6 ms·

What about my neighbor's Ring doorbell, pointed at my front door from across the street?

Xylakant 4y ago
Rules in germany are that you can have video surveillance, but it must not cover public spaces. A ring doorbell monitoring your porch is fine, recoding the sidewalk not. Now, enforcement is another issue, but the rules make sense.
unreal37 4y ago
That is illegal in some countries. For instance in Portugal, you can't film roads or other people's private property. So "car dashcams" are illegal. And any surveillance cameras you have on your property cannot be pointed at someone else's property. https://europe-cities.com/2022/09/12/the-use-of-%E2%80%B3dash-cams%E2%80%B3-in-portugal/ https://europe-cities.com/2022/09/12/the-use-of-%E2%80%B3das...
sneak 4y ago
I’m torn on this one; as a photographer and videographer I find the right to shoot or film anything I can see from a legal vantage point very near and dear to me. We should always be legally allowed to film public places. Europe’s legislative approach to this is wrong, I think, but I see the problem. Perhaps we need different societal norms.
- __d 4y ago
  I'm ok with it being legal to photograph, video, or record audio of public spaces without people. I'm pretty sure I'd prefer that photographing, filming, or audio recording me in an identifiable way was illegal without my explicit consent. I think public officials should be subject to recording while performing their duties. I think celebrities should not, unless they explicitly consent. Security cameras might need some sort of exemption: record, but don't look except under explicit circumstances (like, you've been robbed).
  - code_duck 4y ago
    So if someone is visiting a town and desires to take a photo of a landmark, they can't take it unless nobody is visible in the photo? How would anyone ever take photos of the Great Wall or the US Capitol or the like?
    - __d 4y ago
      Perhaps the camera software should automatically blur faces unless instructed otherwise? I don't know the right solution. I do know I hate been photographed or videoed in public though.
      - code_duck 4y ago
        I guess, but how does the camera know whether you have consent or not?
  - sneak 4y ago
    > I'm pretty sure I'd prefer that photographing, filming, or audio recording me in an identifiable way was illegal without my explicit consent. You’re talking about banning street photography, a rich art form with a long history that is presently regarded as protected artistic expression. Additionally, you can’t really reasonably hold any expectation of privacy when you are in a public place where anyone can see you. If I can legally see you with my eyes, I should be able to legally photograph you. That’s my right.
    - __d 4y ago
      I used to find the argument that "if I can see you, I can photograph you" a lot more compelling. But now that a photograph is not a piece of paper, but rather both an image and its metadata, and trivially able to be, for instance, reverse image searched, leading to yet more metadata, etc, etc, I'm far less inclined to support it. I'm coming to a view that there's a lot of difference between being seen (like, with eyes) and being photographed. It's certainly a shame that photography as an artform might be collateral damage here, but it doesn't change the situation that a photograph of me, in public, is now a gateway to a lot more than just an image.
- DennisP 4y ago
  If you want to walk by on the sidewalk and snap a couple pictures of my house, or even take a little video, I agree that's totally fine. But a surveillance camera that's there 24/7, uploading everything to Amazon's cloud, doesn't seem like the same sort of thing to me. In theory at least that can mean Amazon knows when I arrive and leave, all the time.
  - sneak 4y ago
    Several large corporations as well as the US federal government law enforcement agencies know when you arrive and leave, all the time. A bunch of small/private companies do too, because your client IP on the background app refreshes from your phone changes from residential isp to mobile phone isp. Amazon is the least of the worries on that front.
    - DennisP 4y ago
      And I'm not a fan of that, either. But my point is that the rights of street photographers have nothing to do with constant automated surveillance. (And my original point was that this is not just about people who choose to be surveilled themselves.)
tetromino_ 4y ago
I don't know about you and your neighbor. But my neighbor (a black man, fyi) was very happy that my Nest camera's field of view was just barely wide enough to include his door and window, and recorded video of the dude who climbed through his window and stole his kid's MacBook. A couple days after that, my neighbor got a camera of his own. I'm happy that he did so; my camera made his home safer, and his makes mine safer.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  The point is, he didn't opt in to being surveilled by Amazon. That it had a positive outcome is irrelevant to the point. It's a strange anecdata. What's the difference between what you wrote and responding to someone who is in favor on limits of publicly brandishing guns with: I don't know about your neighbor. But my neighbor (a black man, fyi) was very happy that I sat on my porch with a loaded shotgun every evening, and shot the dude who climbed through his window and stole his kid's MacBook.
  - tetromino_ 4y ago
    The difference is that your example is made-up while mine is true, recent, and (I believe) representative of normal people's attitudes. Normal people love cameras because normal people much prefer being surveilled by Amazon (or, in most cases, by Amazon's cheaper and less secure Chinese competitors in the camera business) vs. having their home broken into and their pawnable electronics stolen.
    - adolph 4y ago
      Shotgun on the porch isn't exactly made up, it has happened before. The Joe Horn shooting controversy occurred on November 14, 2007, in Pasadena, Texas, United States, when local resident Joe Horn shot and killed two burglars outside his neighbor's home. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      > and (I believe) representative of normal people's attitudes. So you're not against making things up if you can make this up, so why not go along with the hypothetical?

Rules in germany are that you can have video surveillance, but it must not cover public spaces. A ring doorbell monitoring your porch is fine, recoding the sidewalk not. Now, enforcement is another issue, but the rules make sense.

unreal37 4y ago

That is illegal in some countries. For instance in Portugal, you can't film roads or other people's private property. So "car dashcams" are illegal. And any surveillance cameras you have on your property cannot be pointed at someone else's property. https://europe-cities.com/2022/09/12/the-use-of-%E2%80%B3dash-cams%E2%80%B3-in-portugal/ https://europe-cities.com/2022/09/12/the-use-of-%E2%80%B3das...

sneak 4y ago

I’m torn on this one; as a photographer and videographer I find the right to shoot or film anything I can see from a legal vantage point very near and dear to me. We should always be legally allowed to film public places. Europe’s legislative approach to this is wrong, I think, but I see the problem. Perhaps we need different societal norms.

__d 4y ago
I'm ok with it being legal to photograph, video, or record audio of public spaces without people. I'm pretty sure I'd prefer that photographing, filming, or audio recording me in an identifiable way was illegal without my explicit consent. I think public officials should be subject to recording while performing their duties. I think celebrities should not, unless they explicitly consent. Security cameras might need some sort of exemption: record, but don't look except under explicit circumstances (like, you've been robbed).
- code_duck 4y ago
  So if someone is visiting a town and desires to take a photo of a landmark, they can't take it unless nobody is visible in the photo? How would anyone ever take photos of the Great Wall or the US Capitol or the like?
  - __d 4y ago
    Perhaps the camera software should automatically blur faces unless instructed otherwise? I don't know the right solution. I do know I hate been photographed or videoed in public though.
    - code_duck 4y ago
      I guess, but how does the camera know whether you have consent or not?
- sneak 4y ago
  > I'm pretty sure I'd prefer that photographing, filming, or audio recording me in an identifiable way was illegal without my explicit consent. You’re talking about banning street photography, a rich art form with a long history that is presently regarded as protected artistic expression. Additionally, you can’t really reasonably hold any expectation of privacy when you are in a public place where anyone can see you. If I can legally see you with my eyes, I should be able to legally photograph you. That’s my right.
  - __d 4y ago
    I used to find the argument that "if I can see you, I can photograph you" a lot more compelling. But now that a photograph is not a piece of paper, but rather both an image and its metadata, and trivially able to be, for instance, reverse image searched, leading to yet more metadata, etc, etc, I'm far less inclined to support it. I'm coming to a view that there's a lot of difference between being seen (like, with eyes) and being photographed. It's certainly a shame that photography as an artform might be collateral damage here, but it doesn't change the situation that a photograph of me, in public, is now a gateway to a lot more than just an image.
DennisP 4y ago
If you want to walk by on the sidewalk and snap a couple pictures of my house, or even take a little video, I agree that's totally fine. But a surveillance camera that's there 24/7, uploading everything to Amazon's cloud, doesn't seem like the same sort of thing to me. In theory at least that can mean Amazon knows when I arrive and leave, all the time.
- sneak 4y ago
  Several large corporations as well as the US federal government law enforcement agencies know when you arrive and leave, all the time. A bunch of small/private companies do too, because your client IP on the background app refreshes from your phone changes from residential isp to mobile phone isp. Amazon is the least of the worries on that front.
  - DennisP 4y ago
    And I'm not a fan of that, either. But my point is that the rights of street photographers have nothing to do with constant automated surveillance. (And my original point was that this is not just about people who choose to be surveilled themselves.)

tetromino_ 4y ago

I don't know about you and your neighbor. But my neighbor (a black man, fyi) was very happy that my Nest camera's field of view was just barely wide enough to include his door and window, and recorded video of the dude who climbed through his window and stole his kid's MacBook. A couple days after that, my neighbor got a camera of his own. I'm happy that he did so; my camera made his home safer, and his makes mine safer.

HWR_14 4y ago
The point is, he didn't opt in to being surveilled by Amazon. That it had a positive outcome is irrelevant to the point. It's a strange anecdata. What's the difference between what you wrote and responding to someone who is in favor on limits of publicly brandishing guns with: I don't know about your neighbor. But my neighbor (a black man, fyi) was very happy that I sat on my porch with a loaded shotgun every evening, and shot the dude who climbed through his window and stole his kid's MacBook.
- tetromino_ 4y ago
  The difference is that your example is made-up while mine is true, recent, and (I believe) representative of normal people's attitudes. Normal people love cameras because normal people much prefer being surveilled by Amazon (or, in most cases, by Amazon's cheaper and less secure Chinese competitors in the camera business) vs. having their home broken into and their pawnable electronics stolen.
  - adolph 4y ago
    Shotgun on the porch isn't exactly made up, it has happened before. The Joe Horn shooting controversy occurred on November 14, 2007, in Pasadena, Texas, United States, when local resident Joe Horn shot and killed two burglars outside his neighbor's home. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    > and (I believe) representative of normal people's attitudes. So you're not against making things up if you can make this up, so why not go along with the hypothetical?