▲ The above picture is not directly related to the content of the article.
The results of a trial in Oxfordshire, England, have sparked intense local controversy.
On the 13th local time, foreign media such as British Metro reported on the fierce court battle between two people who had been neighbors for 20 years.
In 2019, a resident of Thames, Oxfordshire, John Woodard, had an absurd incident.
A group of robbers tried to steal a car parked right in front of the house.
Fortunately, no car was lost, but after this incident, Mr. Woodard decided to install a security camera to counter the theft.
Mr. Woodard, who was a technician by profession, installed a total of four machines around the exterior walls of the house.
However, Mr. Woodard's equipment was a little different from general surveillance cameras.
The two pieces of equipment were imitations that were not filmed in real life and were 'models' for the purpose of warning only.
On the other hand, the other two cameras were capable of filming as well as audio recording, allowing the homeowner to receive real-time video through a mobile phone application.
In addition, if someone approaches the front door while the house is vacant, a notification is sent to the owner's mobile phone immediately, and the owner can even talk to the visitor through the camera's built-in speaker.
▲ The above picture is not directly related to the content of the article.
It wasn't the robber who hated the equipment the most, but the neighbor Mr. Fairhurst next door. After living in a house just three meters from Mr. Woodard's house for 20 years, Mr. Fairhurst realized one day that Mr. Woodard's new camera was pointing straight at his house.
Mr. Fairhurst complained about the invasion of privacy with Mr. Woodard, saying, "I feel like I am being watched 24 hours a day," but Mr. Woodard is said to have reacted rather aggressively.
The conflict between the two eventually led to a court of law that drew great attention across Britain. This is because, in recent years, as interest and demand for home security cameras have grown, more than 100,000 people are using the same equipment as Mr. Woodard.
Meanwhile, the judge in charge of the first trial ruled in favor of his neighbor, Mr. Fairhurst. The reason was that "the nature of the equipment used by Mr. Woodard goes against the purpose of the Data Protection Act, and substantially infringes on the privacy of our neighbors."
If Mr. Woodard's charges are confirmed in a future trial, he will have to pay Mr. Fairhurst up to £100,000.
Woodard said, "The court's decision is too harsh. Not one or two houses in our neighborhood use security cameras." "Right now, I don't even have £5,000 (about 8 million won). there," he pleaded.
This is a 'news pick'.