£100,000 fine for camera privacy breach - Ouch ! - Privacy Masking needed

I know its currently a UK specific issue

What is the situation in US ?

But can we get anymore votes for Privacy Masking on the Wyze cams?

Vote here …

Hmm, apparently the UK courts are unfamiliar with the concept of “outside”. How freaking ridiculous.

1 Like

Certainly some of our Judges need to get out more, like into the real world !

Interesting ruling from the UK courts.
When I take a step back to look at the topic, my thoughts go to; “what is the expectation of privacy”? Ring and similar cameras are on private property and pointed to public property, such as a street or sidewalk. In a public street or sidewalk, is there any expectation of privacy? People video or video chat or Facetime in the public domain wherever there is a connection.


yes but private property, not on public property, It is asking for laws, like from cams, drones, etc. People have an expectation of privacy at home somewhat

Not outdoors in the US (generally). A nolo.com article says:

My impression is unless you have a fence up you can expect legal if offensive stares from weirdos and webcams.

Need someone to visit where they live and verify if they have the Ring doorbell cam.

  1. Sh***y lawyer for the defense.

  2. Why didn’t the Ring doorbell owner delete the audio of the recorded stream? Video recording would not have been an issue but recording the audio without the other party’s permission is considered ILLEGAL.

The same law applies to the US:

**Illegal Recording Under the Wiretap Act

Under the federal Wiretap Act, it is illegal for any person to secretly record an oral, telephonic, or electronic communication that other parties to the communication reasonably expect to be private.

The Federal laws governing various types of audio recordings of individuals rests on one premise: “…a reasonable expectation of privacy and freedom of anyone eaves dropping.”