| Comment | I'm not sure this entirely justifies your point of view. I'm not a lawyer, so yada yada yada, however:
It's an English decision, so might not carry weight in a Scottish court. There's a better example here where a Scottish court basically finds the same conclusion however, although it was a civil case: https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/scottish-court-issues-damages-to-couple-over-distress-caused-by-neighbours-use-of-cctv
The complaints in your article seem to be based on automatic ring doorbell style cameras, rather than filming on a phone, although it was never discussed above how the guy would be filming.
Furthermore ring doorbells and CCTV are legal to install and use, however their use is controlled by gdpr if they are pointing in a location which picks up passers by as you said. Here the op only has to prove that the cameras are installed in a way that is for a legitimate purpose. Your case actually mentions that, but in that case it was considered to be installed for forget uses. Securing your home is a legitimate interest.
Finally though those situation was of a rear carpark, not a flat stairwell with a secure door. As such the legalities of filming may be quite different from OPs situation.
I don't disagree with you necessarily, and thank you for providing a source, but I'm not convinced by that alone. That said it was quite fun reading, but I like trash TV so yeah, it's basically a court transcript of neighbors from hell. |
|---|