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+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Hadn't seen this story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Och, if that had occured in Glasgow instead of Edinburg...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
by Glyn Moody
How's the baby doin wiLLie?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unfortunately, people roll over like little dogs often.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you don't want people to know what you're saying maybe you shouldn't be saying it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you've done nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Down with CCTV!
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good try, but not a good parallel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brisbane public audio recording "for the children"
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]