This would be considered abuse and such interpretation would likely get thrown out as justification for active surveillance. The law pertains to truly passive s

This would be considered abuse and such interpretation would likely get thrown out as justification for active surveillance. The law pertains to truly passive surveillance only. And trying to use such evidence in court could be repealed then as obtained illegally. (Surveillance without a warrant.) The spirit of the law is to allow reasonably incidental recording only. A zoom camera pointed at your window is not covered, neither are directional microphones etc. Law is not an algorithm. It is executed by judges and jurors. (Note: not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc.)