邻居安装5个摄像头引发隐私权纠纷 法院终审判决全部拆除
近日，江苏南通一起因安装监控摄像头引发的邻里纠纷案引发社会关注。 一对夫妻因与邻居长期矛盾，在自家房屋周围安装了5个监控摄像头，邻居认为这侵犯了其隐私权，遂将对方告上法庭。
Recently, a neighborhood dispute over surveillance cameras in Nantong, Jiangsu has drawn public attention. A couple installed 5 surveillance cameras around their property due to long-standing conflicts with neighbors, who then sued them for privacy violation.
案件起因于2021年11月的一起邻里纠纷。陆某的外孙与朱某妻子因琐事发生争吵，随后双方多次发生肢体冲突并受到公安机关处罚。此后，朱某夫妇在房屋四周安装了5个监控摄像头，包括：
The case originated from a neighborhood quarrel in November 2021. A dispute between Lu's grandson and Zhu's wife escalated into multiple physical conflicts, resulting in police penalties. Subsequently, the Zhu couple installed 5 surveillance cameras around their property, including:
- 房屋东侧铁架上下各1个（其中1个可360°旋转）
- 房屋西南角1个
- 房屋东北角1个
- 房屋西北角1个
- One on the east side iron frame (with 360° rotation capability)
- One at the southwest corner
- One at the northeast corner
- One at the northwest corner
陆某认为，这些摄像头可以完整记录其家人日常出入情况，包括出行规律、社交关系等个人信息，侵犯了其隐私权，遂起诉要求拆除。
Lu argued that these cameras could comprehensively record his family's daily movements, including travel patterns and social connections, thus violating their privacy rights, and filed a lawsuit demanding removal.
南通中院终审认为，虽然弄堂属于公共空间，但相较其他社会公共空间，通行人员更为特定，属于"过渡空间"，也应受到隐私权保护。法院最终判决：
The Nantong Intermediate Court ruled that although the alleyway is public space, compared to other public areas, its users are more specific, making it a "transitional space" that deserves privacy protection. The court finally ordered:
- 朱某夫妇拆除全部5个摄像头
- 删除已拍摄到的涉及陆某的视频
- The Zhu couple to remove all 5 cameras
- Delete all recorded videos involving Lu
法官提醒：居民安装监控设备时应注意：
Judges reminded residents to consider the following when installing surveillance equipment:
- 提前与邻居沟通并征得同意
- 监控范围应限于自有空间
- 避免影响他人私生活安宁
- Communicate with neighbors in advance and obtain consent
- Monitoring scope should be limited to own property
- Avoid disturbing others' private life tranquility
此案为类似邻里监控纠纷提供了重要判例，明确了即使在公共空间，个人的行踪信息等也属于隐私权保护范畴。
This case sets an important precedent for similar neighborhood surveillance disputes, clarifying that even in public spaces, personal movement information falls under privacy protection.
