Case Description

Both A and B are neighbors of the front and rear buildings in the same residential area, and the nearest distance between the two houses is less than 20 meters. In order to monitor the surrounding conditions of the house at any time, a visual doorbell that uses face recognition technology and can automatically capture and store video was installed on the entrance door of the house, facing the bedroom and balcony of the house. Party B believes that Party A's behavior has violated its privacy right. Party A believes that the sensing distance of the visual doorbell is only 3 meters, and the captured house of Party B is unclear, and it has never had the intention to spy on Party B. This does not constitute an infringement of privacy, and does not agree to remove or displace the visual doorbell. Later, Party B filed a lawsuit to the court requesting that Party A remove the visual doorbell.

After hearing, the court held that although Party A installed a visual doorbell in its own space, the scope of equipment photography exceeded its own domain, and it was absorbed into Party B's residence. The privacy of housing is the starting point and foundation of personal peace, and it is crucial to maintain personal dignity and freedom. The visual doorbell can start shooting through dual modes of face recognition and background control, and can record and store videos for a long time. In addition, a long-term close relationship between Party A and Party B provides the possibility of identifying images, thereby obtaining private information and realistic behavior within the residence. The tranquility of Party B's life will indeed be disturbed. Therefore, Party A's installation behavior has violated Party B's privacy rights. Party A argued that it had no subjective intention to infringe upon Party B's privacy, and Party B should tolerate such opinions, which were unfounded in law and not accepted by the court. The court ultimately supported the lawsuit that Party B requested Party A to remove the visual doorbell.

Lawyer Analysis

For the purpose of protecting personal and property safety and facilitating daily life, installing and using artificial intelligence devices with face recognition functions such as visual doorbells (hereinafter referred to as "face recognition devices") has become a relatively common social phenomenon. However, while installing and using face recognition devices to protect one's own rights and interests, one should exercise proper care obligations, select a reasonable installation location based on the structural layout of the house and floor, and ensure that the recording range does not cover the entrance doors and necessary passages of the neighboring party, in order to avoid affecting the legitimate rights and interests of the neighboring party such as privacy or personal information.
From this case, it can be seen that the court usually determines whether an infringement of privacy is constituted based on the installation location of the face recognition device and whether it can record, obtain, and monitor the other party's private space, private activities, images, travelers, travel rules, and visitor interactions. If the court determines that an infringement of the privacy of others is constituted, it will order the removal of the face device device or adjust its installation location. However, in combination with other cases, if it can be demonstrated that the camera range of a face recognition device does not cover the range of activities of others under normal traffic conditions, and does not capture or store other people's images, travel, visitor contact, and other information, the court will also determine that the impact of installing a face recognition device does not exceed a reasonable limit, and does not constitute an infringement of the privacy of others.