| Comment | Its not even my point of view as I don’t agree with the ruling in the case. The case is interesting though. I am just pointing it out as its a fine line to tread now and the penalties for GDPR breaches can be catastrophic. I’m sure the defendant was in the papers afterwards saying he would lose his home through this.
Mr Ned is innocent unless proven otherwise as far as the court is concerned.
Neighbour disputes turn nasty quickly. Mr Ned may say he is being harassed or his neighbours are video recording his movements when entering and leaving his home.
I would not expect to be recorded in a common close area unless there is CCTV fitted, and clearly signed.
How would you feel if your neighbour was spying or recording you entering or exiting your property without your knowledge? Even if they think you are up to no good, its not for them to act as vigilante camera operator, while becoming judge, jury and executioner on your guilt. (Or Mr Neds in this case. Even if we all realistically know he is a bampot.)
I would say that if recording has to take place, it would be down to the property owners to agree and install a CCTV system for the purposes of crime prevention and security, and clearly notify data subjects of that (sticker in the doorway is sufficient.)
It’s the job of the police to investigate and find evidence of the neighbours wrongdoing. |
|---|