Well the "slippery slope" argument is also a logical fallacy. > With a doorbell cam, now you’re involving everyone in your neighborhood. They don’t have a choi

Well the "slippery slope" argument is also a logical fallacy. > With a doorbell cam, now you’re involving everyone in your neighborhood. They don’t have a choice. With a phone, I can at least make the choice whether to track myself or not (by using the phone). With a doorbell cam, now you’re involving everyone in your neighborhood. They don’t have a choice. I have no doubt someone is going to say that those people are in a public space, but there there is a huge difference between the theoretical concept of being in public, and the actual reality of public spaces being under video surveillance 24x7. I'll say it. There is nothing being tracked that isn't public information. There is no information being revealed other than the fact that someone was walking by house A at time Y, which is information anyone looking at the street at that time would have. What is the meaningful difference between the "theory" of being in public, and a particular area being under surveillance 24x7? > Also, in the US, there is the Third Party Doctrine. Any data you give to a third party can be given to the government without any Fourth Amendment protections. By using these services you are giving up your Constitutional rights. Again, what is the worry about the data a doorbell cam generates falling into the hands of the government? I do not argue that it can be dangerous to serve up private information and data in a way that can be obtained by undesired third parties and the government. I argue that a doorbell cam doesn't generate any data of the kind people need to worry about. Hence, why these articles are largely sensationalism in my view.