Neighbour wins privacy row over smart doorbell and cameras

The UK is something of a contradiction when it comes to privacy.

On one hand, there has been a consistent popular trend over the years towards trusting our government agencies and tolerating surveillance up to a point.

On the other hand, the mere suggestion of introducing any sort of compulsory ID card that had to be carried at all times -- a measure not unusual in other countries we would consider modern and democratic -- would threaten any UK government.

On one hand, many people here carry around devices every day that include cameras, microphones, means of tracking their location, and networking capabilities that can transmit data from any of the above.

On the other hand, there have been a few experiments done by academics and journalists that forced ordinary people to confront the realities of the surveillance they were under and in some cases facilitating, and the responses are typically a mixture of surprise and hostility.

I think it would be fairer to say that much of the UK population has been tolerant of, or perhaps resigned to, the increasing surveillance, rather than that they accepted or condoned or positively wanted it.

I think the issue is that the camera captured images of her house and garden as well as making audio recordings. The problem is not having a camera; the problem is pointing it into a private space.

"You can't fight city hall". But you can fight your neighbors. We accept the government's monopoly in some spaces, like enforcement, taxation or surveillance. But we may not accept that our neighbors can exercise those same powers.

Alternatively, one petty neighbor may not symbolize a trend.