“Vuls the intimacy of the neighbors”

The Supreme Court has established a clear limit to the installation of digital peephots In households, an issue that raises many doubts among users who want to place one in their home. THE CIVIL ROOM He has backed The prohibition of an electronic peephole with a camera in a house in Madrid, arguing that “violates the intimacy of the neighbors” who live in front when the doors are very close.

A conflict between neighbors. It all started in an urbanization of the Madrid neighborhood of Aluche, where two couples resided with their doors facing only a meter and a half of distance. One of them decided to install an intelligent electronic peephole that automatically detected movement and could photograph, record video and send alerts to the mobile. The intention of this was to know if they received packages while they were away, but the device was constantly activated with the movements of their neighbors.

The case was coming before. The Court of First Instance has already determined that the measure did not pursue security but comfortespecially considering that the building had a janitor and there were no special risks. From the court they considered that there were less invasive alternatives, such as traditional alarm systems, to guarantee house protection in case the couple required it.

Why is it relevant. This sentence feels jurisprudence on the limits of placing a digital peephole at home, a topic that usually Provide many doubts depending on the capabilities of the device itself. The Supreme It has been blunt By establishing that continuous surveillance through electronic devices constitutes a “relevant affectation of personal and family intimacy”, especially when it is activated every time the neighbors enter or leave their home.

The resolution. The supreme concludes that the couple’s comfort when placing the peephole “is not proportionate to the benefit of the satisfaction of the defendants.” In this way, the magistrates are clear that the comfort that supposes for the couple to know whether or not a package does not justify that invasion of privacy through the digital peephole, especially when it points directly to the access of a house.

What does it imply for the future. This resolution will serve in similar cases to have a clear reference on what can be placed or cannot be placed in the sight of the house. In this case, the sentence establishes that the installation of cameras in spaces that can capture images of neighbors require a real justification of security. So, if you want to venture to install one of these digital peephoes, it will be important know what their abilities are Specific.

In Xataka | A town in Toledo has tired of the squatters. So you are offering a new service to your neighbors to put them