4 ms·

Recording people in public spaces is generally legal. Should it be unlawful to record your front porch? That'd implicate Ring and a whole bunch of other product

Recording people in public spaces is generally legal. Should it be unlawful to record your front porch? That'd implicate Ring and a whole bunch of other products. How about setting up a camera on your windowsill pointing out towards the street?

toomuchtodo 3y ago
That's what laws are for, for us to decide if actions that are technically possible should be legally possible. Many products exist because of leaks in existing laws around privacy; maybe we tighten those laws up? That's the point of the discussion. In this case, a private company is creating a dystopian dragnet of personal travel information that is a function of the population travel volume that its devices cover. If the right to privacy arrived at from this discussion kills a product line or a business, oh well. Human rights > profits, broadly speaking. "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should."
pessimizer 3y ago
None of this stuff is settled. It's always in court, and audio and video are frequently treated completely differently from each other. What about setting up a camera on your roof aimed at your neighbor's bedroom window, and livestreaming it online? What about secretly recording the conversation that you're having with someone in a restaurant? What about recording the comings and goings of the people who enter or leave a gay bar, or a mosque?
jorvi 3y ago
That last one is illegal, it just isn’t enforced by the police because they benefit from it. It’s the difference between recording and monitoring. You’re allowed to record in a public space, but you’re not allowed to monitor it.
- infecto 3y ago
  Is this not highly dependent on your location? In the US this is up to the state/county level. It is generally not illegal to film past your property line.
  - jorvi 3y ago
    > It is generally not illegal to film past your property line. In the US. In much of the world it is. But again, enforcement of this is terribly weak. It is virtually impossible to verify, and even if the government somehow did, it is trivial to circumvent as you just have to tilt the camera a few degrees or slightly change the block-out zones on the camera, and you can't really see the difference from the outside. On top of the police having a vested interest in the breaking of this rule because it helps them tremendously during investigations.
    - infecto 3y ago
      But the article is about the US. So your original statement is not quite accurate?
BobaFloutist 3y ago
Yeah, it should probably be generally illegal to record past your property line.
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  So a ring camera recording the sidewalk in front of your house should be illegal?
  - BobaFloutist 3y ago
    Yeah, absolutely.
  - _chu1 3y ago
    Yes.
  - ang_cire 3y ago
    Yes, why do you want to record people who aren't on your property?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
tkems 3y ago
One issue I have with the Flock cameras installed in my city is that they are installed on public land (right next to the road) and paid for with tax dollars.
- Teever 3y ago
  People are going to start making spray paint/foam attachments for drones so that they can equip their drone with a little can of 'fuck that camera right up' it won't be cost effective to repair the cameras, so they'll go away.
  - geodel 3y ago
    Yeah, people have always fucked with technology and in each case people win and technology gets abandoned.
    - Teever 3y ago
      No, what I think will happen then is that the govt will transition to flying cameras, but the problem with that will be expense and poorer performance for a while until batteries improve.
- ApolloFortyNine 3y ago
  The way government pricing usually goes, going private is likely saving 90% over what it would cost to implement this by some government agency. The million (almost 2 million) dollar toilet comes to mind. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/24/us/san-francisco-toilet.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/24/us/san-francisco-toilet.h...
  - RyanHamilton 3y ago
    "going private is likely saving 90% over". How's that working out for your private US healthcare system? Some of the most expensive private care in the world. The toilet you mention is in one of the richest most capitilistic states in the world, they have super expensive public toilets alongside homelessness. In other countries they have cheap public toilets. I'm not sure public/private is the deciding factor. I think it's San Francisco.

toomuchtodo 3y ago

That's what laws are for, for us to decide if actions that are technically possible should be legally possible. Many products exist because of leaks in existing laws around privacy; maybe we tighten those laws up? That's the point of the discussion. In this case, a private company is creating a dystopian dragnet of personal travel information that is a function of the population travel volume that its devices cover. If the right to privacy arrived at from this discussion kills a product line or a business, oh well. Human rights > profits, broadly speaking. "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should."

pessimizer 3y ago

None of this stuff is settled. It's always in court, and audio and video are frequently treated completely differently from each other. What about setting up a camera on your roof aimed at your neighbor's bedroom window, and livestreaming it online? What about secretly recording the conversation that you're having with someone in a restaurant? What about recording the comings and goings of the people who enter or leave a gay bar, or a mosque?

jorvi 3y ago

That last one is illegal, it just isn’t enforced by the police because they benefit from it. It’s the difference between recording and monitoring. You’re allowed to record in a public space, but you’re not allowed to monitor it.

infecto 3y ago
Is this not highly dependent on your location? In the US this is up to the state/county level. It is generally not illegal to film past your property line.
- jorvi 3y ago
  > It is generally not illegal to film past your property line. In the US. In much of the world it is. But again, enforcement of this is terribly weak. It is virtually impossible to verify, and even if the government somehow did, it is trivial to circumvent as you just have to tilt the camera a few degrees or slightly change the block-out zones on the camera, and you can't really see the difference from the outside. On top of the police having a vested interest in the breaking of this rule because it helps them tremendously during investigations.
  - infecto 3y ago
    But the article is about the US. So your original statement is not quite accurate?

BobaFloutist 3y ago

Yeah, it should probably be generally illegal to record past your property line.

Manuel_D 3y ago
So a ring camera recording the sidewalk in front of your house should be illegal?
- BobaFloutist 3y ago
  Yeah, absolutely.
- _chu1 3y ago
  Yes.
- ang_cire 3y ago
  Yes, why do you want to record people who aren't on your property?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

tkems 3y ago

One issue I have with the Flock cameras installed in my city is that they are installed on public land (right next to the road) and paid for with tax dollars.

Teever 3y ago
People are going to start making spray paint/foam attachments for drones so that they can equip their drone with a little can of 'fuck that camera right up' it won't be cost effective to repair the cameras, so they'll go away.
- geodel 3y ago
  Yeah, people have always fucked with technology and in each case people win and technology gets abandoned.
  - Teever 3y ago
    No, what I think will happen then is that the govt will transition to flying cameras, but the problem with that will be expense and poorer performance for a while until batteries improve.
ApolloFortyNine 3y ago
The way government pricing usually goes, going private is likely saving 90% over what it would cost to implement this by some government agency. The million (almost 2 million) dollar toilet comes to mind. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/24/us/san-francisco-toilet.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/24/us/san-francisco-toilet.h...
- RyanHamilton 3y ago
  "going private is likely saving 90% over". How's that working out for your private US healthcare system? Some of the most expensive private care in the world. The toilet you mention is in one of the richest most capitilistic states in the world, they have super expensive public toilets alongside homelessness. In other countries they have cheap public toilets. I'm not sure public/private is the deciding factor. I think it's San Francisco.