3 ms·
> I found it to be understandable I'm astounded you found it understandable. If I'm renting rooms, I certainly don't expect the landlord to be in the business
by GJim 3y ago
> I found it to be understandable
I'm astounded you found it understandable.
If I'm renting rooms, I certainly don't expect the landlord to be in the business of filming myself or family, especially as we may well be walking around sans clothing. Not only is this rather illegal, I suggest plenty of people would find themselves responding to the landlord rather violently in such a situation. And I would not blame them.
- kube-system 3y agoMy experience was such that it wasn't that way at all. The camera was indoors but not in areas of the house where someone would be walking around without clothing, and they were clearly disclosed in advance before booking, and they were clearly visible in the home.
- kwhitefoot 3y agoWhy would I not be able to be naked in all parts of the house?
- 93po 3y agobecause the example is that you're renting a room in a house shared with other people
- kube-system 3y agoSome houses have areas where it is fairly reasonable that people wouldn't be running around naked, e.g common areas shared with others, or rooms with a large amount of glass open to the exterior of the home. And in some cases it might even be illegal for you to be naked in those areas if exposed to others.
- GJim 3y ago[flagged]
- kube-system 3y agoI'm not defending it, I said I understood it. I have similar cameras in my own house, so why wouldn't others? Further, expectation of privacy are commonly accepted to be more complicated than "indoor vs outdoor". To suggest otherwise is just hyperbolic pearl clutching. My two examples above are perfectly normal situations in which expectations of privacy are lowered.