5 ms·

How so? I read your link and can't help to see it is about tenants rights, not visitors of tenants. It seems this would only stop non-tenets from having access

How so? I read your link and can't help to see it is about tenants rights, not visitors of tenants. It seems this would only stop non-tenets from having access to the facilities. At least without being accompanied by actual tenants.

chrisco255 8y ago
Did you read the part about Privacy and Right of Use? Facial recognition would violate that.
- javagram 8y ago
  Not sure if legally it would be considered to violate privacy. My guess would be the mentioned privacy is relating to the dwelling itself, that is, the landlord can’t come hang out in your living room or hide cameras in your apartment. Plenty of apartments have 24/7 concierge at the front door and monitored entrances. That isn’t considered violating privacy even though the concierge can see you come in and out. Would a computerized system that does the same thing necessarily violate the legal definition of privacy ? I suspect it would be hard to tell at this point.
  - chrisco255 8y ago
    I think once you start documenting and recording exactly who is coming and going and exactly what apartment they're going to you are violating privacy. No doubt cases like this will be tried as people test the bounds of that legal definition.
    - mbrumlow 8y ago
      I don't think so. I know many gates cominities that have a guard that verifies identity for those comming and going from the subdivision. And logs are kept. If you can hire a human to do it and it is fine then I don't think any automated systems would be violating privacy. Also there is no privacy in public places and you can probably conclude that you are in a public place before you enter. Eg. Their is no privacy at the checkpoint.
albedoa 8y ago
> it is about tenants rights, not visitors of tenants. That link is not the best. Quiet Enjoyment does cover the tenant's right to have visitors. A landlord cannot interfere with that right, including by blocking access to the unit by unaccompanied visitors who don't have the tenant's face.

chrisco255 8y ago

Did you read the part about Privacy and Right of Use? Facial recognition would violate that.

javagram 8y ago
Not sure if legally it would be considered to violate privacy. My guess would be the mentioned privacy is relating to the dwelling itself, that is, the landlord can’t come hang out in your living room or hide cameras in your apartment. Plenty of apartments have 24/7 concierge at the front door and monitored entrances. That isn’t considered violating privacy even though the concierge can see you come in and out. Would a computerized system that does the same thing necessarily violate the legal definition of privacy ? I suspect it would be hard to tell at this point.
- chrisco255 8y ago
  I think once you start documenting and recording exactly who is coming and going and exactly what apartment they're going to you are violating privacy. No doubt cases like this will be tried as people test the bounds of that legal definition.
  - mbrumlow 8y ago
    I don't think so. I know many gates cominities that have a guard that verifies identity for those comming and going from the subdivision. And logs are kept. If you can hire a human to do it and it is fine then I don't think any automated systems would be violating privacy. Also there is no privacy in public places and you can probably conclude that you are in a public place before you enter. Eg. Their is no privacy at the checkpoint.

albedoa 8y ago

> it is about tenants rights, not visitors of tenants. That link is not the best. Quiet Enjoyment does cover the tenant's right to have visitors. A landlord cannot interfere with that right, including by blocking access to the unit by unaccompanied visitors who don't have the tenant's face.