4 ms·

The facts aren't entirely clear here. But, hypothetically, if the insurance company did this ... it's not a privacy violation. Your "right to privacy" doesn't

by powera 3y ago

The facts aren't entirely clear here. But, hypothetically, if the insurance company did this ... it's not a privacy violation. Your "right to privacy" doesn't extend so far as to forbid your insurer from viewing your property.

anigbrowl 3y ago
By that logic they can prowl around at 3am with a flashlight. Be reasonable.
- bena 3y ago
  To call back a previous post: Is it a car in the park though? We can all likely agree that trespassing physically on the property is not allowed. But that's not what happened here. They were in airspace they were allowed to be in. They managed to view the property with equipment good enough to see what was in the area. If you get high enough, you don't even need to go over the area itself. Hell, one of my neighbors has a house near enough my backyard that they can see clear over the fence from their upper floor.
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    The issue is the adversarial nature of it, vs your insurance company calling you and making an inspection, or telling you they noticed a problem and asking you to address within a reasonable timeframe. I think you understand this just fine.
function_seven 3y ago
> Your "right to privacy" doesn't extend so far as to forbid your insurer from viewing your property. I'd say it does, when they view parts of my property that I've walled off from ordinary view. It's reasonable to expect that photos of me won't be taken when I'm in my private backyard. My neighbors can't see into the yard. Pedestrians and motorists can't. Yeah, random pilots flying overhead can look out their window and see me. But a targeted flight done for the purpose of photographing my private backyard (among other features) is a different scenario, IMO. I should be given a chance to deny this. (Of course, maybe I already granted permission in Sec. II, Paragraph 34(c)(iii) of my insurance contract. I should read that.)
mistrial9 3y ago
unsurprisingly, you are completely backwards. The ability to anticipate inspection, and respond to demands, is central to property law -- law in the making for hundreds of years. The new twist is the ability to take high-resolution evidence from a distance, without announcing it, and keep that evidence unknown to the property owner.

by powera 3y ago

anigbrowl 3y ago

By that logic they can prowl around at 3am with a flashlight. Be reasonable.

bena 3y ago
To call back a previous post: Is it a car in the park though? We can all likely agree that trespassing physically on the property is not allowed. But that's not what happened here. They were in airspace they were allowed to be in. They managed to view the property with equipment good enough to see what was in the area. If you get high enough, you don't even need to go over the area itself. Hell, one of my neighbors has a house near enough my backyard that they can see clear over the fence from their upper floor.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  The issue is the adversarial nature of it, vs your insurance company calling you and making an inspection, or telling you they noticed a problem and asking you to address within a reasonable timeframe. I think you understand this just fine.

function_seven 3y ago

> Your "right to privacy" doesn't extend so far as to forbid your insurer from viewing your property. I'd say it does, when they view parts of my property that I've walled off from ordinary view. It's reasonable to expect that photos of me won't be taken when I'm in my private backyard. My neighbors can't see into the yard. Pedestrians and motorists can't. Yeah, random pilots flying overhead can look out their window and see me. But a targeted flight done for the purpose of photographing my private backyard (among other features) is a different scenario, IMO. I should be given a chance to deny this. (Of course, maybe I already granted permission in Sec. II, Paragraph 34(c)(iii) of my insurance contract. I should read that.)

mistrial9 3y ago

unsurprisingly, you are completely backwards. The ability to anticipate inspection, and respond to demands, is central to property law -- law in the making for hundreds of years. The new twist is the ability to take high-resolution evidence from a distance, without announcing it, and keep that evidence unknown to the property owner.