7 ms·

And don't forget to report those cameras to the authorities, since in many countries it is completely illegal to film people without their consent (in private p

by singularity2001 11y ago

And don't forget to report those cameras to the authorities, since in many countries it is completely illegal to film people without their consent (in private places).

Retric 11y ago
In the US is legal to monitor babysitters / house cleaners with hidden cameras. Just don't record bathrooms etc.
- Tharkun 11y ago
  The US is obviously a very fucked up place.
  - lectrick 11y ago
    The US is a fucked up place because they want to make sure a babysitter doesn't shake their baby to death or a housecleaner doesn't break or pocket something without admitting it? Hyperbole much?
    - izacus 11y ago
      Hrmf, and your sentence isn't a hyperbole? I mean, if we extend your logic, we should monitor everyone at all times because someone might just accidentally do something to hurt your child right? You never know why an extremely rare event like you mentioned could happen.
      - icebraining 11y ago
        Everyone is usually being monitored when around children of strangers; we just usually do so with human eyes instead of cameras. Babysitting is an exception, but why should it be?
        izacus 11y ago
        That's... just not really true. Maybe in some parts of extreme helicopter parenting, but it's really not a global truth. If what you say is true in US then perhaps the upper poster wasn't so wrong about the state of the country :/.
        JoshTriplett 11y ago
        The implication wasn't that parents are watching the kids at all times when they're with others, but that someone was. There are almost no situations in which kids are left alone with someone other than their parents, apart from babysitting.
        icebraining 11y ago
        JoshTriplett is right, I was talking about other people, not necessarily parents. Also, I'm not from the US.
    - maxerickson 11y ago
      So the camera is the thin line between the stranger killing the child or not? Sounds pretty fucked up. (I realize this isn't really addressing your intended meaning, but the ambiguity is there in what you said, which is pretty...)
      - Dylan16807 11y ago
        Pretty what? All sentences are ambiguous if you try hard enough. If you could tell what the meaning was, why are you insulting a strawman while actively admitting it is a strawman?
        maxerickson 11y ago
        Pretty fucked up. I wasn't insulting a strawman, I was pointing out the mindset that thought the camera was saving babies lives. (which obviously they aren't, they are documenting instances where vetting the sitter fails, not keeping marginal sitters in line)
        Dylan16807 11y ago
        A camera can find mistreatment before it turns critical, and then the sitter is replaced. That is protecting the baby's health, which sometimes reaches the level of saving lives. Your logic only works if camera footage goes unwatched until the day the babysitter exits the business. Edit: And that 'thin line' remark is 100% a strawman. I don't know how you can admit it isn't the "intended meaning" and yet claim it's not a strawman.
        maxerickson 11y ago
        The statement about the intended meaning is there in an attempt to avoid this conversation. I was not putting the argument in their mouth, I was being bombastic in my criticism of their phrasing. If I was raising it as a serious argument, you are right, I probably wouldn't try to undermine it 10 words later.
    - lostlogin 11y ago
      A camera doesn't stop either of those things, it just shows them happening.
      - mikeash 11y ago
        Which stops them from happening again. Edit: also, cameras don't have to be secret. Knowledge that they're being recorded can often stop it happening the first time.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- pavel_lishin 11y ago
  What about house guests in bedrooms where they ought to have a reasonable expectation of privacy?
- dheera 11y ago
  Stepping aside from legality, and speaking purely from ethics, there's a big difference between "hiring someone to provide a service for your own private home" and "renting out a temporary place of residence for someone". Ethically speaking I'd say it's completely okay to monitor the former, whether that service is a plumber or a babysitter, and whether the monitoring is done with a camera or your own human eyes. Those service personnel shouldn't be expecting privacy while they provide services, anyway. Ethically speaking I'd say it's wrong and a violation of privacy to monitor the latter, regardless of whether it is done with camera or eyes, without prior warning. This is because providing a place of residence implies providing some level of privacy. Forget cameras, you shouldn't generally enter a tenant's place of residence even with your human eyes, without letting them know in advance (e.g. at the very least by knocking).
  - userbinator 11y ago
    I'd say that if you're renting to someone else, it's still your property so you should be free to monitor it, but not disclosing the presence of cameras or other monitoring devices should be illegal.
    - 17760704 11y ago
      Ownership is a bundle of rights. In the U.S., if you have rented out a property you "own" to another person, you do not have the right to enter that property without prior notice or consent of that person.
    - dheera 11y ago
      Again, legality aside, even if it were legal, I'd say it's unethical to do so without consent or at the very least, prior notice.
  - the-dude 11y ago
    > Those service personnel shouldn't be expecting privacy while they provide services, anyway. Jeez. Not sure how to respond. I think for me it is not 'complete okay' to waiver your privacy whenever you provide paid services to some overlord.
patcheudor 11y ago
Interestingly enough, it's also completely illegal in the US to de-auth a WiFi client which is exactly what this is doing and the disclaimer is hardly accurate: "It may be illegal to use this script in the US." There's no "may" about it. It is illegal: https://www.fcc.gov/document/warning-wi-fi-blocking-prohibited https://www.fcc.gov/document/warning-wi-fi-blocking-prohibit... Two wrongs really don't make a right. Without physically locating the camera you have no idea what is being deauthed. It could be a camera monitoring a locked (unavailable to the guest) room or even a neighbors camera. Not everyone out there is a perv and there are entirely legitimate and expected uses for WiFi cameras which are not creepy. It would be better to locate the camera and if in a location where privacy is expected, simply call the police because who knows how many other victims there may have been and who knows how creepy the person who put it there is.
- JabavuAdams 11y ago
  Live a little.
- prutschman 11y ago
  The relevant text of the FCC enforcement advisory you just linked to is: "No hotel, convention center, or other commercial establishment or the network operator providing services at such establishments may intentionally block or disrupt personal Wi-Fi hot spots on such premises, including as part of an effort to force consumers to purchase access to the property owner's Wi-Fi network. Such action is illegal and violations could lead to the assessment of substantial monetary penalties."
- kayfox 11y ago
  Clarification: Sending deauth packets on networks you control is fine. The issue the FCC is taking is with systems that send deauth packets to other networks.

And don't forget to report those cameras to the authorities, since in many countries it is completely illegal to film people without their consent (in private places).

Retric 11y ago

In the US is legal to monitor babysitters / house cleaners with hidden cameras. Just don't record bathrooms etc.

Tharkun 11y ago
The US is obviously a very fucked up place.
- lectrick 11y ago
  The US is a fucked up place because they want to make sure a babysitter doesn't shake their baby to death or a housecleaner doesn't break or pocket something without admitting it? Hyperbole much?
  - izacus 11y ago
    Hrmf, and your sentence isn't a hyperbole? I mean, if we extend your logic, we should monitor everyone at all times because someone might just accidentally do something to hurt your child right? You never know why an extremely rare event like you mentioned could happen.
    - icebraining 11y ago
      Everyone is usually being monitored when around children of strangers; we just usually do so with human eyes instead of cameras. Babysitting is an exception, but why should it be?
      - izacus 11y ago
        That's... just not really true. Maybe in some parts of extreme helicopter parenting, but it's really not a global truth. If what you say is true in US then perhaps the upper poster wasn't so wrong about the state of the country :/.
        JoshTriplett 11y ago
        The implication wasn't that parents are watching the kids at all times when they're with others, but that someone was. There are almost no situations in which kids are left alone with someone other than their parents, apart from babysitting.
        icebraining 11y ago
        JoshTriplett is right, I was talking about other people, not necessarily parents. Also, I'm not from the US.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    So the camera is the thin line between the stranger killing the child or not? Sounds pretty fucked up. (I realize this isn't really addressing your intended meaning, but the ambiguity is there in what you said, which is pretty...)
    - Dylan16807 11y ago
      Pretty what? All sentences are ambiguous if you try hard enough. If you could tell what the meaning was, why are you insulting a strawman while actively admitting it is a strawman?
      - maxerickson 11y ago
        Pretty fucked up. I wasn't insulting a strawman, I was pointing out the mindset that thought the camera was saving babies lives. (which obviously they aren't, they are documenting instances where vetting the sitter fails, not keeping marginal sitters in line)
        Dylan16807 11y ago
        A camera can find mistreatment before it turns critical, and then the sitter is replaced. That is protecting the baby's health, which sometimes reaches the level of saving lives. Your logic only works if camera footage goes unwatched until the day the babysitter exits the business. Edit: And that 'thin line' remark is 100% a strawman. I don't know how you can admit it isn't the "intended meaning" and yet claim it's not a strawman.
        maxerickson 11y ago
        The statement about the intended meaning is there in an attempt to avoid this conversation. I was not putting the argument in their mouth, I was being bombastic in my criticism of their phrasing. If I was raising it as a serious argument, you are right, I probably wouldn't try to undermine it 10 words later.
  - lostlogin 11y ago
    A camera doesn't stop either of those things, it just shows them happening.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      Which stops them from happening again. Edit: also, cameras don't have to be secret. Knowledge that they're being recorded can often stop it happening the first time.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
pavel_lishin 11y ago
What about house guests in bedrooms where they ought to have a reasonable expectation of privacy?
dheera 11y ago
Stepping aside from legality, and speaking purely from ethics, there's a big difference between "hiring someone to provide a service for your own private home" and "renting out a temporary place of residence for someone". Ethically speaking I'd say it's completely okay to monitor the former, whether that service is a plumber or a babysitter, and whether the monitoring is done with a camera or your own human eyes. Those service personnel shouldn't be expecting privacy while they provide services, anyway. Ethically speaking I'd say it's wrong and a violation of privacy to monitor the latter, regardless of whether it is done with camera or eyes, without prior warning. This is because providing a place of residence implies providing some level of privacy. Forget cameras, you shouldn't generally enter a tenant's place of residence even with your human eyes, without letting them know in advance (e.g. at the very least by knocking).
- userbinator 11y ago
  I'd say that if you're renting to someone else, it's still your property so you should be free to monitor it, but not disclosing the presence of cameras or other monitoring devices should be illegal.
  - 17760704 11y ago
    Ownership is a bundle of rights. In the U.S., if you have rented out a property you "own" to another person, you do not have the right to enter that property without prior notice or consent of that person.
  - dheera 11y ago
    Again, legality aside, even if it were legal, I'd say it's unethical to do so without consent or at the very least, prior notice.
- the-dude 11y ago
  > Those service personnel shouldn't be expecting privacy while they provide services, anyway. Jeez. Not sure how to respond. I think for me it is not 'complete okay' to waiver your privacy whenever you provide paid services to some overlord.

patcheudor 11y ago

Interestingly enough, it's also completely illegal in the US to de-auth a WiFi client which is exactly what this is doing and the disclaimer is hardly accurate: "It may be illegal to use this script in the US." There's no "may" about it. It is illegal: https://www.fcc.gov/document/warning-wi-fi-blocking-prohibited https://www.fcc.gov/document/warning-wi-fi-blocking-prohibit... Two wrongs really don't make a right. Without physically locating the camera you have no idea what is being deauthed. It could be a camera monitoring a locked (unavailable to the guest) room or even a neighbors camera. Not everyone out there is a perv and there are entirely legitimate and expected uses for WiFi cameras which are not creepy. It would be better to locate the camera and if in a location where privacy is expected, simply call the police because who knows how many other victims there may have been and who knows how creepy the person who put it there is.

JabavuAdams 11y ago
Live a little.
prutschman 11y ago
The relevant text of the FCC enforcement advisory you just linked to is: "No hotel, convention center, or other commercial establishment or the network operator providing services at such establishments may intentionally block or disrupt personal Wi-Fi hot spots on such premises, including as part of an effort to force consumers to purchase access to the property owner's Wi-Fi network. Such action is illegal and violations could lead to the assessment of substantial monetary penalties."
kayfox 11y ago
Clarification: Sending deauth packets on networks you control is fine. The issue the FCC is taking is with systems that send deauth packets to other networks.