Slashdot Mirror
Scottish Court Awards Damages For CCTV Camera Pointed At Neighbor's House (boingboing.net)
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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,
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
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.
"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
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
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!
"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
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.
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.
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.
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
It's you.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."