3 ms·
I would say it is downright misleading. It implies photos taken without permission that could be an invasion of privacy, when the article is clear that this is
by D13Fd 4y ago
I would say it is downright misleading. It implies photos taken without permission that could be an invasion of privacy, when the article is clear that this is a separate service offered to customers who want photos taken of their site or property.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 4y agoIt doesn't say the surveillance footage would be only limited to people who wanted photos taken of their own property. The default is that they will sell it to whomever wants to buy it. So I think the title, though editorialized, holds up.