Couple can’t store data from camera pointed at next door’s garden – Naked Security – First, the judgment refers back to a case brought against Google for continuing to track Safari users when they had logged out of Google.
Second, reassuringly, it establishes absolutely that there is more to privacy than the financial implications; outside the legal costs, the Woolleys technically didn’t pay anything for this.
Third, and this is a key point, the Akrams claimed they weren’t actually keeping the recordings because the system kept it for five days only by default. This was comprehensively thrown out, so you could assume the “couldn’t be bothered with the settings” defence is from this point onward a non-starter.
Finally, as well as transferring the implications of the Google ruling into the “real” world, if that’s genuinely a distinction, we note it takes the effect from the corporate world and into the domestic arena.
Akram in effect became fully liable as a data controller and needed to implement all the due diligence that would have been needed in the corporate world once she’d done so.