Skip to main content
CLOSE

Charities

Close

Corporate and Commercial

Close

Employment and Immigration

Close

Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance

Close

Fraud and Investigations

Close

Individuals

Close

Litigation

Close

Planning and Infrastructure

Close

Public Law

Close

Real Estate

Close

Restructuring and Insolvency

Close

Energy

Close

Entrepreneurs

Close

Private Wealth

Close

Real Estate

Close

Tech and Innovation

Close

Transport

Close

The use of the Ring doorbell and cameras has been the subject of much controversy recently in terms of what extent they may breach a neighbour’s privacy.

Following a recent trial in the County Court at Oxford, Judge Clarke ruled that the use of a Ring doorbell, security cameras and lights installed on a property breached data protection law and contributed to the harassment of a neighbour.

The neighbour had sought an order for damages, the removal of the devices and the forbidding of the installation of further surveillance cameras which ‘unnecessarily and unjustifiably invaded her privacy’. The owner of the device said they were to act as a deterrent against criminal activity against his home. The owner of the Ring doorbell now faces a substantial fine even though he said he installed them in good faith as a burglar deterrent.

The Judge found that the devices which were activated by movement captured images and audio recordings of the neighbour’s driveway, front door and car parking space which could have been viewed at any time by from an app on his phone. The Judge ruled that in particular, the audio data collected by the devices had been processed unlawfully in breach of the Data Protection Act 2018 and the UK General Data Protection Regulation and concluded that she was:

‘…satisfied that the extent of range to which these devices can capture audio is well beyond the range of video that they capture, and… cannot be said to be reasonable…since the legitimate aim for which [the devices] are said to be used, namely crime prevention, could surely be achieved by something less’.

Although as a first instance decision the ruling has no precedence over future decisions of the Court, it is a stark reminder to property owners to be mindful of installing security equipment that quite literally crosses a boundary and that in installing such devices you should seek to ensure that any intrusion on the privacy of others is kept to a minimum. This case and the conversations around it show how normalised domestic surveillance has become in our communities.

Latest articles

Our Offices

London
One Bartholomew Close
London
EC1A 7BL

Cambridge
20 Station Road
Cambridge
CB1 2JD

Reading
The Anchorage, 34 Bridge Street
Reading RG1 2LU

Southampton
4 Grosvenor Square
Southampton SO15 2BE

 

Reading
The Anchorage, 34 Bridge Street
Reading RG1 2LU

Southampton
4 Grosvenor Square
Southampton SO15 2BE

Follow us

  • Lexcel
  • CYBER ESSENTIALS PLUS

 

BDB Pitmans has launched Broadfield and is now part of the new transformative international law firm.

Should you need to confirm our bank details, please call +44 20 7092 6996.

© BDB Pitmans 2025. One Bartholomew Close, London EC1A 7BL - T +44 (0)345 222 9222

Our Services

Charities chevron
Corporate and Commercial chevron
Employment and Immigration chevron
Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance chevron
Fraud and Investigations chevron
Individuals chevron
Litigation chevron
Planning and Infrastructure chevron
Public Law chevron
Real Estate chevron
Restructuring and Insolvency chevron

Sectors and Groups

Private Wealth chevron
Transport chevron