Is there a privacy issue with video doorbells?

Hooverfish

Registered User
Messages
193
Mine isn't even connected to electricity. It's an old servant's bell hung in the porch. Very loud. Finds us if we don't happen to hear someone arriving into the yard... but more seriously, there is a privacy issue if the Ring doorbell is photographing passing people on the public road to be aware of - it sometimes needs to be adjusted only to view people on your property at your door.
 
there is a privacy issue if the Ring doorbell is photographing passing people on the public road to be aware of...
No the isn't. There is no privacy issue if you are capturing people passing on the road, so long as it is for personal use and you don't publish it or use the footage commercially.

Pointing the camera so you can see into another person's home is a different matter, as one would have an expectation of privacy in situ. The same cannot be said for a public street.
 
Tickle - you might want to read this: https://www.dataprotection.ie/en/dpc-guidance/blogs/cctv-home
 
Tickle - you might want to read this...


You may want to read it yourself. The first section confirms my point exactly:

Furthermore:
The Court of Justice of the European Union has established in the case of ‘Ryneš’ that the use of a domestic CCTV system that covers a public space falls within the scope of data protection law.
This does not mean you cannot record activity in a public space. It means that it falls under data protection law and you have to process it as such (i.e. do not share it or publish it). So long as the recording is captured for the purpose of your own home security and it's kept private, then there is no issue. If you are recording it for other purposes, then you need consent.


GDPR Article 6, Section 1 outlines it clearly. In the case of the smart video doorbell, either (d), (e) or (f) could apply:


There is no issue so long as there is a legitimate reason for the recording (e.g. home security) and it's kept private.
 
Last edited:
I think m'luds might disagree with you. You don't have consent (a), it's not a vital interest (d), it's not a public interest (e) and it's for your apparent convenience and not for "legitimate interests"(f).
 
You don't have consent (a)


You don't need consent. This is the point of the debate.


It's not a vital interest (d), it's not a public interest (e) and it's for your apparent convenience and not for "legitimate interests"(f).

It really depends on the individual circumstances. Protecting your property from criminal trespass or break-in is a legitimate interest.


To be absolutely abundantly clear, we are not talking about recording the general public willy-nilly or creeping on the woman who jogs past your house everyday. We are discussing the incidental recording of passers-by who may be in frame in a situation where a video camera exists primarily to protect the security of your home.
 
Last edited:
I disagree that "protecting your property" outweighs privacy.

Incidental recording of passers-by is covered in the document I linked. It specifically mentions that if you cannot avoid doing this then you need to abide by the CCTV regulations: https://www.dataprotection.ie/sites...a Controllers_October19_For Publication_0.pdf

That means at a minimum, you must notify people you are recording using a legible notice, you must have a method of providing a copy of their data to a passer-by and you must supply contact details of the data controller.

You're not a public authority. You are a private citizen. You don't get to record the data of other citizens in a public space just because you feel like it. There are workarounds such as systems that can blur the faces of those in the public domain while focussing on the person in your private domain ie at your door ringing your doorbell. I don't think Ring doorbells can do that?
 
You don't get to record the data of other citizens in a public space just because you feel like it.
Not the topic of the conversation, I thought I made that clear already:


Incidental recording of passers-by is covered in the document I linked. It specifically mentions that if you cannot avoid doing this then you need to abide by the CCTV regulations...

Nothing in that article contravenes anything I have said thus far. Frankly, I don't know what point you are trying to make or why you are still arguing.
 
On new estates, there can be so many cameras that basically all of a parallel public road will have coverage.