Cameras and CCTV have been part of life in England for a couple of decades now. Workplaces, city centres, in shops, and on the roads, there are cameras recording what you are doing and where you are going.
Very recently there has been a fundamental change to where you expect to find cameras and the people who might be using them fairly.
A video doorbell is one of those inventions which has gone from being the stuff of science fiction to an everyday necessity in just a few short years. Variations on the theme include: an actual doorbell with an integral camera that will alert the householder when someone is at the door and tell them to identify themselves; remote cameras around the house which will communicate with the householders’ smart phone and allow them to watch proceedings wherever they are; and complicated arrays of cameras, lamps, and microphones which combine all of the above with motion detection and audio recording.
The motivation for this is obvious. Increasingly, we do not go to the shop, the shopping comes to us and we want to know what has arrived and where it is. We also want to know who is calling on us. Are they a welcome visitor or less so? Is someone sniffing around your car or bike? This technology which is now available helps you to manage your space, your property, and your security.
There is, however, an issue. Doorbell cameras were, presumably, designed for the wide flat front lawns of suburban America and not the more cosy, compact terraces and estates of the United Kingdom. Whilst a wide-ranging lens and a 180-degree arc of movement might be appropriate in California, in Exeter there is a significant risk that what that camera is doing is not so much covering your property as watching and recording what is going on at the property next door, the property across the road, and the street outside your house.
No doubt that in the general course of things this goes unnoticed, unremarked upon and without any particular concerns being raised, but you cannot assume that will always be the case.
Information about another person, their identity, their business, their life, commonly called ‘data’ is protected in our society. The Data Protection Act 2018 and the GDPR set out a very stringent set of rules about when data can be kept, when it can be used and when it must be given up to the owner of that data, the individual themselves.
The GDPR dates back to as long ago as 2018, and so video doorbells were not in its eyeline. However, this is a developing field and it seems certain that if you record a person’s whereabouts, their car and its number plate, or the conversation that they are having, this is data, so it is protected by the GDPR. In installing a doorbell you may have nominated yourself as a data controller. Congratulations.
The leading case on this is still at the County Court and dates back to 2021 (the Jurassic era in doorbell technology). One thing it is clear about is that filming and recording people outside your property represents data processing, and so the GDPR can bind.
In particular, that case was very much concerned with the audio aspect of the recording and it is not hard to imagine that if your neighbour’s front door is close to yours, the prospect of you recording the conversations they have there is not a welcome one. The reason that it remains a leading case is because it was the result of a three-day trial. The result of some fairly serious judicial and barristerial heft, and a great deal of money. No one has been anxious to replicate this.
It was also the result of some hair-raising activities, which do not have general application to most of our neighbourhoods; however, there are things that can be taken from it. If you are filming the neighbours, albeit unintentionally and accidentally, you are data processing. If you are not complying with the GDPR then, potentially, what you are doing is unlawful. If you are recording sound from your neighbours, that is potentially unlawful too. It is perfectly possible to use CCTV to harass or intimidate neighbours and that would be a civil matter for which compensation could be awarded. Likewise, it is perfectly possible to use cameras, lights, microphones and loudspeakers to cause, what lawyers call, a ‘nuisance’ to your neighbours. This is not a nuisance like the occasional football in the back garden, this is again a civil wrong which can give rise to a case for compensation.
Finally, while the case suggests that there may be a defence, at least to part of the claim, if it can be shown that the cameras were installed for the prevention of crime, for this purpose, simply saying that ‘I can see my parked car’ will not be sufficient. A court would expect to see that there was some prospect of crime taking place, or a history of crime and that, accordingly, these steps had been taken to protect property or safety.
The essence of this is that video doorbells are not going to go away, but neither are the issues relating to data processing. The best advice is to discuss matters with your neighbours and make sure that they know what is happening and what the extent of recording is. It may be that they object. It would be sensible to give that objection proper respect, even if a video doorbell is used properly and lawfully, it shouldn’t be underestimated that it can cause upset and disputes between neighbours. If this is borne in mind from day one, hopefully, troubles further down the line can be avoided.
If you have an issue with unauthorised filming, or if you have been accused of a data processing offence, we can help you out. Contact us on 01392 285000.