Anti-theft door surveillance invades privacy, and neighbors sued for removal and were supported

Beijing News (Reporter Zhang Jingshu) On December 12, the Changping District People’s Court of Beijing (hereinafter referred to as the “Changping Court”) reported a dispute between neighbors over the installation of home surveillance cameras. The plaintiff believed that the neighbor’s video doorbell The neighbor was sued on the grounds that his whereabouts could be photographed by surveillance cameras, and the situation in his home could be photographed after opening the door, requiring him to dismantle the above-mentioned equipment, which was supported by the court.

Sun, Zhai and Yu are opposite neighbors. At the beginning of 2021, Zhai and Yu installed video doorbells on their security doors, and then installed a surveillance camera indoors near the window and in the corridor in July and August 2022.

Sun said that the video doorbell and surveillance can capture his whereabouts and the situation at home after opening the door. All situations can be recorded, stored and uploaded to the Internet, infringing on his personal privacy, and demanded that Zhai and Yu demolished it.

Zhai and Yu said that since they got the house in 2007, they had conflicts because Sun kept a dog in the corridor. After moving in in 2020, the two parties had conflicts over the use of flower beds and the accumulation of garbage. , damaged door locks and other disputes. Sun admitted that there had been conflicts between the two parties, and admitted that he used the soles of his shoes to knock on the other party\’s door lock and used tape to stick the doorbell camera.

According to the on-site inspection by the court, the door of Sun\’s house is opposite to that of Zhai and Yu. The shooting range of the disputed video doorbell is the area directly in front of the door; the shooting range of the corridor camera is the door area and the adjacent part of the corridor. Stairs; the shooting range of the indoor camera is the flower bed area outside the building.

After hearing, the Changping Court held that privacy means a natural person’s private life is peaceful and he does not want others to know about his private space, private activities, and private information. Information about citizens entering and exiting residences, visitor information, etc. are highly related to home and property security, private living habits, etc., and should be regarded as personal interests with a private nature and should be protected by law.

In this case, although Zhai and Yu claimed that they installed video doorbells and cameras for self-prevention due to family conflicts, Sun and his family members did engage in radical behavior. However, the video doorbell and camera surveillance system can indeed record the travel information and family members of Sun and his family, putting Sun and his family in a state of being monitored, infringing on the tranquility of his normal life and infringing on Sun. privacy rights. Although the actions of Zhai and Yu were for the purpose of defense and evidence collection, they cannot be used as blocking factors to commit infringements. They can seek solutions through legal means or from community property companies, public security departments, etc.

In the end, the court ruled that Zhai and Yu should dismantle the security door monitoring video doorbell system, indoor monitoring and corridor monitoring.

The judge reminded that with the development of Internet of Things technology, smart devices such as electronic cat eyes and video doorbells have entered thousands of households. There is nothing wrong with residents installing video doorbells with functions such as recording and storage based on their own safety needs. However, such behavior also carries the risk of infringing on the privacy rights and personal information of others. Once infringement is involved, the perpetrator needs to bear corresponding legal liability.

Editor Gan Hao

ProofreadingLi Lijun