UK Judge Melissa Clarke has ruled that a man named Jon Woodard violated the country’s Data Protection Act and General Data Protection Regulation with a Ring doorbell and security camera.
The BBC reports that Woodard—who lives in Oxfordshire, England—showed off the devices to his neighbor, Dr. Mary Fairhurst, after installing them during broader home renovations. That escalated to a legal fight, and Dr. Fairhurst eventually moved because Woodard’s system could be used to record audio and video from significant parts of her property.
“Personal data may be captured from people who are not even aware that the device is there,” Judge Clarke said, “or that it records and processes audio and personal data.”
Woodard couldn’t do much to protect his neighbor’s privacy, either, because the equipment didn’t ship with the ability to disable audio recording. (Ring added that capability in 2020.) There also isn’t a way to prevent the device from recording its entire field of view whenever it’s triggered.
This case might inspire others who feel like internet-connected security devices such as Ring’s video doorbells, cameras, and drones are invading their privacy. These devices are supposed to protect their owners, but does that mean everyone else should be constantly surveilled?
Judge Clark’s ruling shows that it didn’t for Dr. Fairhurst, at least, and other people who are uncomfortable with being recorded on their own property might pursue similar cases as a result.
Amazon didn’t immediately respond to our request for comment.
