When Wang Hao installed a smart door lock with a camera at his Beijing apartment, he’d imagined it would make his home more secure. Instead, it landed him with a lawsuit.

In May, Jiang Yi, a neighbor down the corridor, took Wang to court, claiming the technology infringed on his right to privacy, even though the camera was not pointing at his property. The capital’s Fengtai District People’s Court ultimately ruled in the plaintiff’s favor, with the decision later upheld on appeal by Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court.

Wang was ordered to disable the smart lock’s camera, as it “disrupted Jiang’s peace of mind and threatened their privacy,” according to Peng Yu, the presiding judge at the first hearing.

The case is far from an isolated one. Similar lawsuits have been filed nationwide including in Hangzhou, Xiamen, Qingdao, and Shanghai, where one plaintiff demanded not only removal of his neighbor’s peephole camera but also 5,000 yuan ($690) in compensation for mental distress.

However, Wang’s case has sparked widespread discussion online. While some people argue that such home security devices are merely designed to monitor the activity on someone’s doorstep, others fear they could be used to track the movements of neighbors and pose a risk to their personal information, as footage captured by smart locks and doorbells can be stored and potentially shared.

Experts also note that the industry standards for smart locks in China currently only focus on safety and provide no guidance on emerging technologies or the storage and sharing of recordings.

So, why have these devices proved so divisive?

Snap judgment

According to court records, Wang and Jiang live on the same floor of an apartment building in Beijing’s southwestern Fengtai District. As the passageway to and from Jiang’s apartment passes Wang’s front door, Jiang argued that the smart lock camera was effectively recording him, his family, and any visitors he might have without their consent, causing considerable psychological stress.

As evidence, he presented an online chat with a customer service representative from a smart lock maker who confirmed that its device had a peephole camera with a 120-degree view and 3-meter sensing range, as well as cloud storage capabilities that allowed users to view images via an online account.

Wang denied any invasion of privacy, countering that the smart lock model was approved by the Ministry of Public Security and had been installed for personal safety reasons. It had a “snapshot function” that activated only when someone stood in front of it for a certain amount of time, and did not directly capture Jiang’s front door but rather a public corridor used by other residents.

The court sided with Jiang. The judgment reads that although the camera did not face Jiang’s door, its range covered the corridor, which unlike a truly public space is more specifically for the building’s residents and is the sole point of access to Jiang’s apartment. As a result, Wang had the ability to record, view, and store information about Jiang and his family’s comings and goings without consent.

Based on China’s Civil Code, Wang’s actions constituted an infringement of privacy, as personal information is legally protected. This includes a person’s name, ID card number, biometric information, address, and travel records. Peng, the judge, stated that the essence of privacy is “not wanting other people to know.”

Liu Changlong, a judge at Xicheng District People’s Court in Beijing who has handled similar lawsuits, explained in an earlier interview that a citizen’s residence is considered a private space, meaning information about that citizen’s comings and goings is directly related to their personal behavior, and the safety of their family and belongings, all of which falls within the scope of “privacy” in Chinese law.

However, the ruling in Wang’s case puzzled some observers, leading to the question: If a smart lock or doorbell camera is in violation, even though it captures only public areas such as corridors, hallways, and elevators, and not a neighbor’s door, then why aren’t on-street surveillance cameras and vehicle dashboard cameras, or dashcams, also considered an infringement of privacy?

Zhang Mengyue, a civil lawyer in Shanghai, argues that the difference is that surveillance cameras are mainly to ensure public safety, not to spy on or monitor certain individuals, and the footage they collect is not easily accessed by the public. Dashcams, meanwhile, are used to record traffic conditions in public areas, such as roads and parking garages. However, if content recorded on these devices was shared inappropriately, that could infringe an individual’s right to privacy.

He says the fact that door lock cameras are more likely to constitute an infringement is not due to technical differences in the equipment but rather differences in the range of activities and the subjects recorded, such as people visiting neighboring homes.

Common defenses in such disputes are that the cameras improve home security and that the recording function must be triggered. However, Zhang points out that if a smart lock or doorbell camera captures a neighbor’s comings and goings, regardless of whether there is any intention to monitor them, it constitutes an infringement of their privacy.

Peng said that judgments in such cases must balance the rights of both parties. The right to use smart devices should be protected, yet the functions and applications of smart devices are becoming increasingly diverse, potentially causing conflicts. For example, they can store content to be viewed online. If used improperly, this function could allow someone to collect and share the personal information of another citizen.

Good neighbors

The smart door locks available for purchase online in China include a wide variety of functions — 1080p high-definition picture quality, artificially intelligent gait detection, 3D facial recognition, and panoramic night vision, to name a few — with prices ranging from a few hundred to thousands of yuan.

A customer service representative for a smart home store said its peephole camera has a wide angle of 165 degrees and a night light function. It can sense and capture a person standing up to 1.5 meters away, with images stored on a cloud service for 30 days. The homeowner can view the images using an online account but cannot download them, although it is possible to take screenshots.

Industry insiders say that China currently has no unified regulation for the recording function of smart door locks, meaning that the trigger mechanism, recording range, and image storage are all decided by the manufacturers.

However, as Peng pointed out in his judgment, the clarity, angle, and duration of the images captured by a smart device are all relevant to a case like Wang’s. For instance, the more detailed the images, the more likely they are to be deemed an infringement of privacy.

Some in the industry have said that the national standards for civilian lock products, including electronic and mechanical models, mainly address the safety of traditional locks. In terms of electronic identification and increased intelligence, there are no concrete requirements.

A staff member at the testing center of the Ministry of Public Security’s First Research Institute confirms that the national standards for smart door locks have yet to include requirements on personal privacy issues related to camera recording functions. To avoid potential legal ramifications, consumers with the need for smart locks should consider where they will be used before purchasing one, they said.

Gao Ronglin, a law professor at the Hubei University of Police, published a paper on privacy protection in relation to private cameras in 2020. Based on more than 30 representative cases in China’s legal judgment database, he found that most courts ruled that safety took precedence when a camera’s recording range did not include areas where other people may conduct private activities. In these cases, residents were permitted to keep their cameras.

Yet, whenever it was deemed that a person’s privacy had been affected, the cameras had to be removed. Moreover, Gao wrote that in “highly private” areas such as rental homes, hotel rooms, and public washrooms, privacy takes absolute precedence.

In summing up, Peng suggested that manufacturers and sellers of smart locks and doorbells should remind consumers to use them reasonably and avoid potential risks. Installing smart technology is more about choosing which functions to use and in what context, he said, adding that residents should communicate with their neighbors in advance about their reasons for installing the device, its functions, and any issues that may arise from its use so that their concerns can be mitigated.

(Wang Hao and Jiang Yi are pseudonyms)

Reported by Luo Yan.

A version of this article originally appeared in The Beijing News. It has been translated and edited for brevity and clarity, and is republished here with permission.

Translator: Vincent Chow; contributions: Zhou Wei; editors: Xue Ni and Hao Qibao.

(Header image: VCG)