6 ms·

This should be a legal requirement.

by pintxo 3y ago

anon291 3y ago
You have a legal right to view your property. A better law would simply say video that is viewing your property from the outside cannot be used as evidence or something like that.
- jmcgough 3y ago
  Ya but people end up recording a lot more than just their property.
  - anon291 3y ago
    You have a right to the view from your property whatever that may be too. I don't understand the issue here. If someone is a busybody neighbor and looking out their window all day they can also be called to testify against you. People's property is and should be treated as an extension of themselves in this matter. Using a camera to view you doesn't change the fact that they are the ones doing the viewing. I fully agree governments should not be participating and they shouldn't have a secret backdoor. I also agree that you should have the expectation of privacy in your house (hence why I question whether the video ought to be admissible). However, handicapping people's equipment is against even the most basic principle of private property.
    - vineyardmike 3y ago
      The whole argument here is that it isn’t just your property. Filming your property… and something/someone beyond is where the question lies. Generally people don’t have the expectation of privacy when in public (aka on the street) but I would think we conversely don’t expect “not private” to include “video of every time I’ve left my front door”. Like, if you’re in a public park and someone takes a picture that includes you, generally we say that you consented by being in public. If someone takes a picture of you every morning as you jog by the park because they’re stalking you, we don’t extended “implied consent” to that. If you aim a camera at my house, does that count as implied consent, or is it closer to stalking?
      - anon291 3y ago
        But that's my point you have a right to look out from your property and observe what you see. If you glance out your window and see a stabbing in someone else's property or a theft you can be called to testify. You can be compelled. What next? Anyone with a cochlear implant can't use the phone because it's a recording device? A camera is an extension of our eyes. If we have a right to look out from our property and observe so do the cameras. It's not nice but this is clearly a situation where two competing and important rights coincide and conflict.
        barbazoo 3y ago
        For me this is not about anyone's ability to watch the camera feed whenever they want to. > A camera is an extension of our eyes. If we have a right to look out from our property and observe so do the cameras. Personally, for me, it's about recording and storage that I'd be uncomfortable with. I have a hearing aid and I it's "recording", sure, but only to apply some kind of amplification/equalizing and then the audio is gone. Not stored, not sent to Amazon, not sent to police. If doorbell cameras worked the same way, then that'd be awesome. But afaik they don't.
      - ipaddr 3y ago
        Stalking: The behaviour must give you good reason to fear for your personal safety and it must have no legitimate purpose It doesn't apply here. Believe it or not you have neighbours watching you leave your house every morning. All streets have nosey neighbours.
- vineyardmike 3y ago
  Is this actually a “right”? Genuinely don’t know, but do you have a right to fly a drone overhead and film “your property” and your neighbors backyard while they skinny-dip? Do you have the right to videotape your driveway… and the elementary school across the street? I’m very suspicious that “if the video includes your property, you have the right to film it” - which is the implication here.
  - anon291 3y ago
    Do you have the right to look outside your door? Then why is this any different than that. If you skinny dip in your backyard and your neighbor sees you from his house can you sue him for having the memory of you naked?
    - vineyardmike 3y ago
      If there is a fence or other barrier, I think the answer is yes. There is implied privacy and it has been violated. “Having the memory” is not the same thing as taking a video that can be infinitely reproduced and shared, and I think it’s obvious we should and probably do treat that differently.
      - anon291 3y ago
        Can ring cameras see through fences?
        Spivak 3y ago
        Yes, because they're mounted up high.
        anon291 3y ago
        Okay then ban mounting them with any view a human wouldn't have with the understanding that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes from being viewed at angles a typical person could not see.
- pintxo 3y ago
  I take no offense with you watching/recording your property. But I guess we can agree that lots of door cameras are actually pointed directly at the street in front of the house. So they are recording public property if you so will. And that should not be allowed, if we want to continue to live in a free society, where freedom includes not being digitally trackable at any time.
  - anon291 3y ago
    > And that should not be allowed, if we want to continue to live in a free society, where freedom includes not being digitally trackable at any time. This really, truly does not follow for me. You do not have a right to not be viewed in public. That is fundamentally not a right. It's like... if you and your friend set up shop on a sidewalk, and shout at each other your conversation, and someone records it... should they be charged for illegal recording? If so, why is that any different than recording a street preacher / politician's speech? At some point there's an implied consent w.r.t fair use. There should be limitations. I do think you should not be able to redistribute such content without permission, but that's not what's happening here. The cameras are meant for your own viewing. There are ethical issues in my opinion with the data being sent to a third-party 'cloud' provider, but there is no fundamental ethical issue with simply recording the view from your abode in such a way that any human would normally be able to also view. Look... I get the creepiness aspect. I get it might feel wrong. Rights are like that. The right to do what you wish with your property, including to look out from it and view whatever it is you see, is actually also a basic right, and insofar as the rights are coming into contact, I don't see why it would be held subservient to your alleged right to privacy on a public view. I don't see why we arbitrarily draw a line saying 'being recorded in public' means it's not a free country. Couldn't you also say that 'not being able to record what you'd otherwise see from your person' is also anti-freedom. I feel there's an immense amount of nuance lost here and people are quick to sacrifice one freedom for another.
    - pintxo 3y ago
      You are misrepresenting my argument here. I have zero intention to restrict your rights to view the public. What I take offense with is uncontrolled (permanent) storage of views of the public. If there is no agreement on these things being materially different, and thus requiring a different evaluation of competing rights, then further discussion is mood.

This should be a legal requirement.

by pintxo 3y ago

This should be a legal requirement.

You have a legal right to view your property. A better law would simply say video that is viewing your property from the outside cannot be used as evidence or something like that.

jmcgough 3y ago
Ya but people end up recording a lot more than just their property.
- anon291 3y ago
  You have a right to the view from your property whatever that may be too. I don't understand the issue here. If someone is a busybody neighbor and looking out their window all day they can also be called to testify against you. People's property is and should be treated as an extension of themselves in this matter. Using a camera to view you doesn't change the fact that they are the ones doing the viewing. I fully agree governments should not be participating and they shouldn't have a secret backdoor. I also agree that you should have the expectation of privacy in your house (hence why I question whether the video ought to be admissible). However, handicapping people's equipment is against even the most basic principle of private property.
  - vineyardmike 3y ago
    The whole argument here is that it isn’t just your property. Filming your property… and something/someone beyond is where the question lies. Generally people don’t have the expectation of privacy when in public (aka on the street) but I would think we conversely don’t expect “not private” to include “video of every time I’ve left my front door”. Like, if you’re in a public park and someone takes a picture that includes you, generally we say that you consented by being in public. If someone takes a picture of you every morning as you jog by the park because they’re stalking you, we don’t extended “implied consent” to that. If you aim a camera at my house, does that count as implied consent, or is it closer to stalking?
    - anon291 3y ago
      But that's my point you have a right to look out from your property and observe what you see. If you glance out your window and see a stabbing in someone else's property or a theft you can be called to testify. You can be compelled. What next? Anyone with a cochlear implant can't use the phone because it's a recording device? A camera is an extension of our eyes. If we have a right to look out from our property and observe so do the cameras. It's not nice but this is clearly a situation where two competing and important rights coincide and conflict.
      - barbazoo 3y ago
        For me this is not about anyone's ability to watch the camera feed whenever they want to. > A camera is an extension of our eyes. If we have a right to look out from our property and observe so do the cameras. Personally, for me, it's about recording and storage that I'd be uncomfortable with. I have a hearing aid and I it's "recording", sure, but only to apply some kind of amplification/equalizing and then the audio is gone. Not stored, not sent to Amazon, not sent to police. If doorbell cameras worked the same way, then that'd be awesome. But afaik they don't.
    - ipaddr 3y ago
      Stalking: The behaviour must give you good reason to fear for your personal safety and it must have no legitimate purpose It doesn't apply here. Believe it or not you have neighbours watching you leave your house every morning. All streets have nosey neighbours.
vineyardmike 3y ago
Is this actually a “right”? Genuinely don’t know, but do you have a right to fly a drone overhead and film “your property” and your neighbors backyard while they skinny-dip? Do you have the right to videotape your driveway… and the elementary school across the street? I’m very suspicious that “if the video includes your property, you have the right to film it” - which is the implication here.
- anon291 3y ago
  Do you have the right to look outside your door? Then why is this any different than that. If you skinny dip in your backyard and your neighbor sees you from his house can you sue him for having the memory of you naked?
  - vineyardmike 3y ago
    If there is a fence or other barrier, I think the answer is yes. There is implied privacy and it has been violated. “Having the memory” is not the same thing as taking a video that can be infinitely reproduced and shared, and I think it’s obvious we should and probably do treat that differently.
    - anon291 3y ago
      Can ring cameras see through fences?
      - Spivak 3y ago
        Yes, because they're mounted up high.
        anon291 3y ago
        Okay then ban mounting them with any view a human wouldn't have with the understanding that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes from being viewed at angles a typical person could not see.
pintxo 3y ago
I take no offense with you watching/recording your property. But I guess we can agree that lots of door cameras are actually pointed directly at the street in front of the house. So they are recording public property if you so will. And that should not be allowed, if we want to continue to live in a free society, where freedom includes not being digitally trackable at any time.
- anon291 3y ago
  > And that should not be allowed, if we want to continue to live in a free society, where freedom includes not being digitally trackable at any time. This really, truly does not follow for me. You do not have a right to not be viewed in public. That is fundamentally not a right. It's like... if you and your friend set up shop on a sidewalk, and shout at each other your conversation, and someone records it... should they be charged for illegal recording? If so, why is that any different than recording a street preacher / politician's speech? At some point there's an implied consent w.r.t fair use. There should be limitations. I do think you should not be able to redistribute such content without permission, but that's not what's happening here. The cameras are meant for your own viewing. There are ethical issues in my opinion with the data being sent to a third-party 'cloud' provider, but there is no fundamental ethical issue with simply recording the view from your abode in such a way that any human would normally be able to also view. Look... I get the creepiness aspect. I get it might feel wrong. Rights are like that. The right to do what you wish with your property, including to look out from it and view whatever it is you see, is actually also a basic right, and insofar as the rights are coming into contact, I don't see why it would be held subservient to your alleged right to privacy on a public view. I don't see why we arbitrarily draw a line saying 'being recorded in public' means it's not a free country. Couldn't you also say that 'not being able to record what you'd otherwise see from your person' is also anti-freedom. I feel there's an immense amount of nuance lost here and people are quick to sacrifice one freedom for another.
  - pintxo 3y ago
    You are misrepresenting my argument here. I have zero intention to restrict your rights to view the public. What I take offense with is uncontrolled (permanent) storage of views of the public. If there is no agreement on these things being materially different, and thus requiring a different evaluation of competing rights, then further discussion is mood.