7 ms·

> I never would give a neighbor a hard time about a camera pointing at a publicly visible spot on my property In Germany people have successfully sued their ne

• pc86 4y ago
  In the US you don't have any expectation of privacy in public (or at least severely limited) and the courts have upheld again and again that recording public areas, even from a private area, is completely find. Some jurisdictions require notification or consent for audio recording, but not all.
  • jerry1979 4y ago
    But do you enjoy that people in the US don't have this expectation of privacy? Do you believe those laws could change?
  • ls15 4y ago
    I find it really unfortunate that the US is so blatantly disregarding data privacy. In a world of eroding freedom, lack of data privacy can become a severe safety risk. The return of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the reversal of Roe v. Wade and Russia's recent moves give me an idea of dynamics that can turn dark quickly.
    • ev1 4y ago
      RvW is an interesting point here - I routinely saw people camped out recording every entry point of a Planned Parenthood for example, including separate cameras pointed lower to capture licence plates. I'm assuming they later post these online or run some kind of ALPR on it for harassment.
      • FireBeyond 4y ago
        Yup, and the same people are outraged that people are posting home address details of Supreme Court Justices. The same court that ruled it was legal to post the home address of obstetricians so people could protest in front of their homes.
    • borissk 4y ago
      People and companies in US don't know what 'privacy' means. All software companies (maybe except Apple), car companies (especially Tesla), telecoms, etc. just collect huge amounts of customer data not giving a damn about consent.
  • libria 4y ago
    A US law is shaped by what we think is 1) acceptable behavior 2) enforceable, practically I think video recording laws are largely influenced by 2). I can angle my Ring camera to my smoking hot neighbor so I can record her doing yardwork. Creepy AF (breaks rule 1) but at what angle is it not obviously deliberate? Turned 10 degrees toward her lawn? 30? Point being, I think US recording laws are too liberal but we need a defineable limit for privacy. Maybe photon distance? Capturing photons traveling further than 30m into the aperture is invasive? (half kidding)
    • ls15 4y ago
      A physical mask that blocks the view to the hot neighbour, but not to your areas of interest would give them some reassurance.
      • Terry_Roll 4y ago
        What about the satellites mimicking God watching over everyone?
        • ls15 4y ago
          I am not really fine with with them, but that's another can of worms.
      • brewdad 4y ago
        Ok, but what if I am trying to monitor my driveway where I park my vehicle but the hot neighbor's flowers are in the same line of sight just beyond my parking space? It's not always feasible to block a portion of the view without blocking the entire reason for having the camera in the first place.
        • ls15 4y ago
          I think a German court would ask in such cases which has more weight: a) your interest in security, or b) your neighbour's interest in privacy. I think the default is b), but there are cases where a) has more weight, for example if your house was already broken into and you can reasonably explain why this exact angle is crucial for your security. Just catching some flowers in the picture does not make a strong case for b).
  • jonnycomputer 4y ago
    Who would want to live next to someone after a lawsuit between you? This is a neighbor-relations issue first and foremost.
    • kelnos 4y ago
      Sounds like relations between these two neighbors is already pretty bad -- the guy crosses the street to walk on the other side? Because he was asked not to point his security camera at someone else's property? Some people are just... children.
      • dekhn 4y ago
        Wait til you see two neighbors arguing about property lines.
        • pc86 4y ago
          At least that I can understand. It has implications on right of way, usage, easements, property values, etc. without even getting into issues of adverse possession (which combined with property value issues can become real trouble). The line between "please don't point your camera onto my property" - something I would respect as a courtesy regardless of the law - and "I'm going to cross the street not to interact with this person" goes straight through mental illness in my opinion. Normal, stable people do not behave that way.
          • dragonsky67 4y ago
            A lot of "Normal" people are not stable. People are petty, vindictive and childish, to think anything else is just flying in the face of evidence.
  • sixothree 4y ago
    Police capture a tremendous amount of data using this theory. But citizens don't have access to that data because it's considered confidential.
    • ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      this post reads luke a paradox
  • KennyBlanken 4y ago
    This is not true; rules vary state to state. In Massachusetts, for example, you cannot "secretly" record others, in public or private.
    • brewdad 4y ago
      Putting out the yard sign or one of the stickers that comes with the Ring camera solves the "secrecy" issue.
  • naasking 4y ago
    > In the US you don't have any expectation of privacy in public It's not clear that "on your property" counts as "in public" in all cases.
    • brewdad 4y ago
      Front yard, visible from the street, probably "public" in most jurisdictions. Backyard, or somewhere shielded from view without entering yours or someone else's private property? I would argue that is "private" space that should be protected but it would probably come down to the specific circumstances to be certain.
      • dekhn 4y ago
        This is the operational definition I'm working from.
  • alanh 4y ago
    My front door is not a 'public area', not really
    • MacsHeadroom 4y ago
      You don't have a legal expectation of privacy anywhere visible from public property, including even the inside of your house viewable from a public easement/street. Because of this, it's legal for someone to point a camera right inside your window or front door. It's also illegal (public indecency) for you to be naked in your own window or open door.
      • StanislavPetrov 4y ago
        If I set up a telescope to look inside your window most people would call that an invasion of privacy, even if the telescope was set up on public property. Having a high resolution digital camera where images can be zoomed and a very sensitive microphone that can pick up conversations is similar, in my opinion.
        • deleted 4y ago
          [deleted]
        • rolph 4y ago
          in my neck of the woods if your far enough away that someone has to use binoculars or some other artficial means, even eyeglasses, they are breaking the law. you, the one being observed are not at fault.
      • ChoGGi 4y ago
        "naked in your own window or open door. " That's legal in Canada, or at least the police won't arrest you if you do it in your apartment across from a school.
    • dekhn 4y ago
      Mine is; amazon drivers take a snapshot every time they deliver a package (I guess this is proof it's been delivered?). Many people can easily walk up to it, unimpeded. Hell, neighborhood kids run onto my front yard and sit in my trees (get off my lawn!!!). It meets every necessary definition of "public", while still being property that belongs to you.
• dekhn 4y ago
  I live across from a school; hundreds of people see my house exterior for days. I wouldn't apply a different rule to a security camera. I understand some folks have different privacy standards than me. I'm not asking you to follow my privacy rules, as they are a bit more open about public spaces than many people enjoy. If somebody wanted me to not point my camera at their driveway, a legal threat would be the absolute worst way to achieve it.
  • uoaei 4y ago
    There is a difference between a camera from across the street and a camera from across the driveway. And obviously a legal threat is a last resort after good-faith questioning. I am not really sure what your objection is to the comment above yours, because these concerns seem misplaced.
  • JadeNB 4y ago
    > I understand some folks have different privacy standards than me. I'm not asking you to follow my privacy rules, as they are a bit more open about public spaces than many people enjoy. Private spaces that are publicly visible do not automatically become public spaces, though.
    • dekhn 4y ago
      We're talking about my front yard. I can go on street view and see exactly what everybody else driving by sees. The only change is that they scrub faces and license plates, which I could do using AgentDVR + DeepStack.cc and some scripting. If you tried pointing a camera over my fence into my backyard, then I start complaining.
      • JadeNB 4y ago
        > We're talking about my front yard. Yes, agreed! Your front yard is a private space, even though it is publicly visible. You have every right to afford as much public access to it as you please, but the mere fact that you're the one who has the right to make that decision means it is a private space.
• shadowgovt 4y ago
  Germany's entire threat model, at a cultural level, is 100% different from the US due to differing histories. Germany is concerned about how networks of tattle-tale can be used by fascists to organize oppression. Americans are concerned about how crime flourishes in the unobserved corners of urban environments. These are both, basically, bogeymen. But the German bogeyman is the Nazis returning and the American bogeyman is the transient murderer.
  • ls15 4y ago
    > These are both, basically, bogeymen. But the German bogeyman is the Nazis returning and the American bogeyman is the transient murderer. Eastern Germany had another authoritarian surveillance state after the Third Reich. I have no good reason to be confident that it will not happen again. It could as well happen in the US, considering recent history. An authoritarian surveillance state that is paired with digital surveillance is the grim reality of at least hundreds of millions today and that model seems to be on the rise internationally.
    • heavyset_go 4y ago
      More like billions of people. Anyone who thinks that the power of the surveillance state won't be abused is naive. The existence of "benign" surveillance hinges on those with power always acting in good faith and never faltering. There are practically zero repercussions for abusing that power, and little to no checks and balances, either.
    • kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
      > It could as well happen in the US It already has.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• Zak 4y ago
  It's interesting that Germany makes a distinction between observing and recording images or video, while the US does not. The US does distinguish (typically in state law) between listening and recording. Recording is different from watching/listening. It's reasonably possible to know who is present at any given time, but not possible to know in advance who might hear/see a recording in the future. I do, however think Germany's law goes a bit too far: as I understand it, use of surveillance cameras on private property without warning signs is illegal even if a person would have to be trespassing to be recorded. I do not think trespassers should enjoy a right to privacy with regard to their trespass.
  • heavyset_go 4y ago
    It's not just about trespassers, it's also about anyone who was invited onto the property that's under surveillance. Guests, workers and contractors who are invited onto the property have a right to know if they're being recorded or not.
    • Zak 4y ago
      Sure, but they can be informed individually.
      • ls15 4y ago
        Yeah, but how do you prove that everyone was informed? It needs at least to happen in written form and at that point, you can just put up a sign.
  • nulbyte 4y ago
    > US does distinguish (typically in state law) between listening and recording. Recording is different from watching/listening. It's reasonably possible to know who is present at any given time, but not possible to know in advance who might hear/see a recording in the future. I'm not sure how universal is, and it's not always reasonably possible to know who is listening. You can listen from afar. But I would think most states have eavesdropping laws that include overhearing. Here is an example from my state, Kentucky. https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/chapter.aspx?id=39393 https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/chapter.aspx?id... This law covers both listening and recording.
• sacrosancty 4y ago
  I heard that when cameras were first invented, some cultures rejected them because they believed they were stealing their souls. Sounds like some silly superstition but I have a feeling that what both them and you are really worried about is the fact that people looking at a photo of you are only seeing a small slice of your "soul" or personhood disconnected from the social interactions that would normally occur if they were looking at you in real life. So it's more a worry about losing control of your influence over how other people perceive you, which is a major part of being human.
  • usrn 4y ago
    The older I get the more superstition makes sense. I used to think older people were superstitious because they were more likely to have existential crises (since they were closer to death) but now that I'm middle aged I've realized that it's because human reason is surprisingly slow and the universe is surprisingly big and there's just too much to work through from first principles.
    • sacrosancty 4y ago
      I've been having a similar change but it's not only about there being too much for us to work out from first principles but also an awareness that human minds seem to have a need to believe things which is orthogonal to knowing the truth or being logical. We don't believe in superstitions and religions because we want to make practical use of that knowledge or because it's the logical conclusion from some reasoning - we do it because the act of believing satisfies some biological need. It's easier to believe things when they're not obviously false but truth isn't really what's important about it. When I see people saying "You idiot, of course the earth isn't flat!" or "All religions are stupid.", I just think they haven't understood the value of belief, even, or especially, false beliefs. This whole philosophy of valuing truth and using science and all that is fairly modern and seemingly unnatural. I wonder if it's creating an emotional cost in all the people who rejected emotionally or biologically valuable beliefs in favor of being right.