processed and then the court explored the principle that the purpose of the cctv was to essentially watch what's going on for security purposes but didn't necessarily need to listen to it as is the case with many of the cctv around the country that doesn't use audio recording and ultimately that much of the legitimate aim for which those cameras are used did not need to use the audio recording and therefore found that the audio recordings collected by the defendant was not lawful and for all those reasons the court found that the claimant's claims that the defendant had breached the provisions of the data protection act and uk gdpr was successful and accordingly she was entitled to compensation and orders to prevent the continuing breach of her rights moving forward so you can see from that broad outline of the case that there are several different aspects that all come together leaving aside nuisance which i might will address in another video nuisance will generally arise if there is something continuing that is more than you should expect to bear and there's reasonable foreseeability of loss such as a leaky pipe that is continually flooding or damaging someone's property but i'll come back to that in another video but for the purposes of this case the claims in harassment and breach of data protection were made out because of the way the cameras were used because of the amount of data that was collected but also which is why i started with this point fundamentally the behavior of the parties and the conversations and the threats that were made the dishonesty in the case and essentially behavior that went beyond unattractive and unreasonable to the extent that it was oppressive and simply unacceptable that being a course of conduct that amounted to harassment and in respect of the data protection it was more than what was necessary in that the defendant's cameras were capturing images entirely outside of his property and audio that was far beyond the scope that was necessary for the legitimate purpose so what do we take away from this so if you have a ring doorbell or cctv at your property you don't need to go and take it down straight away before you've considered all of these things and dare i say it again take formal legal advice but the broad position is this and mirrors what i've said in many of my live streams and previous videos if your cctv or your ring doorbell or any other device that captures video or audio material be very careful to check the scope and field of view of both the camera in its video recording capacity and in the audio capacity that it captures because if it captures conversations in your neighbor's garden then that is going beyond the scope of what is legitimately necessary to protect the security of your home for example if the field of view just about captures movement from your neighbor and therefore starts recording and is recording their conversations when they are in their garden whilst that might not necessarily amount to nuisance it would very likely following this judgment amount to a breach of data protection because the audio recording is beyond what is necessary to protect your property but let's say that you have an area that is not your property let's say it's a communal car park or a communal area that other people share and their comings and goings are going to be captured by any camera on that area the only thing that i can say to you is you should ensure that absolutely everybody that is living in that area that is likely to be coming and going have not only been told about it but agree with the fact that there's a camera
NO_SEGMENT_TOKEN