7 ms·
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 ar
by 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 agoBut do you enjoy that people in the US don't have this expectation of privacy? Do you believe those laws could change?
- ls15 4y agoI 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 agoRvW 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 agoYup, 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 agoPeople 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 agoA 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 agoA 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 agoWhat about the satellites mimicking God watching over everyone?
- ls15 4y agoI am not really fine with with them, but that's another can of worms.
- brewdad 4y agoOk, 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 agoI 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 agoWho would want to live next to someone after a lawsuit between you? This is a neighbor-relations issue first and foremost.
- kelnos 4y agoSounds 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 agoWait til you see two neighbors arguing about property lines.
- pc86 4y agoAt 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 agoA 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 agoPolice 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 agothis post reads luke a paradox
- KennyBlanken 4y agoThis is not true; rules vary state to state. In Massachusetts, for example, you cannot "secretly" record others, in public or private.
- brewdad 4y agoPutting 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 agoFront 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 agoThis is the operational definition I'm working from.
- alanh 4y agoMy front door is not a 'public area', not really
- MacsHeadroom 4y agoYou 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 agoIf 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 agoin 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 agoMine 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.