Scottish court issues damages to couple over distress caused by neighbour's use of CC

zaax

https://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2017/02/10/scottish_court_issues_damages_to_couple_over_distress_caused_by_neighbours_use_of_cctv/

A Scottish couple have been awarded damages of more than £17,000 in total for the "extreme stress" they suffered as a result of the "highly intrusive" use of CCTV systems by the owner of a neighbouring property.
Debbie and Tony Woolley were awarded £8,634 each after Sheriff Ross, in a ruling issued at Edinburgh Sheriff Court, said that the processing of personal data gathered from Nahid Akram's video and audio recording equipment was "intrusive, excessive and unjustified" and "unnecessary in relation to any legitimate purpose".
He said Akram, in her capacity as data controller for her guest house business, was responsible for a number of breaches of the Data Protection Act.
It is thought to be the first time that a court in the UK has awarded damages to account purely for the distress caused by a breach of UK data protection laws.
According to the ruling, a dispute broke out between the Woolleys and Akram over the use of Akram's property as a guest house, which she runs as a business and which her husband manages. The Akram guest house is downstairs from the Woolley's flat. Both the Woolleys and Akram subsequently installed CCTV systems outside their respective properties.
While the Woolley's equipment "records images of their own external property only", Akram installed "video and audio recording equipment" which allowed her, and her husband, to monitor comings and goings at the Woolley's property and to listen in to conversations in their private garden, according to the ruling. The equipment used by Akram was capable of storing five days' worth of data at any one time.
The Sheriff described "the regime of surveillance" that the Woolleys were subjected to as "extravagant, unjustified and highly visible" and as "an effort to oppress". He said that the Woolleys and their family had "suffered considerable distress" since Akram's equipment had been installed in about October 2013 and that it is "difficult to conceive" a more intrusive case of surveillance.


Continues on link at top

TheCyclingProgrammer

Interesting - I do wonder how many people have CCTV installed on their homes without being aware of their potential responsibilities under the Data Protection Act. It used to be that domestic use was exempt (I think) but now its only exempt so long as all cameras are only pointing at your property. If you've got it pointing towards the street, for instance, then I think that makes you liable to register as a data controller.

brightontraveller

CCTV is covered by the Data Protection Act 1998, this only applies to businesses ( which OP is) and organisation.
*They are a business NOT to domestic property. people should recognise that distinction.

CCTV Home/domestic use is completely different do what you want with it in some cases it would breach Human Rights Act (but that's completely different ) .but not Data Protection Act

TheCyclingProgrammer

brightontraveller wrote: »

CCTV is covered by the Data Protection Act 1998, this only applies to businesses ( which OP is) and organisation.
*They are a business NOT to domestic property. people should recognise that distinction.

CCTV Home/domestic use is completely different do what you want with it in some cases it would breach Human Rights Act (but that's completely different ) .but not Data Protection Act

This is not correct I'm afraid.

Domestic use of CCTV has been potentially within the scope of the DPA since 2013. If you capture anyone outside your property the domestic exemption no longer applies.

https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/cctv/
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/domestic-cctv-using-cctv-systems-on-your-property/domestic-cctv-using-cctv-systems-on-your-property

So you've kind of reinforced my point - I wonder how many domestic CCTV owners are breaching the DPA?

brightontraveller

TheCyclingProgrammer wrote: »

This is not correct I'm afraid.

Domestic use of CCTV has been potentially within the scope of the DPA since 2013. If you capture anyone outside your property the domestic exemption no longer applies.

https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/cctv/
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/domestic-cctv-using-cctv-systems-on-your-property/domestic-cctv-using-cctv-systems-on-your-property

So you've kind of reinforced my point - I wonder how many domestic CCTV owners are breaching the DPA?

The UK’s independent authority ICO know that should domestic CCTV fall under the same they would get pulled into domestic property disputes something they are not interested in the slightest.... Potentially is not the same and reinforces people should recognise that distinction between business etc

TheCyclingProgrammer

brightontraveller wrote: »

The UK’s independent authority ICO know that should domestic CCTV fall under the same they would get pulled into domestic property disputes something they are not interested in the slightest.... Potentially is not the same and reinforces people should recognise that distinction between business etc

I'm not sure why you're still arguing this, it's outlined in black and white on the ICO website. If your CCTV is directed off your property you are not covered by the domestic exemption and are obliged to register as a data controller and comply with your responsibilities under the DPA, which is NOT limited to just businesses.

What if my camera captures footage of individuals beyond the boundaries of my property?

You must consider whether it is necessary for your camera to operate beyond the boundary of your property.

If your camera covers, even partially, any areas beyond the boundaries of your property, such as neighbouring gardens or the street, then it will no longer be exempt from the Data Protection Act (DPA) under the domestic purposes exemption. This does not mean that you are breaching the DPA but it does mean that you might need to take some steps to comply with it.

Couldn't be any clearer.

It is of course easy enough to avoid being caught by the DPA by ensuring any CCTV on your property is only pointing at your property and nobody else's.

Whether or not anything may come of it is another matter, it would probably have to be triggered by a complaint. But ignorance of the law is not a defence.

brightontraveller

TheCyclingProgrammer wrote: »

I'm not sure why you're still arguing this, it's outlined in black and white on the ICO website. If your CCTV is directed off your property you are not covered by the domestic exemption and are obliged to register as a data controller and comply with your responsibilities under the DPA, which is NOT limited to just businesses.



Couldn't be any clearer.

It is of course easy enough to avoid being caught by the DPA by ensuring any CCTV on your property is only pointing at your property and nobody else's.

Whether or not anything may come of it is another matter, it would probably have to be triggered by a complaint. But ignorance of the law is not a defence.

This is a whole game that’s changing by the day literally under what you believe cctv processing data without consent of public area from a domestic dwelling comes under data protection act aside the ruling of the European court said processing data without consent, iin case which all are basing “Frantisek Rynes” filming public paths, could be allowed if necessary to safeguard the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences


Then by your view so does every other technologies such as smartphones and wearable technology etc all can store images on public areas or of public areas all those happy soles filming parks, gardens, landmarks, tourist attractions are potentially breaching Data protection you see potentially isn’t the same .

Show one prosecution within the uk of CCTV on a domestic premise for domestic use breaching DATA protection good luck finding that
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

TheCyclingProgrammer

Why would I need to find a prosecution case? I'm not talking about enforcement, just what the law states.

Mobile phones and other personal cameras are not CCTV.

You've failed to disprove what I've said and what is clearly outlined on the ICO website. People are free to ignore this advice at their own risk.

brightontraveller

TheCyclingProgrammer wrote: »

Why would I need to find a prosecution case? I'm not talking about enforcement, just what the law states.

I think you need brush up on "Law"

TheCyclingProgrammer wrote: »

Mobile phones and other personal cameras are not CCTV.

Interesting as technologies have changed the outdated definition of cctv would not apply to what most would call a CCTV systems now?

TheCyclingProgrammer wrote: »

You've failed to disprove what I've said and what is clearly outlined on the ICO website. People are free to ignore this advice at their own risk.

I cant disprove whats incorrect to start with :rotfl:

TheCyclingProgrammer

brightontraveller wrote: »

I cant disprove whats incorrect to start with :rotfl:

You better inform the ICO that their website is wrong then, you clearly know better than they do.

House of Commons briefing paper outlining the implications of the EU case that triggered these changes and ICO's revised guidance. They may have chosen not to enforce this yet but it doesn't mean they won't in the future.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0ahUKEwjMsdqI24XSAhUEIsAKHeVFCe8QFgg3MAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fresearchbriefings.files.parliament.uk%2Fdocuments%2FSN01803%2FSN01803.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEu8WCgINZI1zGUxPmsjwaw3rnCBw

But let's all listen to brightontraveller, he clearly knows better (or at least he's very good at copying and pasting opinions from other people or quoting random websites like problemneighbours.co.uk). I'm clearly wasting my time arguing with this fountain of knowledge, so I see no point in continuing.

jhe

TheCyclingProgrammer wrote: »

You better inform the ICO that their website is wrong then, you clearly know better than they do.

House of Commons briefing paper outlining the implications of the EU case that triggered these changes and ICO's revised guidance. They may have chosen not to enforce this yet but it doesn't mean they won't in the future.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0ahUKEwjMsdqI24XSAhUEIsAKHeVFCe8QFgg3MAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fresearchbriefings.files.parliament.uk%2Fdocuments%2FSN01803%2FSN01803.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEu8WCgINZI1zGUxPmsjwaw3rnCBw

But let's all listen to brightontraveller, he clearly knows better (or at least he's very good at copying and pasting opinions from other people or quoting random websites like problemneighbours.co.uk). I'm clearly wasting my time arguing with this fountain of knowledge, so I see no point in continuing.

The link doesnt work