Privacy

by Glyn Moody


Filed Under:
cctv, privacy, scotland



Scottish Sheriff Awards Couple Compensation For 'Distress' Caused By Neighbor's Use Of CCTV

from the effort-to-oppress dept

We've written plenty about CCTV here on Techdirt, and its creeping normalization around the world, but particularly in the UK. So it's good to read a story on the legal news site outlaw.com about a rather unusual ruling from a Scottish court pushing back against the use of an intrusive CCTV system. It concerns a dispute in Edinburgh between the individuals Nahid Akram and Debbie and Tony Woolley. The latter couple live above a guest house run by Akram. For various reasons, both parties decided to install CCTV systems, but with rather different scope:

While the Woolley's equipment "records images of their own external property only", Akram installed "video and audio recording equipment" which allowed her, and her husband, to monitor comings and goings at the Woolley's property and to listen in to conversations in their private garden, according to the ruling. The equipment used by Akram was capable of storing five days' worth of data at any one time.

The [Scottish court's] Sheriff described "the regime of surveillance" that the Woolleys were subjected to as "extravagant, unjustified and highly visible" and as "an effort to oppress". He said that the Woolleys and their family had "suffered considerable distress" since Akram's equipment had been installed in about October 2013 and that it is "difficult to conceive" a more intrusive case of surveillance.

Until recently, suffering "distress" from CCTV would not have been enough in order to receive damages: there needed to be an actual financial loss. But an important 2015 case in the UK involving Google ruled that:

the claimants can claim for distress without having to prove pecuniary loss. This greatly increases the scope for compensation claims in the future given an invasion of privacy will rarely be accompanied by actual monetary loss.

Aside from the award of over $21,000 to the Woolleys, the Sheriff's judgment is also noteworthy for how he spelled out the distress they suffered:

"They have all been severely restricted in the use and enjoyment of their own home," Sheriff Ross said. "They voluntarily restrict their external movements. They restrict their conversations, both inside and outside their home, as they are aware that they are being recorded and do not know the extent of the coverage."

Although he is talking about surveillance in the physical world, his concerns have obvious parallels in the online world, which is under growing government surveillance, not least in the UK. Already, some people are starting to restrict their digital movements and their conversations as they are "aware that they are being recorded and do not know the extent of the coverage." The question is: why should such "distressing" surveillance be punished in the real world, but permitted in the digital one?

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    JustMe (profile), 15 Feb 2017 @ 4:38am

    Hadn't seen this story

    Thanks for pointing it out, Glyn. The privacy implications are interesting but I really like your rhetorical question at the end.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ThaumaTechnician (profile), 15 Feb 2017 @ 4:39am

    Och, if that had occured in Glasgow instead of Edinburg...

    ..there would have been a couple of malkies administered, instead of a fine.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2017 @ 4:54am

    This is so typical of Techdirt. They report on a story and leave out crucial facts to give readers a better understanding of what they are reading. Shame on you, Mike Masnick.

    The spat between the two parties began when the Akrams applied to change the use of their property from a guest house into a bail hostel for up to 18. Tony and Debbie opposed the application and it was subsequently refused by the city council, sparking a spat between the two families. This is when both parties installed CCTV cameras outside their home, which began a 36 month ordeal between the two families.

    Both parties installed CCTV cameras, the Woolleys’ system covering the front of their house, a staircase to their entrance door at the side and their garden. The Akrams installed four cameras and four audio recording boxes, which operated 24 hours a day and were set to record permanently . . . but all pointing at the Woolleys’ home. “When they were installed, my wife went out and spoke to the engineer who was putting the boxes up and was told they were just junction boxes,” said investment contractor Tony, 46.

    The Akrams uised the video camera they installed to spy on the Woodley's daughter, visiting son and the parents themselves.

    Next time, do some research. LOLS

    http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/family-awarded-17k-after-neighbour-filmed-them-for-36 -months-1-4359781

    To make it worse, they were not awarded $31,000, they were awarded £17k, which comes out to around $21,000-$22,000 U.S.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2017 @ 5:12am

      Re:

      Log back in, Whatever.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2017 @ 5:18am

      Re:

      Your point is meaningless.
      Is there more in-depth reporting on this story? Yes.
      Is this a tech blog, writing a story about surveillance and its effects, making a comment about a court acknowledging *surveillance itself* having a chilling effect? Yep.
      Do we need the kind of local newspaper journalism you're looking at in order to take notice of that part of the ruling? Nope.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2017 @ 5:18am

      Re:

      Wow, you are easily upset.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      I.T. Guy, 15 Feb 2017 @ 6:16am

      Re:

      "Shame on you, Mike Masnick."

      by Glyn Moody

      How's the baby doin wiLLie?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 15 Feb 2017 @ 6:53am

        Re: Re:

        It's not a surprise from the usual morons and shills round these parts, but it's always amusing when someone attacking this site for inaccuracy can't get the name of the article's writer correct.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2017 @ 6:22am

      Re:

      No... I am more than ready to annoy TD with calls about perceived bias and spin in their articles, but I don't think that is the case here in the least.

      It really does not matter what prompted the invasive cctv system, it is just the simple fact that it happened and caused distress. It is pretty clear from the information here that the Akrams were intentionally harassing their neighbors. This is one of the situations where the original problem is really not needed for context.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 15 Feb 2017 @ 6:52am

      Re:

      "They report on a story and leave out crucial facts to give readers a better understanding of what they are reading."

      They link to the original reporting upon which their opinion article is based, and nothing you said had anything to add to the issue at hand. Not a single word changes the point of the article you're attacking.

      Which part of the article you quoted is relevant to this article? Bearing in mind that while accusing others of dishonesty, you might note that articles tend to bias their coverage toward their readership (i.e., most of what you quoted is geared toward the local area and as a personal story, whereas none of that is relevant to the tech that the audience here would want to read).

      "To make it worse, they were not awarded $31,000, they were awarded £17k which comes out to around $21,000-$22,000 U.S."

      The article says $21k. Can anyone else confirm if this article was edited (which is unusual without a comment from Mike to state that it has been), or is this moron hallucinating again?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Glyn Moody, 15 Feb 2017 @ 7:21am

        Re: Re:

        FWIW, I can confirm it wasn't edited; I have my original file with the post open in front of me...

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 15 Feb 2017 @ 7:40am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I didn't think so. One thing I like here is the willingness to own up to mistakes, be they typos or factual.

          Well, that's just the icing on the cake. His fact free rant with a false premise attacking you for your accuracy manages to end with a paragraph of inaccuracy. Fantastic.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Glyn Moody, 15 Feb 2017 @ 7:21am

        Re: Re:

        FWIW, I can confirm it wasn't edited; I have my original file with the post open in front of me...

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2017 @ 5:36am

    can we now jointly sue the Scottish Recording Centre & GCHQ for recording everything we do, say, buy, visit online and off?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2017 @ 5:52am

    *Why should such "distressing" surveillance be punished in the real world, but permitted in the digital one?*

    It's not about real world vs. online. It all comes down to who's doing the spying. In this case, it was a private citizen. In the case of online spying, it's governments. Spot the difference?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2017 @ 6:25am

      Re:

      I believe the author was alluding to that, but yes, there should be civilian uprising over government surveillance. There should be no reason for the government to spy on people "just because we are the government".

      Unfortunately, people roll over like little dogs often.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Cowardly Lion, 15 Feb 2017 @ 7:48am

        Re: Re:

        "Unfortunately, people roll over like little dogs often."

        I don't think it's that simple. Although the media covered some aspects of the Snowden disclosures, there was next to nothing to explain what it meant to ordinary people in real terms. So I wasn't that shocked at the lack of outrage. I really wish people were more passionate about privacy, but they're not. And I have to ask myself; would I be prepared to take to the streets over this issue? Possibly. Maybe. But until there's some kind of groundswell, I'll make do with VPNs, ToR, Tails, writing to my MP...

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2017 @ 9:47am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Uh, ya... it really is just exactly that simple. Just because that reason is different depending on the demographic means nothing.

          heck, the damn declaration of Independence even addresses that problem as well. People are just simply predisposed to suffering injustice as long as it is tolerable. NutShell Wisdom!

          People rolling over like little dogs often is just another way of saying that. Against, knowledge while useful, is not the primary cause for this... people are just that fucking apathetic, which is what lead to the lack of knowledge to begin with incidentally.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2017 @ 7:13am

    Pointing all your camera's at the Neighbors is is not the best thing in the world to do, but I would have to say, it was the Audio also that took things to far.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Team Trump, 15 Feb 2017 @ 7:21am

    They restrict their conversations, both inside and outside their home, as they are aware that they are being recorded and do not know the extent of the coverage."

    If you don't want people to know what you're saying maybe you shouldn't be saying it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 15 Feb 2017 @ 7:42am

      Re:

      You're saying that you're OK with having everything you say and do within your own home recorded 24/7 and you'd never feel the urge to modify your routine? You're either fearless or extremely boring.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 15 Feb 2017 @ 8:19am

        Re: Re:

        He's probably already got a smart TV and some of those game boxes, along with those voice activated boxes that 'do' things for you and sending your conversations to the providers, and is fine the the implications. Plus, his family is SOOO boring that the idea of doing nothing wrong means he has nothing to hide has the local authorities doing regular wellness checks to see if they are still alive.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Team Trump, 15 Feb 2017 @ 11:03pm

        Re: Re:

        You're saying that you're OK with having everything you say and do within your own home recorded 24/7 and you'd never feel the urge to modify your routine? You're either fearless or extremely boring.

        If you've done nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Cowardly Lion, 15 Feb 2017 @ 7:50am

      Re:

      I hope to god that that was a joke...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    JoeCool (profile), 15 Feb 2017 @ 9:02am

    Down with CCTV!

    Damn those deaf people and their Closed Captions! TVs should only cater to the hearing!
    /s

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2017 @ 9:31am

    The fact is, someone wanted to change the designation of their home and another family decided to oppose it just because. This kind of petty bullshit from the Woolley's kind of exacerbated the problem with the Akrams.

    Personally, I think both parties are to blame for this crap and all it's going to do is turn this into a full blown out war.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      art guerrilla (profile), 16 Feb 2017 @ 8:17am

      Re:

      1. the impetus for ths cams may have originated from the zoning change, but so what ?
      2. yeah, you live above a 'guest house' (whatever that means), and they want to increase the number of people allowed to stay there, it is not unreasonable to oppose that...
      shit, i cant stand living cheek-by-jowl in a normal suburban setting, i can't imagine a LOT of stupid nekkid apes undrrfoot... why i live in the country with more critters for neighbors than stupid nekkid apes...
      3. i don't care if it urban public spaces, private property, schools oe bidnesses, having sauron's all-seeing eyes everywhere is the mark of police state, not a free society...
      time to burn the mutha down and let the cockroaches have a shot...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2017 @ 5:31pm

    The conclusion that you are trying to draw is a bit over the top. You are simply not considering the levels of expectation of privacy between two people chatting in the back garden compared to a wirkess phobe call or messages in a chat room online.

    Good try, but not a good parallel.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2017 @ 5:15pm

    Brisbane public audio recording "for the children"

    As British & Australian law is almost the same maybe the citizens of Moreton Bay Council in the northern outer metro region of Brisbane (But not Brisbane City Council for those pedantics) could possibly use this ruling in their fight against the recording of audio & video in public places if affects people on their private properties with 330 devices around the area.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-08/moreton-council-targets-creepy-characters-with-audio-reco rdings/8250998

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-07/concern-big-brother-surveillance-moreton-bay-cou ncil-privacy/8249262

    Yep, it's for those blessed children that this invasion of privacy is being brought in for.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer
Anonymous number for texting and calling from Hushed. $25 lifetime membership, use code TECHDIRT25
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.