Ms. Sun, who lives in Beijing, has a long-standing conflict with her neighbors
Finally, because the neighbor installed a video doorbell
The two sides went to court
The neighbor installed a video doorbell and took the other party to court
The two women in court live on the same floor in the same building in the same neighborhood in Changping District, Beijing. The two families share the same hallway, and they are neighbors to the door.
Last year, the plaintiff, Ms. Sun, discovered that the video doorbell installed on her neighbor's door had a camera function, and she believed that the device with camera function violated her right to privacy.
The plaintiff entrusted an agent ad litem: it can photograph who I am, what time I get home, what time I go out, who has been to our house, and who we have gone out with. As soon as we open the door, the private information can be recorded, and it will be recorded continuously. I think this is the most direct invasion of privacy.
As a result, the plaintiff, Ms. Sun, sued her neighbor Ms. Yu and Ms. Yu's daughter to the Changping District People's Court in Beijing, demanding that the defendant remove the camera and compensate her for mental damages of 10,000 yuan. As for the plaintiff's claim, the defendant Ms. Yu's family did not agree.
Defendant Ms. Yu's daughter: The corridor belongs to the public area, not the category of private space, and its claim has no basis in law, and the plaintiff has no evidence to prove that we have collected, disseminated or uploaded (his personal privacy information) to the Internet, and we have not misused his personal information, let alone violated his privacy.
The defendant, Ms. Yu, said that the plaintiff lived in the opposite door and behaved abnormally. For the purpose of defense and evidence collection, I installed the video doorbell. After the doorbell was installed, some of the plaintiffs' excesses were filmed.
The defendant, Ms. Yu, said that the plaintiff repeatedly tapped her doorbell with her shoes and said some threatening words to herself, which threatened her personal safety.
Regarding the videos played by the defendant Ms. Yu, the plaintiff, Ms. Sun, said that these videos just corroborated her statement to the court, and the camera of the defendant's house was shooting at the door of her house, and the pictures and sounds taken were very clear. And the video can be downloaded, saved, and uploaded.
Plaintiff Ms. Sun: She said that I broke the curfew of their house, and I do admit it, and in the second video (I admit), I did take a shoe and shoot it. For more than a year, every time I went back to our house, that thing would be activated and photographed, and I was really emotionally out of control at that time.
The plaintiff, Ms. Sun, said that the video doorbell installed in the defendant's home could record her image, movements, and voice so clearly, which was an invasion of her privacy and seriously affected her life.
The installation of the video doorbell was due to a dispute over the ownership of the flower bed downstairs
In court, the defendant, Ms. Yu, explained the reason why she installed the video doorbell, and it turned out that there had been friction between the two families on the opposite door a long time ago.
Before the trial, the plaintiffs also filed an application for variation of their claim to the court, because after their first lawsuit and the court filed the case, the defendant installed two new cameras, one to shoot the corridor and one to the window. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim was changed from the removal of the video doorbell to the removal of the video doorbell and the other two cameras.
Why did the defendant install these cameras? It turned out that the defendant, Ms. Yu, had bought the house as early as 2005, but it was left vacant until the renovation was completed in early 2021. When they moved in, the plaintiff across the door had been living here for more than a decade. Soon after the defendant moved in, the two families had a disagreement over the ownership of the flower bed downstairs.
Defendant Ms. Yu: When the contract was signed to buy the house, the staff at the sales office said that there was a yard downstairs. The property said, "The flower bed on the left belongs to you, and the right side belongs to her." The third, fourth, and fifth (flower beds) she planted.
The defendant, Ms. Yu, stated that since the other party had already planted flowers in three plots, she planned to plant flowers in the other plots, and she had communicated with the plaintiff, Ms. Sun's lover, about this.
Defendant Ms. Yu: We had good communication at that time. Later, my wife came to dig the soil and found that she had planted bulbs in it. My wife didn't know about it at the time, so she dug it up and planted the bulbs on her side. She said aggressively at the time that I would pay for it, and this beam would be settled.
The defendant, Ms. Yu, said that since she had this unpleasant encounter with her neighbors, the flowers she planted in the flower bed after that never survived. He also said that the flower beds were full of white particles, and he checked the Internet (only to know) that it was a herbicide.
The plaintiff did not agree with what the defendant Ms. Yu said.
Plaintiff Ms. Sun: Because I planted the flowers in the flower bed, I can't say that this side is ours and the other side is yours. I can't talk about drugged flowers, what others haven't done, relying on my own imagination to find a reason for installing a camera.
Shortly after the flower bed dispute, the defendant, Ms. Yu, found that there was a lot of ash on the ground in front of her house, and it was this incident that caused her to install a video doorbell on the door.
The daughter of the defendant, Ms. Yu, said that after turning on the camera function of the video doorbell, they noticed some strange behaviors of the neighbors at the door, and these behaviors made her and her mother feel uneasy.
Regarding the issue of dumping garbage in public corridors or even in front of the other party's house, the plaintiff, Ms. Sun, said that there was also garbage dumped by the other party in her own home.
The plaintiff and the defendant argued fiercely in court.
The plaintiff believed that the three cameras installed in the defendant's house clearly recorded the plaintiff's whereabouts and people, which violated his privacy, so he insisted that the defendant remove the cameras and compensate the plaintiff 10,000 yuan for mental damages.
The defendant argued that the video doorbell and home camera he installed were regular products sold on the market, and that he did so for the sake of protecting his own safety and did not infringe on the privacy of the other party.
The court ruled so
Did the camera installed by the defendant violate the plaintiff's right to privacy? Where is the line between keeping yourself safe and violating the privacy of others? The judge went to the original defendant's home to conduct an on-site inspection, and clarified the shooting range of several cameras in the defendant's home.
Should the defendant's video doorbell and camera be removed? The court held that natural persons enjoy the right to privacy, and no organization or individual may infringe upon the privacy rights of others by means of espionage, intrusion, leakage, disclosure, etc.
Judge Wang Lei of the People's Court of Changping District, Beijing: The defendant's video doorbell system was facing the plaintiff's door, and the cameras installed were also facing the corridor where both parties had to pass. In this case, the plaintiff's entry and exit time, the circumstances of the visitor, and some of the internal conditions of the house when she opened the door may have been captured by the camera system and the video doorbell system, so there is indeed a certain invasion of her privacy.
The court held that the defendant's installation of the video doorbell and camera surveillance system constituted infringement, and although the defendant argued that the video doorbell and camera were installed for the purpose of defense and evidence collection, this could not be a reason for their infringement.
Judge Wang Lei, Beijing Changping District People's Court: The defendant claimed that she had installed a surveillance system and a video camera for the sake of the peace and security of her life, but she violated the plaintiff's privacy while exercising her rights.
In the end, the Beijing Changping District People's Court made a judgment that the defendant removed the video doorbell and the two cameras within seven days after the judgment took effect, and rejected the plaintiff's other claims. At present, the judgment has entered into force and has been fulfilled.
The video doorbell has been removed, but how to resolve the conflict between the two neighbors facing the door? The judge also educated and reminded the plaintiff of some of the excesses he had committed.
Judge Wang Lei of the People's Court of Changping District, Beijing: We have also made a negative evaluation of the plaintiff's behavior, and we also hope to solve the problem rationally and restrainedly, and it is best to solve it through negotiation or other means, rather than such excessive behavior.
The judge reminded that before installing electronic devices with audio and video recording functions at the entrance door, it is best to seek the opinions of neighbors in advance, and if the negotiation cannot reach an agreement, you can ask the property for help.