Your neighbour's CCTV is pointed at your house. A Johor court made someone take theirs down.

A family in Skudai, Johor put up zinc sheets along their fence. Not for privacy from the road — from their neighbour's CCTV, which was pointed into their front courtyard and porch.

The zinc didn't fully work. Part of the courtyard still fell under continuous surveillance.

So they sued. And the case that followed is the single most useful thing any Malaysian homeowner can know about CCTV — because it took two attempts and only won on the second, for reasons that tell you exactly how this works.

1. The case, and why the first attempt failed

2007 — occupants of a house in Skudai sued their neighbours. The defendants had installed several CCTV cameras around their house; camera no. 3 pointed directly into the plaintiffs' front courtyard and porch area.

2009 — the injunction was dismissed. The High Court refused to restrain the cameras, reasoning among other things that:

• There was no evidence the cameras intruded on the plaintiffs' daily activities or recorded them
• The defendants were entitled to install CCTV for security and safety
• Granting the injunction would have implications for CCTV use generally at residential and commercial premises
• There is no right of privacy in Malaysia, so no action lies for invasion of privacy

That last point reflects settled Malaysian authority. Ultra Dimension Sdn Bhd v Kook Wei Kuan [2004] held that invasion of privacy isn't a recognised cause of action — a case where a photograph of kindergarten pupils was published in newspapers. Dr Bernadine Malini Martin v MPH Magazines [2006] said the same.

2011 — the retrial succeeded, on a different footing. The plaintiffs ran the case as private nuisance rather than invasion of privacy, and won.

The court's reasoning is worth quoting in substance:

• Everyone has the right to be free from continuous video surveillance on their own property.
• A balance must be struck between an occupier's right to do what they like with their own property and a neighbour's right not to be interfered with, applying the classic nuisance test from Sedleigh-Denfield v O'Callaghan — what is reasonable according to common and usual needs.
• This is unlike overt surveillance in a public place carried out for law enforcement.
• Subjecting the plaintiffs to continuous overt surveillance was demeaning.
• In balancing privacy against safety, the court had to come down in favour of privacy in the particular circumstances of this case.
• The defendants' fear for their own safety could not override the plaintiffs' right to privacy.

The order: the defendants were directed to forthwith dismantle and remove camera no. 3.

The lesson for you: the winning argument isn't "you're invading my privacy." It's "your camera unreasonably interferes with my use and enjoyment of my property." Same facts, different frame, different outcome.

2. The PDPA point everyone gets wrong

You'll see a lot of Malaysian content saying home CCTV is governed by the PDPA. That's misleading.

The PDPA applies to processing of personal data in a commercial context. It does not apply to purely personal or domestic use. A camera on your terrace house, recording your own gate and porch for your own security, falls outside it.

Where the PDPA does apply:

• Your shop, office or business premises. Footage identifying individuals is personal data, and the obligations follow: signage informing people that CCTV is operating, purpose limitation (security footage used for security, not marketing or profiling), reasonable retention periods, and secure storage.
• Workplaces. Employees must be informed they're being monitored, cameras must serve a legitimate purpose, and sensitive areas — toilets, changing rooms — are off limits.

And note: the PDPA (Amendment) Act 2024 came fully into force on 1 June 2025, adding mandatory breach notification, Data Protection Officer requirements for some organisations, and expressly bringing biometric data into scope. If your business runs facial recognition, that's now squarely regulated. See also: [Security wants to keep your MyKad](/p/can-security-guard-malaysia-retain-MYKAD-license)

So for a homeowner, the honest framing is: stop worrying about the PDPA and start thinking about nuisance.

3. Where to point your camera

Practical rules that keep you on the right side of Lew Cher Phow:

Do:

• Cover your own property — gate, porch, driveway, car, boundary line
• Angle cameras down so the field of view stops at your fence
• Use privacy masking zones if your camera supports them, to black out a neighbour's windows or garden
• Accept incidental capture of the public road — that's generally tolerated

Don't:

• Deliberately frame a neighbour's windows, garden, front door or courtyard
• Leave a camera pointed at a neighbour's property after they've asked you to move it — that turns a design flaw into deliberate conduct
• Run audio picking up beyond your property. Recording private conversations adds a separate layer of legal risk. Disable microphones that reach past your boundary.

The test the court applied was continuous surveillance of a neighbour's private space. A camera that incidentally catches a corner of a driveway is a different proposition from one trained on a courtyard 24/7.

4. If your neighbour's camera is pointed at you

Step one: talk to them. Most cameras are badly aimed rather than maliciously aimed. A polite request to angle it down resolves most cases, and — importantly — it establishes that they knew if they refuse.

Step two: put it in writing. A short, non-aggressive message asking them to adjust the camera. Keep a copy. This is your evidence that the conduct continued after notice.

Step three: document. Photograph the camera's position and field of view. Note dates. If they've told you what it covers, record that.

Step four: escalate proportionately.

• For strata or gated communities, raise it with the JMB/MC — many have house rules about camera placement
• A police report is available, though police will often treat it as a civil matter
• A civil claim in private nuisance is the route that actually worked in Lew Cher Phow, with an order to dismantle

Manage your expectations. Litigation is expensive and slow, and the court in Lew Cher Phow stressed it was deciding on the particular circumstances of that case. A camera that catches a sliver of your driveway is unlikely to succeed. One trained continuously on your living area has a real case.

Don't: damage or cover the camera yourself. That's criminal mischief, and it converts you from the aggrieved party into the defendant.

5. Posting CCTV footage online

Every Malaysian neighbourhood group is full of clips. Two things to know.

The PDPA generally isn't your problem as a private homeowner, because domestic use is outside it. You'll see headlines suggesting otherwise; they're usually conflating commercial obligations with home cameras.

Defamation is your problem. Posting footage with an accusation — "this is the guy who stole my parcel" — is publication. If you've identified the wrong person, or the accusation isn't provable, that's a defamation claim, and Malaysian awards are not small. See also: [Before you post that video of the guy who parked like an idiot — read this](/p/in-malaysia-shaming-someone-on-social-media-could-land-you-in-jail)

The better move, and the one police advise: hand the footage to the police rather than posting it. It avoids interfering with an investigation, avoids defamation exposure, and is more likely to actually achieve something.

If you do post: describe what the footage shows, don't assert who the person is or what their intent was, and take it down once police have it.

What to actually do

If you're installing CCTV at home:

• Point it at your own property. Angle down. Use privacy masking.
• Disable audio that reaches beyond your boundary.
• Tell your immediate neighbours what you're installing and what it covers — it prevents most disputes.
• Signage isn't legally required for domestic use but reduces friction.

If you run a business:

• The PDPA applies. Signage, purpose limitation, retention policy, secure storage.
• Don't put cameras in toilets or changing rooms.
• Inform employees they're monitored.
• Check the 2024 amendments if you use biometrics.

If a neighbour's camera troubles you:

• Ask politely, then ask in writing.
• Document the position and field of view.
• Raise with the JMB/MC if applicable.
• Get legal advice about private nuisance if it's genuinely continuous surveillance of your private space.
• Don't touch their equipment.

If you have footage of a crime: - Give it to the police. Don't post it first.