8 ms·

Depending on where you live, your neighbors recording audio may be illegal and you should confront them about it https://www.southerncaliforniadefenseblog.com/2

Depending on where you live, your neighbors recording audio may be illegal and you should confront them about it https://www.southerncaliforniadefenseblog.com/2018/04/do-ring-doorbell-cameras-violate-wiretapping-laws-pc-632.html https://www.southerncaliforniadefenseblog.com/2018/04/do-rin...

kelnos 7y ago
The article you link to suggests that people with these doorbells probably have nothing to worry about ("Unless you are deliberately using a recording for exploitive or commercial purposes, you face little risk of facing charges for violating wiretapping laws through your everyday use of a doorbell camera."); not sure why you're using it as evidence to the contrary.
joecool1029 7y ago
Unlikely. Devices installed for security purposes cannot trigger wiretapping charges since there's no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place and no intent to record confidential conversations in the first place. Either way, it's not a well written post. I'd shred it here but the comments below it already cover what I would have said.
- mjg59 7y ago
  It's not clear that a corridor inside an access controlled building is a public place.
  - obituary_latte 7y ago
    Edit: it seems it is divided and cases have gone both ways in regards to expectation of privacy in apartment buildings: https://illinoislawreview.org/print/vol-2018-no-3/fourth-amendment-protections-in-common-areas-of-apartment-buildings/ https://illinoislawreview.org/print/vol-2018-no-3/fourth-ame...
    - mjg59 7y ago
      Do you have case law citations for that?
      - obituary_latte 7y ago
        It looks like it is quite divided and could go either way at least wrt apartment buildings: https://illinoislawreview.org/print/vol-2018-no-3/fourth-amendment-protections-in-common-areas-of-apartment-buildings/ https://illinoislawreview.org/print/vol-2018-no-3/fourth-ame...
        mjg59 7y ago
        What experience? Edit: Parent comment edited such that this makes no sense now
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - mehhh 7y ago
      Private clubs include many authorized families and people, yet they are not public. Your definition of public space seems very off...
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - tolien 7y ago
      There’s more here: http://www.wisconsinappeals.net/on-point-by-the-wisconsin-state-public-defender/expectation-of-privacy-multi-unit-common-area-basement/ http://www.wisconsinappeals.net/on-point-by-the-wisconsin-st... > Because the state offered credible testimony — specifically believed by the trial court — that third parties had unfettered access to the basement of this four-unit building, the defendant did not have a subjective expectation of privacy GP suggested this wouldn’t be allowed in the hallway of an access-controlled building and precedent suggests that’s accurate. The key is whether a random person could wander into the area without encountering something analogous to a locked door. If the door to the apartment block wasn’t locked (i.e. Joe Public could wander in and right up to your door), however, then when in the hallway a person would have no more expectation of privacy than when in the street.
- bkor 7y ago
  > Devices installed for security purposes cannot trigger wiretapping charges since there's no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place These ring devices are also installed outside of the US. The law is entirely different in other countries. A statement as "no reasonable expectation of privacy": why not? Just because people could record and film you doesn't mean it's allowed or that it's ok. For Netherlands: You cannot just have a camera recording the public. Though there's a bit of leeway, meaning if you have a camera recording your property it's logical that it'll record a bit of the road. You just have to minimize that bit. Interestingly enough, police actually encourages the installation of Ring camera's (so specifically Ring over anything else). It seems you can install these if it's just in front of your door and property. However, if they're on a flat (where neighbours need to walk by your door to get to your door), then you cannot have these.
  - obituary_latte 7y ago
    > A statement as "no reasonable expectation of privacy": why not? Just because people could record and film you doesn't mean it's allowed or that it's ok In the US, it is allowed and is OK, though. Legally, you do not have a right to privacy if you are in a public location as a hallway in an apartment building would be considered. Whether or not it is a nice or considerate behavior is moot when it comes to the law. Edit: it seems findings have gone both ways in the US for expectation of privacy in apartment buildings: https://illinoislawreview.org/print/vol-2018-no-3/fourth-amendment-protections-in-common-areas-of-apartment-buildings/ https://illinoislawreview.org/print/vol-2018-no-3/fourth-ame...
    - bkor 7y ago
      I understand that it's US and per law, but "no reasonable expectation of privacy" is more of a judgement. It should always mention that it's due to the law. The statement probably is entirely reasonable if you're born in the US (as you're used to it). Other countries have other expectations of what's reasonable and normal. The often repeated "no reasonable expectation of privacy" in a public place to me is entirely odd. It's also something that could change (whether such a change/perception is in e.g. NL or in the US). Technology makes things possible that weren't possible before at all. Meaning, you can store camera recordings for a ridiculously long time. From my buildings security (again: NL) I understood that legally they cannot store such recordings over 28 days. Above that things become difficult (possible but quite a hassle). In the past people could see what you're doing in a public space. But nowadays you can easily be recorded and that recording could be stored forever. That was never the case before. As a result, things such as "no reasonable expectation of privacy" should change with the changed circumstances, IMO.
- Luc 7y ago
  > Devices installed for security purposes cannot trigger wiretapping charges since there's no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place and no intent to record confidential conversations in the first place. In the US, perhaps. My office in Brussels can't aim a camera at the public road, for example.
deith 7y ago
Not sure if DoSing a device that's not yours is much more legal.
- Maxious 7y ago
  Marriott Hotels fined $600,000 by FCC for jamming Wi-Fi hotspots [using deauth packets] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8406022 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8406022
briandear 7y ago
That article is nonsense. “Wiretapping” is the interception of a signal, generally a telephone signal, to record or listen in on a conversation. A monitoring device, such as a Ring doorbell — those aren’t “wiretaps.” The linked article is nothing but SEO spam designed as lead gen for a law firm. A lawyer certainly didn’t write that.

kelnos 7y ago

The article you link to suggests that people with these doorbells probably have nothing to worry about ("Unless you are deliberately using a recording for exploitive or commercial purposes, you face little risk of facing charges for violating wiretapping laws through your everyday use of a doorbell camera."); not sure why you're using it as evidence to the contrary.

joecool1029 7y ago

Unlikely. Devices installed for security purposes cannot trigger wiretapping charges since there's no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place and no intent to record confidential conversations in the first place. Either way, it's not a well written post. I'd shred it here but the comments below it already cover what I would have said.

mjg59 7y ago
It's not clear that a corridor inside an access controlled building is a public place.
- obituary_latte 7y ago
  Edit: it seems it is divided and cases have gone both ways in regards to expectation of privacy in apartment buildings: https://illinoislawreview.org/print/vol-2018-no-3/fourth-amendment-protections-in-common-areas-of-apartment-buildings/ https://illinoislawreview.org/print/vol-2018-no-3/fourth-ame...
  - mjg59 7y ago
    Do you have case law citations for that?
    - obituary_latte 7y ago
      It looks like it is quite divided and could go either way at least wrt apartment buildings: https://illinoislawreview.org/print/vol-2018-no-3/fourth-amendment-protections-in-common-areas-of-apartment-buildings/ https://illinoislawreview.org/print/vol-2018-no-3/fourth-ame...
      - mjg59 7y ago
        What experience? Edit: Parent comment edited such that this makes no sense now
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
  - mehhh 7y ago
    Private clubs include many authorized families and people, yet they are not public. Your definition of public space seems very off...
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - tolien 7y ago
    There’s more here: http://www.wisconsinappeals.net/on-point-by-the-wisconsin-state-public-defender/expectation-of-privacy-multi-unit-common-area-basement/ http://www.wisconsinappeals.net/on-point-by-the-wisconsin-st... > Because the state offered credible testimony — specifically believed by the trial court — that third parties had unfettered access to the basement of this four-unit building, the defendant did not have a subjective expectation of privacy GP suggested this wouldn’t be allowed in the hallway of an access-controlled building and precedent suggests that’s accurate. The key is whether a random person could wander into the area without encountering something analogous to a locked door. If the door to the apartment block wasn’t locked (i.e. Joe Public could wander in and right up to your door), however, then when in the hallway a person would have no more expectation of privacy than when in the street.
bkor 7y ago
> Devices installed for security purposes cannot trigger wiretapping charges since there's no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place These ring devices are also installed outside of the US. The law is entirely different in other countries. A statement as "no reasonable expectation of privacy": why not? Just because people could record and film you doesn't mean it's allowed or that it's ok. For Netherlands: You cannot just have a camera recording the public. Though there's a bit of leeway, meaning if you have a camera recording your property it's logical that it'll record a bit of the road. You just have to minimize that bit. Interestingly enough, police actually encourages the installation of Ring camera's (so specifically Ring over anything else). It seems you can install these if it's just in front of your door and property. However, if they're on a flat (where neighbours need to walk by your door to get to your door), then you cannot have these.
- obituary_latte 7y ago
  > A statement as "no reasonable expectation of privacy": why not? Just because people could record and film you doesn't mean it's allowed or that it's ok In the US, it is allowed and is OK, though. Legally, you do not have a right to privacy if you are in a public location as a hallway in an apartment building would be considered. Whether or not it is a nice or considerate behavior is moot when it comes to the law. Edit: it seems findings have gone both ways in the US for expectation of privacy in apartment buildings: https://illinoislawreview.org/print/vol-2018-no-3/fourth-amendment-protections-in-common-areas-of-apartment-buildings/ https://illinoislawreview.org/print/vol-2018-no-3/fourth-ame...
  - bkor 7y ago
    I understand that it's US and per law, but "no reasonable expectation of privacy" is more of a judgement. It should always mention that it's due to the law. The statement probably is entirely reasonable if you're born in the US (as you're used to it). Other countries have other expectations of what's reasonable and normal. The often repeated "no reasonable expectation of privacy" in a public place to me is entirely odd. It's also something that could change (whether such a change/perception is in e.g. NL or in the US). Technology makes things possible that weren't possible before at all. Meaning, you can store camera recordings for a ridiculously long time. From my buildings security (again: NL) I understood that legally they cannot store such recordings over 28 days. Above that things become difficult (possible but quite a hassle). In the past people could see what you're doing in a public space. But nowadays you can easily be recorded and that recording could be stored forever. That was never the case before. As a result, things such as "no reasonable expectation of privacy" should change with the changed circumstances, IMO.
Luc 7y ago
> Devices installed for security purposes cannot trigger wiretapping charges since there's no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place and no intent to record confidential conversations in the first place. In the US, perhaps. My office in Brussels can't aim a camera at the public road, for example.

deith 7y ago

Not sure if DoSing a device that's not yours is much more legal.

Maxious 7y ago
Marriott Hotels fined $600,000 by FCC for jamming Wi-Fi hotspots [using deauth packets] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8406022 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8406022

briandear 7y ago

That article is nonsense. “Wiretapping” is the interception of a signal, generally a telephone signal, to record or listen in on a conversation. A monitoring device, such as a Ring doorbell — those aren’t “wiretaps.” The linked article is nothing but SEO spam designed as lead gen for a law firm. A lawyer certainly didn’t write that.