.

      Hearing unfortunate personal details because a couple are having a screaming argument in their back yard and the sound carries out to the street where you're walking: also fine, on a similar basis.

      However, walking right up to someone's house and looking through a small gap in someone's curtains and see what's happening inside: not OK, this is obviously intrusive and not something most people would expect or think was acceptable behaviour.

      Using things like thermal cameras or long-range mics to look or listen inside a private home from across the street: not OK for the same reasons.

      Monitoring unencrypted WiFi: a tricky area. On the one hand, the signals are being sent outside someone's private property by their own actions, just like leaving the curtains open or screaming in the back yard. It's hardly fair to blame someone who observes the results incidentally while doing normal things like setting up their own WiFi. On the other hand, an ordinary person wouldn't necessarily understand the implications of everyday technology or what they were exposing. However, someone who was deliberately connecting to and monitoring or recording data from someone else's network probably does understand the implications, and is morally little better than a peeping Tom at the window.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    12. Re: do I understand it right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      No you do not need planning permission you idiot,the case you mention was a council property and he had failed to ask their permission to fix his cameras to their walls etc,totally different from needing planning permission..
      If you bother to look,you will find that you need the councils permission to even change wallpaper or paint colour if you are a council tenant,most are not that extreme and have more than enough to do already,but they can bill you for works under taken to return a house or flat to their specification if you make alterations...

    13. Re: do I understand it right? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I remember a story on the news about this years ago. Some camera operators perving through the window of some young woman's bedroom. They had the black boxes covering it, but found that if they just rotated the camera to the left a little the boxes stayed in place on screen and the window slid out from under them.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re:do I understand it right? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      What about lip reading? With HD cameras that's possible these days, can even be automated with machine vision.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    15. Re:do I understand it right? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Most of the cameras are private security cameras inside shops and banks. I guess a few might but generally they'll provide a privacy screen in this situation.

    16. Re:do I understand it right? by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Companies can't tell our data with impunity like over with you, so y'know it's swings and roundabouts.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    17. Re: do I understand it right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the UK, you need to get planning permission to install a CCTV system

      Liar.

    18. Re:do I understand it right? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Did someone think to sue State of London for all those cameras around?

      Is the City of London operating "all those cameras" in contravention of the Act?

      A better question is, are the governments of London operating all of those cameras? How many are private?

      The oft-quoted number of eleventy bajillion cameras in London almost always include private CCTV cameras (which are in almost every country these days). Only a fraction of them are government owned.

      Also, the City of London is a 3 KM square stretch of central London. There are 32 other administrative regions (boroughs) in London, each will run their own sets of CCTV which will make a smaller fraction of the total CCTV cameras in each borough. There isn't some central authority running all CCTV cameras (I imagine most Americans picture a thin Briton wearing a navy blue suit and matching bowler hat watching a bank of monitors without any facial expressions,,, not the case). The majority of cameras are privately owned.

      Private or public, everyone has to follow the same rules. We enshrine privacy in our own homes, back when I lived in OZ I put up a CCTV camera on my own property because our cars were constantly being broken into (not that the lazy sods from WAPOL would do anything) but I had to ensure they didn't point directly into anyone else's house. I recorded the footpath and road, but kept it clear of my neighbours yards. In sane countries like the UK and Australia we like to apply the same rules to public and private organisations as much as possible.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    19. Re:do I understand it right? by Alioth · · Score: 1

      1. City of London
      2. London is in England, and this court decision was in Scotland. Scottish law doesn't apply in England.

      So no.

      --
      Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
    20. Re:do I understand it right? by syntotic · · Score: 1

      Very likely the Arab or Hindu neighbour wanted to corroborate his neighbours were the voices he was *hearing* in his head, by recording them non stop then go and spit it in their faces and tell other people he had found them. Should the situation be the inverse, I would think the Scot neighbours were recording non stop to corroborate their Arab or Hindu neighbour was the presence they were feeling was visiting their place when they were not present and scaring the cat or castrating the chipmunks or taking a peek or copy at their computer files. See, the Arab or Hindu should have had a very good reason to take video of his neighbours and demand even bigger damages than his neighbours had the right to demand. The judge must have seen this very clearly and conceded. The situation is asymmetrical and typical. I would have been harder and jailed the Arab or Hindu for attempted robbery and burglary, and even have asked for his natural religious laws to be applied to him. It does not seem to be much in damages to protect yourself from an obsessive Hindu clamped on hearing what you think. Wool-ley is the Mexican-o slang pronunciation for money, so as narrative characters delivering an allegory their meaning is Monied.

    21. Re: do I understand it right? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Horrendous chaos. On a good day

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  3. 17,000 GBP in distress? by OrangeTide · · Score: 0

    Did the camera set their house on fire?

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re: 17,000 GBP in distress? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are people on Slashdot actually defending the guy recording other people's every moment in their own backyard?

      I assume you are the types who will happily buy a toaster with a camera and face recognition constantly recording and broadcasting the activity in your house under the guise of making your bread toasting experience 1.6% more convenient.

    2. Re:17,000 GBP in distress? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Tony and Debbie, 50, were determined to stay in the family home – even though they were running up a £30,000 legal bill."

      That might have had something to do with the judgement.

      http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/family-awarded-17k-after-neighbour-filmed-them-for-36-months-1-4359781

    3. Re:17,000 GBP in distress? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Privacy invasions into your home, your most private space, are treated pretty harshly. Depriving people of that privacy for an extended period of time is going to rack up big costs. Data Protection laws are designed that way to prevent companies from violating privacy for profit and simply absorbing the fines like any other cost.

      The cameras to the front of the house record every person approaching the pursuersâ(TM) home. The cameras to the rear were set deliberately to record footage of the pursuersâ(TM) private garden area. There was no legitimate reason for the nature and extent of such video coverage.

      Mr Akram, on one occasion, taunted the pursuers about his ability to listen to them as the pursuers conversed in their garden.

      Two audio boxes were installed immediately below front bedroom windows.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  4. IF only... by bobbied · · Score: 2

    The same logic applied to Government installed cameras.. Oh no, this only applies to "private" ones..

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    1. Re: IF only... by Shepanator · · Score: 3, Informative

      Since when did the government install a camera specifically to observe your private garden?

    2. Re: IF only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when did the government install a camera specifically to observe your private garden?

      Maybe not, but they warehouse all of our communications wholesale.

    3. Re: IF only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does, even in Britain, you Moran. What, you think you're being recorded right now? Nope, not unless there is a judicial order specifically allowing it to be done.

      Did you get confused by all the CCTV? Well, if you weren't a dumbass Moran, you would realize it isn't like on CSI, but also regulated and controlled, there isn't a Panopticon at all.

    4. Re:IF only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same logic applied to Government installed cameras.. Oh no, this only applies to "private" ones..

      Nope, some of the exemptions (eg. surveillance in criminal investigation) don't make sense if the relevant Act didn't bind the Crown. So I think the "same logic" does apply to government installed cameras in fact.

      Being a pessimist hasn't worked this time.

    5. Re: IF only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We,no,that's what the law says is meant to happen,doesn't mean that is what happens.
      I can remember one of our home secretaries stating that he had granted140 licences to the police nationally for them to tap into phone lines,a pity that the met police alone that year had tapped 400 lines,so what is meant to happen and what does happen are two different things..
      Take my case,various groups,including the police kept an on-off awatch on me from at least 1987 to 2015,this included break ins to my and other people's properties,bodies parked in cars outside for weeks on end,being followed from one end of the country to the other,bugging properties,intergereing with mail etc etc,witnessed by many other people,I was treated like a terrorist or serious traitor,but with absolutely no evidence that I had ever done anything to warrant such actions,because I've never done anything or had connections that would warrant it..
      The probable reason it was done was that I pissed off someone senior in our spooks because when they repeatedly tried to recruit me ,starting in the late 1970's,I told them to go shove the idea where the sun don't shine..
      Or possibly because I'm part of a long term experiment that was started at porton down in the mid 1960's,probably totally off record and highly illegal,how many other kids have you ever heard of that spent months on end in isolation units at ex army bases for supposed tonsilitis ?
      and who then became infected with anthrax,supposedly caught from the first couple of French charolaise bulls allowed into the country..
      I was then subjected to years of observation at various "child health units"
      having spent 4 years going to tavistock child psychiatry unit,one of the things they didn't find was any hint of me being paranoid...
      Now what does your wonderful set of laws say about government behaviour like that ?
      And yes I know it sounds like the ramblings of some poor mentally ill person,but the above are only the rough details of what I have had to live with,there is plenty more,but because I don't want to give people "evidence" to have me sectioned,I don't spout about it all over Facebook or rant to people about it..
      I might put it into a short book one day and would certainly take part in a sensible investigation on exactly what past governments or groups have got up to in the past,but that's never going to happen..

    6. Re: IF only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Np, you are actually a dead ringer for an international jewel thief.

      There are some downsides to looking like Clooney.

    7. Re:IF only... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Of course it does. If the government put a CCTV camera up specifically to watch you in your garden they would need something called a warrant.

    8. Re:IF only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The following applies in the UK, if you live elsewhere in Europe the law will be similar, if you're in the US you have very few rights around this.

      Having worked in the CCTV industry, it does apply to the government too. The government is a not allowed to put up CCTV that captures video of private property without consent of the owner or a warrant for a specific investigation. They can use masking software as long as the unmasked video is not recorded or visible to an operator. There are counter-terrorism exemptions, but as Birmingham City Council found out, trying to use those doesn't go to well.

      If there is a CCTV camera that you think captures your property you can demand a copy of the footage for a 10GBP fee.

      The biggest difference is private CCTV cannot record on public property but government CCTV can.

    9. Re:IF only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or a community CCTV system.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/4609746.stm

    10. Re: IF only... by Maritz · · Score: 1

      You should write it all down while you still remember it clearly. The more coherent it is, the less likely it is to be delusional. I'm quite prepared to believe that stuff like that went down, but you can't assess the credibility until you see it all splayed out.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    11. Re: IF only... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      In my last flat, they installed a camera that watched the bus stop in front of my front door and managed to install it in such a way that it could probably see into the bedroom of a couple of flats in the row. One of my neighbours complained and they took it down immediately.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    12. Re: IF only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maritz..
      I keep thinking about doing it,when I get access to a laptop,I probably will,my hand writeing is awful,and my mobile phone is crap.
      There is also the problem of corroborating evidence,most of this happened in the 1960's/70's,organisations don't keep huge archives of paper record and for something like an illegal experiment on members of the public,how much would you expect to be documented in the first place and then how much would survive later government washing operations ?
      I contacted the tavistock centre 2 years ago,they just don't keep records that old..
      So unless some aged insider still has paperwork etc,there would be no evidence to prove any of my claims,which then makes it easy to dismiss them as the ramblings of an ill person...

  5. that was the only system they found by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    the other two are still recording

    1. Re:that was the only system they found by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why does everyone stop looking at three?

    2. Re:that was the only system they found by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      well, how many eyes do *YOU* have?

  6. but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I will check again later,but at the moment I can find nothing about why he had such a system fitted..
    I can see this case causing all sorts of problems here in the UK because we supposedly have the highest density of cctv systems in the world,many,many people fit them to their homes for security,some insurance companies give a discount if a property is coveted by a decent quality system..
    Wether this case is going to be used to set a precedent in the UK as a whole is very difficult to say,as the Scottish and English law,courts etc etc are totally seperate,but I can see lots of other cases being bought if this is the kind of money that's going to be awarded..
    I doubt it will 've allowed to be used as a precedent case in England,just because of the sheer number of cases that would suddenly be bought against the owners/controllers of cctv systems...

    1. Re:but by ChoGGi · · Score: 5, Informative

      http://www.edinburghnews.scots...

      She (Nahid) wanted to change the property use from a guest house to a bail hostel, the neighbors (Woolleys) opposed it, so the city agreed not to change property usage.
      It seems the cameras were a fuck you to the Woolleys.

      Two of the audio boxes were situated immediately below the Woolleysâ(TM) front bedroom âwindows and they feared conversations inside their home were also being recorded.

      Sheriff Ross said Nahid Akramâ(TM)s husband Sohail, who was manager of the Murrayfield Park Guest House, taunted the Woolleys about his ability to listen to them by âoeputting his hand to his ear to mime listening to their conversationâ,

    2. Re:but by dwywit · · Score: 1

      Short term solution:

      1. Pink noise generator, through a parabolic reflector aimed at the camera (microphone)
      2. Small laser pointer aimed at the camera lens, or if that's a problem legally, a small array of superbright LEDs facing the lens - use some on white, and a few on red, green, and blue.

      Longer term:
      Call the authorities at the slightest hint of a breach of regulations. Pay for a friend to stay at the guest house and take notes of any code violations - health, building, electrical, etc, then hand that over to the Council inspectors.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    3. Re: but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cheers,that would explain it..

    4. Re:but by whoever57 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The solution that was found in this case seems quite effective: get you neighbor to pay you approx $21k for the privilege, and probably more if the cameras and mics don't come down.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    5. Re:but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I won't do any of your suggestions. Which is better? Your suggestion or the $21,000 cash worth of damages from the culprit?

    6. Re:but by pigsycyberbully · · Score: 0

      Short term solution:

      1. Pink noise generator, through a parabolic reflector aimed at the camera (microphone)
      2. Small laser pointer aimed at the camera lens, or if that's a problem legally, a small array of superbright LEDs facing the lens - use some on white, and a few on red, green, and blue.

      Longer term:
      Call the authorities at the slightest hint of a breach of regulations. Pay for a friend to stay at the guest house and take notes of any code violations - health, building, electrical, etc, then hand that over to the Council inspectors.

      In London CCTV cameras, are on the front of shops on lampposts and almost on every street corner.
      The black gangs who want to break into a property use non-powerful lasers which they purchase from eBay, not particularly powerful ones. They wait for night-time and they point the laser at the CCTV cameras and it damages the nightvision of the CCTV camera. It creates a scribble effect like a child has used a pencil to scribble on a piece of paper.

      It permanently damages the nightvision of the CCTV camera. The camera ends up not switching back to daytime vision it makes the camera useless.
      Some of the very expensive cameras have a reset button inside them you have to take them apart power them on and hold down the reset button to reset the camera to factory default settings. Most other cameras in the 80 pounds sterling price range just never work again.

    7. Re:but by Hognoxious · · Score: 0

      Or just send the cunts back to Pakistan.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    8. Re:but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nahid Akramâ(TM)s husband Sohail

      Does not look like Scottish names. More "refugees" spreading the word of allah?

    9. Re:but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does not look like Scottish names. More "refugees" spreading the word of allah?

      If you invite trash in don't be surprised when your country is full of trash. RIP Scotland.

  7. collecting bounced light particles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's all this guy did. Once those particles exited the garden, they were for anyone to collect. If the couple wanted exclusive use of those light particles, they should have done something to prevent them leaving their garden.

    1. Re:collecting bounced light particles by Capsaicin · · Score: 2

      "I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail."
      -- Abraham Maslow

      That's all this guy did.

      Which guy? Do you mean Ms Akram?

      Once those particles exited the garden, they were for anyone to collect.

      Not lawfully, no. And if you are going to behave unlawfully, why wait till they exit the garden? For that matter why not break in and steal all the silver that is there "for anyone to collect" (unlawfully)?

      If the couple wanted exclusive use of those light particles

      The couple were not here engaged in physics research where the construct "light particles" might productively be applied. I doubt the couple were minded even to consider the physics of the situation, much less did they want exclusive rights to any particular set of light particles. The couple simply wanted to be able to speak with each other in the privacy of their own home. That, I would submit, is their right.

      Your misunderstanding is the result of inappropriately applying a model which is simply impertinent to the situation. The question here is: were the registration requirements and the data protection principles of Data Protection Act 1998 adhered to? That is not a question of physics, but of law. The construct 'light particles' can form no part of any answer to that question.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
  8. Good. by Trogre · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can't see how this is anything other than a good thing.

    There is a reasonable expectation of privacy on ones own property, and this was recording sound, not just video footage.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    1. Re:Good. by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"There is a reasonable expectation of privacy on ones own property, and this was recording sound, not just video footage."

      Is there? So you think the many the thousands and thousands of government-owned cameras never include ANY private property in their views? I think this is more about audio than anything else.

      Don't get me wrong, I think the UK has gone WAY overboard with surveillance, and the USA is headed down the same path.

    2. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >"There is a reasonable expectation of privacy on ones own property, and this was recording sound, not just video footage."

      Is there? So you think the many the thousands and thousands of government-owned cameras never include ANY private property in their views? I think this is more about audio than anything else.

      Don't get me wrong, I think the UK has gone WAY overboard with surveillance, and the USA is headed down the same path.

      CCTV is over-rated, I got mugged in broad day light in the street. The location was in the centre of the city (a major military/navy port) , next to a supermarket and main car park. There are dozens and dozens of cameras around .. on poles, banks, shops .. security etc. Did the police get any usual footage to track and apprehend my attackers ? No ! Why ? Most likely they were directed not to for budget reasons (cases cost money) and so they didn't put effort into getting the footage. When you do see on the news footage the image quality always seems awful, and no use in identifying anything more than general features, race, sex age.

    3. Re:Good. by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      That which could be potentially observed or heard by a person standing in a public space such as a sidewalk is usually presumed to be completely unprotected. So, yes, you do not have privacy in your living room if the front of your house is near the sidewalk and you choose to keep the curtains open.

      There is some ambiguity about technology like parabolic dish mikes, telephoto lenses, and infrared cameras, used from public locations to delve into private property in a manner that was implausible for a physically normal human to do from a public space -- courts have usually ruled to protect the privacy in those cases.

      There are reasonable concerns that modern technology can game the system. Clearly two hundred cameras and a dozen servers with license plate readers and face recognition software can track the populace in a manner that a thousand Stasi secret police officers never could. The answer is to explicitly write the laws on how that information is used and controlled, not hope that the courts create a magic line out of thin air that will probably need to be rewritten every few years.

  9. ESD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm pretty sure that "natural" lightning in my area will render these cameras inoperable almost immediately after they've been placed. ESD's a bitch.

  10. There's a word for that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... let him record his downstairs neighbors ...

    There's a word for that: Peeping tom; why aren't the police involved in this admitted and obvious case of invasion of privacy? Also, why was he allowed to alter the building by mounting personal equipment on it?

  11. How Times Change by TranquilVoid · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Mah hobby is secretly videotaping couples in cars. I dinna come forward because in this country, it makes you look like a pervert—but every single Scottish person does it!" - Groundskeeper Willie

  12. Legal Boundaries by Neuronwelder · · Score: 1

    I understand privacy. That decision was good. I hope the court does not set a precedent to personal filming in public.

    1. Re: Legal Boundaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er,you can already be filmed by anyone if you are in a public place,there have been plenty of cases in the UK courts about this,mostly to do with people taking pics/vid of kids..
      As long as it is a public place,you can be photographed or filmed..
      Idiot parents tried to involve me in a case when I filmed their brats repeatedly breaking into cars,the police came round and tried to do a scare job on me,I let them puss about for 20minutes and then reminded them that every single police station in the UK had just received a letter from the home Secretary pointing out exactly what the the law is,and that if they would like me to make an official complaint to their station,their chief constable and the home Secretary,please feel free to spout bollocks for another 20 minutes outside on the pavement,so that I could prove the law to them,and please arrest me now,I could do with the compensation for wrongful arrest etc,,they got really narked when I pointed out to them that they were probably being recorded right that minute by more powerful government organisation,as that flat had been repeatedly bugged for sound by our wonderful spooks,and instead of trying to scare me,why not take the video tape of kids commiting criminal acts away with them and use it as evidence to lock up a group of known repeat juvenile criminals,,they slunk off and I never heard from them again...
      What you cannot do legally without consent is record audio..

    2. Re: Legal Boundaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah dude, a comma is not a replacement for the space bar. Another thing, try out a period once in a while, make a complete sentence. (see? it's easy)

    3. Re: Legal Boundaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A period is something women have every month. The item of punctuation you're looking for is called a full stop.

  13. 1984 is not a utopia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Did the camera set their house on fire?

    For years now they could not go outside without being monitored. For years they could not hold a private conversation either inside or outside the house. If you don't think that would cause distress, 1984 must be your idea of a really good time.

    1. Re:1984 is not a utopia by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      You're probably an optimistic person if you don't think this isn't already happening to you.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    2. Re: 1984 is not a utopia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pushover

    3. Re: 1984 is not a utopia by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Good luck with your battle, but I don't see how it can be won.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    4. Re:1984 is not a utopia by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2

      Why? What magical power do you think is routinely listening in to everyone's private conversations inside their own homes?

      There have certainly been technologies developed that could do such things, including phones, microphones on computers, and devices like "smart" TVs and gaming consoles. However, if anyone actually was routinely listening in using those sensors and transmitting the data somewhere else, it would be a significant privacy issue and potentially an expensive mistake in legal and/or PR terms (as, in a few cases, the makers of such devices have found to their cost).

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    5. Re:1984 is not a utopia by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Other than Amazon, Google, individuals that have compromised your laptop, computer, phone or voice actived IoT device? Probably not the government, unless you've done something to get on their radar.

      Google is at least nice enough to let you view the logs of everything they've recorded. And currently you can delete them, until the terms of service change.

      A lot of privacy laws in the world, including many states in the US, apply primarily to government agencies. While laws usually aren't nearly as strict for individuals or private business. As we continue to see a consumer protections fall away, we'll also see less privacy protection.

      If anything is magical, it's that you think there will be more protection going forward.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    6. Re:1984 is not a utopia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're probably an optimistic person if you don't think this isn't already happening to you.

      You're probably psychotic if you do believe this is already happening to you.

    7. Re:1984 is not a utopia by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      You're being paranoid. The likes of Amazon and Google aren't routinely recording everything you say and uploading it to the mothership. For a start, that would almost certainly be illegal in some places, and in any case they'd be discovered very quickly given the amount of data involved. We should certainly be aware of the risks with these modern devices that have both sensors and communications capabilities, and I think both the security of the devices and consideration for their privacy in normal operation will probably cause problems from time to time until we figure things out, and I think new laws will probably be required to safeguard personal privacy more effectively in places that don't already have them. However, let's focus on what is actually happening and what should be done about that, not some alternative reality in which every device was already hacked and every big service provider was scanning everything all the time.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    8. Re:1984 is not a utopia by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      You can literally go onto your Google account and play back hundreds of recordings that it has taken with your phone. Then erase them if you so choose.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    9. Re:1984 is not a utopia by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Details please.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    10. Re:1984 is not a utopia by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Google -> My Account -> Go to Activity Controls -> Voice & Audio Activity -> Manage Activity

      If you have it turned off (PAUSE), then you should have nothing listed (I hope). If you turn it on, you'll start accumulating data there and you can delete stuff. What happens is it normally wants to note activity of you using the "OK Google" service, but it will log a lot of false positives.

      I find bits of conversations with wife, meetings at work, other people at the bar, and more. Theoretically I had to agree to turn this on, but I don't remember doing it, I thought it worked on my phone out-of-the-box, but maybe I did turn it on and didn't realize the implication?

      At this point I have to trust Google that when I delete things that they actually delete all copies of it.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    11. Re:1984 is not a utopia by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      So just to be clear, you're not actually saying that Google are routinely listening in to everyone's surroundings, you're saying that an optional voice-activated feature on Android devices sometimes has false positives on the trigger word if it's enabled and in those cases it may record a short part of the audio around the phone and send it back to Google the same as it would if you were actually intending to use the voice-activated feature? I think it's fair to say that one of these is quite different to the other.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    12. Re:1984 is not a utopia by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      I'm saying that they have the capability of doing it. And many people are being recorded without knowing it.

      Theoretically Google's privacy agreement prevents them from doing it without your permission. But if they went ahead anywhere there would not be any major consequences, and the easiest would be to update the agreement to allow exceptions.

      The agreement makes it clear that the recorders do turn into data for Google. Theoretically they took steps to anonymize the recordings, but the next time you see an ad for a retirement home the same month you've been talking about putting your parents into a retirement home you're going to wonder aren't you?

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  14. Stupid by hoofie · · Score: 1

    Considering one of the persons involved was a Solicitor it doesn't seem like he showed superior judgement. FFS You pay quarter of a million quid for a flat and the person below wants to turn their "Guest House" into a bail hostel ? [ = huge amounts of money from the Government] FFS You would have the cast of trainspotting trooping in and out 24 hours of the day - say goodbye to your house value. It really does smell of payback doesn't it ? I would sell up and get out of there - that neighbour is going to be a continual pain in the arse for years. Google "Murrayfield Park Guest House" for more info - hardly glowing recommendations it looks like a right toilet. Mind you the complainant must have had rocks in his head for buying an apartment above a Guest House. It's close to Murrayfield so a tick in that box.

  15. Fighting technology is pointless by iamacat · · Score: 1

    Cameras and microphones will continue to become more sensitive and miniaturized. You have to assume that you may be recorded and will not be able to detect that. Technology also provides ways to increase privacy though, for example use your phone to send a message to a thousand people around the world without anyone else being able to see the message or the fact of a large gathering. You may not like it, but the world does not stand still.

    1. Re:Fighting technology is pointless by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2

      You may not like it, but the world does not stand still.

      The world has never stood still, but there have also always been things we could do but accepted that we shouldn't. That principle is behind everything from common decency and good manners to statutory protections and penalties for illegal acts.

      There is nothing different about improving surveillance technology, and there is no reason we should just accept that using modern technology to intrude into our everyday lives is or should be acceptable either ethically or legally merely because the technical capability is now available.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    2. Re:Fighting technology is pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you are describing is a world where nobody respects each other on the most basic level. And I fear that you're right. If that's the future of humanity, then I can honestly say, from the bottom of my heart, that I could care less whether humanity goes extinct. That's not my world, and those aren't my brothers and sisters.

  16. No you don't. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    You aren't understanding anything right. The UK legal system is based on reasonable expectations. Someone's backward provides the person a reasonable expectation of privacy. The neighbour violated that.

    1. Re:No you don't. by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      Someone's backward

      It's you.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  17. Why Dollars? by barcarolle · · Score: 1

    The award is 17,000 GBP. It's completely unnecessary to describe this amount in terms of USD. Readers who live in a country which uses that currency must certainly be able to perform the conversion on their own.

    1. Re:Why Dollars? by Godwin+O'Hitler · · Score: 1

      Dead right. Instead of converting it to dollars they should describe it in terms of football fields.

      --
      No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
  18. It's a good job they didn't say anything 'racist' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or they would have been the ones in court - and facing PRISON TIME for merely SAYING something that a non-white didn't like..

  19. Re:Nahid Akram by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it's any colsolation, all religions are equally worthless.

  20. Re:Don't Listen by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    It was right there, what am I supposed to do, look away?

    Get off my screen.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  21. White noise generator and a laser... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would have used a White Noise Generator to mask conversations and a laser to saturate the camera sensor.
    Possibly 10W Blue Laser to destroy the sensor on the camera