7 ms·

Well that's quite different from putting a CCTV on your front porch... which isn't a felony.

mmcwilliams 8y ago
If 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 ago
  Considering thieves aren't being prosecuted for theft, I wouldn't worry much about it.
- arkades 8y ago
  The 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 ago
    But 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 ago
      Here'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 ago
        In 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.
        mdorazio 8y ago
        100% agree. Any kind of booby trap that does more than make annoying sounds is a liability, even if it's in your own home. It's also important to note that in two-party consent states the camera footage wouldn't be admissible in court for prosecuting the thieves, so as an actual deterrent that part is pretty low unless you're going for social shaming or something.
    - entity345 8y ago
      This device does not place a hidden camera where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Someone STEALS that device and moves it. The device's owner isn't breaking any law. You are looking for problems where there are none.
alkonaut 8y ago
Filming the way these cameras show which include part of the street would probably be considered not-ok in many jurisdictions.
- darkarmani 8y ago
  Not inside the US. There is no expectation of privacy when you are in public.
  - alkonaut 8y ago
    Not 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 ago
      Please provide a citation on this.
      - alkonaut 8y ago
        This 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 ago
        relevant 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).

If 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 ago
Considering thieves aren't being prosecuted for theft, I wouldn't worry much about it.
arkades 8y ago
The 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 ago
  But 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 ago
    Here'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 ago
      In 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.
      - mdorazio 8y ago
        100% agree. Any kind of booby trap that does more than make annoying sounds is a liability, even if it's in your own home. It's also important to note that in two-party consent states the camera footage wouldn't be admissible in court for prosecuting the thieves, so as an actual deterrent that part is pretty low unless you're going for social shaming or something.
  - entity345 8y ago
    This device does not place a hidden camera where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Someone STEALS that device and moves it. The device's owner isn't breaking any law. You are looking for problems where there are none.

alkonaut 8y ago

Filming the way these cameras show which include part of the street would probably be considered not-ok in many jurisdictions.

darkarmani 8y ago
Not inside the US. There is no expectation of privacy when you are in public.
- alkonaut 8y ago
  Not 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 ago
    Please provide a citation on this.
    - alkonaut 8y ago
      This 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 ago
        relevant 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).