12 ms·

There is a difference between incidentally public (someone can see you, snap a picture, but only on occasion) and surveilence public (someone can track your loc

There is a difference between incidentally public (someone can see you, snap a picture, but only on occasion) and surveilence public (someone can track your location and activity continously in public). If someone does the latter, and I know about it, I can still sue them for harassment, and maybe get a restraining order. Can I get a restraining order against Nest or similar? I understand that this might not be the law, but I'm interested in if it should be.

chiefalchemist 5y ago
Again, I agree and empathize. But the counter argument would be "Harassed by a doorbell, how so?" and "I have a right to protect my property and my family. My camera allows this to happen." Unless the legal definition of "in public" changes, the surveillance will continue.
- iso1631 5y ago
  In the UK we have guidance about how to use CCTV to protect your property and family https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/domestic-cctv-using-cctv-systems-on-your-property/domestic-cctv-using-cctv-systems-on-your-property https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/domestic-cctv-usi... For example "you should make sure that the information recorded is used only for the purpose for which your system was installed (for example it will not be appropriate to share any recordings on social media sites)" This is of course routinely ignored and unenforced
  - kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 5y ago
    > used only for the purpose for which your system was installed So install it for the purpose of sharing on social media. Problem solved! (I'm only half joking)
  - robbedpeter 5y ago
    I most often see Nest recordings posted to local community groups warning against and seeing to track down porch pirates. I recently saw extensive footage of young people breaking into a house to have a party while the owner was out. All of their parents were notified and they'll be doing community service. I think if you're in public, you should assume you're going to be recorded. I don't think it should be this way, but it is. I think the inflection point between surveillance and home security is "cloud." The footage should not be accessible to third parties without a warrant, and it should be under the individual's control. Questions of life, limb, and liberty should not be offloaded to unelected, self-interested, profit seeking corporations like Amazon and Google.
- ccakes 5y ago
  Both arguments are valid though imo. If you take a photo in town square and I'm in the background no worries, that's fine. If you follow me around taking photos of me in town square then that's harassment - not fine. If your Nest doorbell watches me walk past your house that's also fine. However if your entire street has Nest then has Amazon identified me as having walked down your entire street? If so, that should also be harassment. The issue isn't that the photo or video was taken, it's the correlation that happens after the fact.
  - lillecarl 5y ago
    I mostly agree, but disagree with the "taking a photo of me on the pavement" part. It's actually illegal in Sweden. We have some of the strictest camera regulations I know of, and I'm very pleased with that. I'm NOT a fan of Teslas sentry mode.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      > disagree with the "taking a photo of me on the pavement" part. It's actually illegal in Sweden. It is? Since how long; when was that law changed?
      - lillecarl 5y ago
        Fixed installations has been regulated since forever.
        CRConrad 5y ago
        But "taking a photo of me on the pavement" doesn't sound like "fixed installations"; it sounds like me as a tourist not being allowed to take a snapshot of a picturesque street just because you happen to be standing on the pavement.
        lillecarl 5y ago
        I think I wasn't clear enough that I was referring to the nest camera the parent was talking about.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  Could be stalking. It is known that employees at cloud services access customer data from time to time. Complete data protection is nearly impossible here.

chiefalchemist 5y ago

Again, I agree and empathize. But the counter argument would be "Harassed by a doorbell, how so?" and "I have a right to protect my property and my family. My camera allows this to happen." Unless the legal definition of "in public" changes, the surveillance will continue.

iso1631 5y ago
In the UK we have guidance about how to use CCTV to protect your property and family https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/domestic-cctv-using-cctv-systems-on-your-property/domestic-cctv-using-cctv-systems-on-your-property https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/domestic-cctv-usi... For example "you should make sure that the information recorded is used only for the purpose for which your system was installed (for example it will not be appropriate to share any recordings on social media sites)" This is of course routinely ignored and unenforced
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 5y ago
  > used only for the purpose for which your system was installed So install it for the purpose of sharing on social media. Problem solved! (I'm only half joking)
- robbedpeter 5y ago
  I most often see Nest recordings posted to local community groups warning against and seeing to track down porch pirates. I recently saw extensive footage of young people breaking into a house to have a party while the owner was out. All of their parents were notified and they'll be doing community service. I think if you're in public, you should assume you're going to be recorded. I don't think it should be this way, but it is. I think the inflection point between surveillance and home security is "cloud." The footage should not be accessible to third parties without a warrant, and it should be under the individual's control. Questions of life, limb, and liberty should not be offloaded to unelected, self-interested, profit seeking corporations like Amazon and Google.
ccakes 5y ago
Both arguments are valid though imo. If you take a photo in town square and I'm in the background no worries, that's fine. If you follow me around taking photos of me in town square then that's harassment - not fine. If your Nest doorbell watches me walk past your house that's also fine. However if your entire street has Nest then has Amazon identified me as having walked down your entire street? If so, that should also be harassment. The issue isn't that the photo or video was taken, it's the correlation that happens after the fact.
- lillecarl 5y ago
  I mostly agree, but disagree with the "taking a photo of me on the pavement" part. It's actually illegal in Sweden. We have some of the strictest camera regulations I know of, and I'm very pleased with that. I'm NOT a fan of Teslas sentry mode.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > disagree with the "taking a photo of me on the pavement" part. It's actually illegal in Sweden. It is? Since how long; when was that law changed?
    - lillecarl 5y ago
      Fixed installations has been regulated since forever.
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        But "taking a photo of me on the pavement" doesn't sound like "fixed installations"; it sounds like me as a tourist not being allowed to take a snapshot of a picturesque street just because you happen to be standing on the pavement.
        lillecarl 5y ago
        I think I wasn't clear enough that I was referring to the nest camera the parent was talking about.
raxxorrax 5y ago
Could be stalking. It is known that employees at cloud services access customer data from time to time. Complete data protection is nearly impossible here.