His neighbors installed cameras "to monitor their plot," but after investigating, he discovered the truth.

Privacy and data protection have become two very important pillars of our lives, so much so that authorities have stepped up their efforts, and today in the European Union, violating these rights can lead to severe penalties.

A clear example of this is the news report published by the Lawspot website. Although it is a 2022 case in Greece, it perfectly illustrates what the rules are like today and how we must ensure that we are not violating or affecting the privacy of others.

It all began with a complaint from a person who complained that their neighbors had installed a series of cameras on their property, in which they alleged the violation of their privacy rights because the cameras were also recording their property.

The complainant insisted that the three cameras her neighbors had installed, despite their claims that they had been used to monitor their property, where they had a restaurant and their home, were also focusing on and recording what was happening in her house.

The neighbors claimed that these cameras did not overlook any public or private space belonging to another owner, nor were they connected to a recording device. Instead, they had a memory card that stored five days' worth of recordings and then deleted them.

However, the complainant was convinced that what they were saying was untrue and continued fighting for the authorities to intervene. This forced her neighbors to provide evidence that proved the complainant was wrong , and this is where the truth was discovered.

The accused had to present images from the days corresponding to the complaint, and it was discovered that the cameras had the ability to rotate , and in one of the shots, they captured images of the complainant's property , recording the movements of his relatives.

At this point, the defendants presented a certificate from the security company, according to which one camera was not working, while the second "had gone out of focus due to weather conditions and had lost its focus point," which is why it was recording the plaintiff's property, although there was no such intention.

But these inconsistencies led the authorities to add aggravating factors to the pleas of innocence, as they viewed it as an attempt to "mislead the authorities" by the defendants' lack of cooperation . This resulted in a breach of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR ), and because the cameras were partly operated for a business, a fine of €3,000 was imposed on each of the two defendants, totaling a penalty of €6,000.