6 ms·
Another thing that's risky about this approach is, depending on your jurisdiction, recording an individual (audio or video in some cases) without their consent
by mmcwilliams 8y ago
Another thing that's risky about this approach is, depending on your jurisdiction, recording an individual (audio or video in some cases) without their consent is a felony.
- entity345 8y agoWhere is it a felony to have a CCTV?
- mmcwilliams 8y agoIn California, New York and Rhode Island it's illegal to place a hidden video camera in a place where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy. These would be considered hidden video cameras. Not sure the severity of the charges in those states, but in other jurisdictions recording audio of conversations without all-party consent violates wiretapping laws and is a felony.
- entity345 8y agoWell that's quite different from putting a CCTV on your front porch... which isn't a felony.
- mmcwilliams 8y agoIf your intention is for someone to take the CCTV into their private car or residence, that is also very different from putting a CCTV on your porch. I'm not saying the thieves are in the right here. Just that crimes don't usually cancel each other out.
- behringer 8y agoConsidering thieves aren't being prosecuted for theft, I wouldn't worry much about it.
- arkades 8y agoThe thieves are the ones bringing the camera into their privacy zone, not the person who made the package. The thief, in committing the theft, explicitly consented to taking an unknown item into their possession.
- mmcwilliams 8y agoBut the person who built the device did so with the intention of recording people in private spaces. The person committing the theft did not explicitly consent to being recorded in a private space. They are still being recorded unknowingly by a device designed to do that. What I'm saying is; the thief broke a law but the person making the recordings could have also broken laws as well. Two wrongs don't make a right, and all that. Just seems like a good gag for YouTube but a bad practice to encourage.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- mdorazio 8y agoHere's how that would go in court... Thief: Your honor, this man illegally recorded me in my home without my consent. Judge: You mean the package you stole recorded you for the purpose of identifying you as the thief? Thief: ... Judge: Get the hell out of my court room. Even in two-party consent states, I can't envision any situation in which a person would actually be punished for recording in this way. Remember that laws are meant to be interpreted by a judge or jury in the context of the alleged crime, not applied to every situation where they can possibly fit.
- arkades 8y agoIn fairness to the other side, I think the glitter-in-the-eye part is where an issue might arise. I don't agree that the privacy thing would hold up for shit, but courts have ruled against folks setting up booby traps on their property in the past.
- 8y ago
- alkonaut 8y agoFilming the way these cameras show which include part of the street would probably be considered not-ok in many jurisdictions.
- darkarmani 8y agoNot inside the US. There is no expectation of privacy when you are in public.
- alkonaut 8y agoNot here either - I can take a photo of anyone in the street. However, I can’t mount a fixed surveillance camera on my house and do the same (for some reason).
- mdorazio 8y agoPlease provide a citation on this.
- alkonaut 8y agoThis is Swedish law (or at least clear authority guidelines). I can’t find an English link but if you absolutely don’t believe me I could translate (but just want to make sure you didn’t think I was talking about US law before I waste that effort :D )
- alkonaut 8y agorelevant passage > "Camera surveillance of a location where the public has access. Permission 8 § Camera surveillance is required for a surveillance camera to be posted so that it can be directed to a place where the public has access." Swedish: http://rkrattsbaser.gov.se/sfst?bet=2013:460 http://rkrattsbaser.gov.se/sfst?bet=2013:460 (poor) translation: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Frkrattsbaser.gov.se%2Fsfst%3Fbet%3D2013%3A460 https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&tl=en&u=h... (In separate guidelines it explicitly mentions the case of home cameras covering public area).
- rootusrootus 8y agoIf the camera is visible and not pointed where it can see inside a neighbor's window, you're fine for video. For audio you probably want to restrict it to inside your home.
- ryani 8y agoThere might be a technicality here, though. The camera is 'hidden' in a place with no expectation of privacy -- his porch. It's the thief who places the camera in a place where privacy might be violated.
- jmahyoung 8y agoGreat thinking. If you steal someone’s camera, and move it, and film yourself in a private location doing an indecent act, can you turn around and sue the owner of the camera for breaching your privacy? You had no permission to move the camera in the first place.
- sjg007 8y agoYeah and no jury is going to convict someone for this.
- cwkoss 8y agoAsk the DA to charge the package thief for wiretapping if they move the package to a private area and record a third party :-P
- wool_gather 8y agoI'm skeptical this applies to someone coming onto your property (let alone coming with malicious intent). Do trespassers have a reasonable expectation of privacy?
- mmcwilliams 8y agoI was referring to the parts of the video where they brought the device into their car or home. This was obviously designed to continue recording the thieves in those private places. It just seems like a bad idea to me.
- albertgoeswoof 8y agoDo you have an expectation of privacy from a device you stole? Of which you don’t know the contents of?
- wool_gather 8y agoOkay, yeah, agreed, I didn't understand that's what you were talking about.
- cwkoss 8y agoThey don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy on the porch, where it was placed. The criminal act which they performed caused themselves to be recorded in a place where they might expect privacy, so I don't think they would have a valid complaint against the package owner.
- SilasX 8y agoYou have no expectation of privacy in your actions on someone else’s porch where you’re visible from the street.
- scrumbledober 8y agopeople have no reasonable expectation of privacy when entering another person's private property. Even if they were invited, you can record in your own house without worry.
- swebs 8y ago>where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy Which pretty clearly doesn't apply to out in the open in the middle of a public street.
- scarejunba 8y agoNo reasonable expectation of privacy in a security camera situation.
- mmcwilliams 8y agoThat's not entirely accurate. It depends on where you are and what the video camera is recording. I'm also not sure that creating a hoax device with the intention of surreptitiously recording individuals that also damages their property and releases a chemical agent would be considered strictly "a security camera".
- scarejunba 8y agoAh sorry. I was imagining we were talking about the porch camera.
- spathi_fwiffo 8y agoWould be an interesting court case. There can likely be no expectation of privacy trespassing on someone else's property. but, for the package. Can you have an expectation of privacy when opening an unknown-thing? The device isn't recording until it is opened. I could see logical arguments on both sides. But, since the audio/visual recording doesn't start until they open the thing it might be on the safe-side of wiretap laws?
- mmcwilliams 8y agoThese are good questions, it's just my go-to line of thinking when I see surreptitious recording devices. Is this legal and is there liability? Recording audio without two-party consent in my state is illegal and only just recently were there any court cases where recording police officers without their knowledge wasn't prosecuted as wiretapping.
- LanceH 8y agoI'm not sure you have an expectation of privacy with stolen goods. Booby traps causing injury are illegal everywhere. Calling a smell a "chemical agent" is just inflammatory. Everything is a chemical, sure, but there is no chemical reaction involved here. Would you call perfume a "chemical agent"? It's just something that smells bad. The only danger would seem to be getting glitter in their eyes.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]