andrewducker: (Default)
andrewducker ([personal profile] andrewducker) wrote2021-10-14 12:00 pm
chess: (Default)

[personal profile] chess 2021-10-14 03:08 pm (UTC)(link)
Re Ring cameras: as usual the actual story is more complicated - the ruling wasn't just about a basic Ring camera pointed at a shared area, it was a huge set of various cameras over a lot of shared areas with precise audio pickup over them all.

Your standard Ring camera pointed at a reasonable area outside your front door is fine, because both the relevant legislation and the ruling (which isn't binding on any other court anyway) accept you have a legitimate interest in data collection from that area.

Source:

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/warning-anyone-ring-doorbell-after-21845329?__vfz=medium%3Dcomment_share%7Csharer_uuid%3D00000000-0000-4000-8000-0378dab17086#vf-d25918d6-f6a6-465e-b04d-5a27335f0c17
Edited 2021-10-14 15:09 (UTC)
emperor: (Default)

[personal profile] emperor 2021-10-14 11:15 pm (UTC)(link)
...and a pile of harrassment and lying. The reportage of this case has been pretty rubbish (which is presumably why you can now read the judgment, which paints are rather different picture)