4 ms·

Do I have the freedom not to be filmed by your doorbell and have it sent to the police without even your permission to be processed and stored for however long

Do I have the freedom not to be filmed by your doorbell and have it sent to the police without even your permission to be processed and stored for however long they want and possibly used against me at a later date for something that isn't even a crime now?

CamperBob2 7y ago
Sure. Just stay off my porch.
- travisporter 7y ago
  And don’t walk by my house? For that matter, don’t bother visiting me?
  - CamperBob2 7y ago
    If you're walking by my house, you're in public, and you have no expectation of privacy. (Actually, that's not true -- my house isn't visible from the street, so if you're on my cameras, you're definitely on my property.) If you're visiting me, you're on my property, ditto. Any attempts to "fix" this will only make the world worse in the end. The people you empower to enforce your opinions about privacy in (semi-)public places will begin by exempting themselves from whatever well-intentioned rules you have in mind.
- dingojohnsons 7y ago
  s/my porch/the public roadway that my camera is recording 24x7/
  - CamperBob2 7y ago
    (Shrug) If Google can film public areas, then so can I. See, that's kind of the whole idea behind public areas. You aren't entitled to any expectation of privacy there. That's why they're called public areas, and not private areas. The distinction is remarkably easy to comprehend.
    - dingojohnsons 7y ago
      The distinction between could could and should? Or the distinction between private and public? Because all are debated on a regular basis, vary by jurisdiction/country, and are not black and white. Take the issues surrounding filming police officers in public is an example.
      - CamperBob2 7y ago
        Take the issues surrounding filming police officers in public is an example. Right, and that's a good example of what I was talking about in my earlier reply, with regard to any attempt at "fixing" the Ring situation leaving us in a worse place than where we are now. Currently, in the US, you have the right to put up a doorbell camera and record anything that happens on your property or in public areas adjacent to it. This is a GOOD thing. Rest assured, any restrictions on public/private recording will serve the police, and no one else.
        travisporter 7y ago
        Recorded phone calls without consent in some states is still inadmissible as evidence in court. Surely at least that law would protect the person in the other end of the lens.
        CamperBob2 7y ago
        Those laws are just further examples where the powerful have shielded themselves at our expense. Corrupt cops and public officials have more to hide than you and I do, so they have more to fear from being recorded.
        dingojohnsons 7y ago
        The problem is that this is not your data alone. These devices are cloud hosted and subject to subpoena (at best). Indeed any restrictions on these recordings will serve the police.
    - travisporter 7y ago

CamperBob2 7y ago

Sure. Just stay off my porch.

travisporter 7y ago
And don’t walk by my house? For that matter, don’t bother visiting me?
- CamperBob2 7y ago
  If you're walking by my house, you're in public, and you have no expectation of privacy. (Actually, that's not true -- my house isn't visible from the street, so if you're on my cameras, you're definitely on my property.) If you're visiting me, you're on my property, ditto. Any attempts to "fix" this will only make the world worse in the end. The people you empower to enforce your opinions about privacy in (semi-)public places will begin by exempting themselves from whatever well-intentioned rules you have in mind.
dingojohnsons 7y ago
s/my porch/the public roadway that my camera is recording 24x7/
- CamperBob2 7y ago
  (Shrug) If Google can film public areas, then so can I. See, that's kind of the whole idea behind public areas. You aren't entitled to any expectation of privacy there. That's why they're called public areas, and not private areas. The distinction is remarkably easy to comprehend.
  - dingojohnsons 7y ago
    The distinction between could could and should? Or the distinction between private and public? Because all are debated on a regular basis, vary by jurisdiction/country, and are not black and white. Take the issues surrounding filming police officers in public is an example.
    - CamperBob2 7y ago
      Take the issues surrounding filming police officers in public is an example. Right, and that's a good example of what I was talking about in my earlier reply, with regard to any attempt at "fixing" the Ring situation leaving us in a worse place than where we are now. Currently, in the US, you have the right to put up a doorbell camera and record anything that happens on your property or in public areas adjacent to it. This is a GOOD thing. Rest assured, any restrictions on public/private recording will serve the police, and no one else.
      - travisporter 7y ago
        Recorded phone calls without consent in some states is still inadmissible as evidence in court. Surely at least that law would protect the person in the other end of the lens.
        CamperBob2 7y ago
        Those laws are just further examples where the powerful have shielded themselves at our expense. Corrupt cops and public officials have more to hide than you and I do, so they have more to fear from being recorded.
      - dingojohnsons 7y ago
        The problem is that this is not your data alone. These devices are cloud hosted and subject to subpoena (at best). Indeed any restrictions on these recordings will serve the police.
  - travisporter 7y ago