3 ms·
It seems very easy. Always on spy camera installed for the express purpose of dragnet surveillance? Illegal. Film child’s baseball game? Legal. I find this att
by mlsu 2mo ago
It seems very easy. Always on spy camera installed for the express purpose of dragnet surveillance? Illegal. Film child’s baseball game? Legal.
I find this attitude I find kind of tiring. Gosh it’s just sooo hard to figure out the difference between Flock Safety and Big Bill’s Little League Sports Photography. It’s actually very straightforward to determine the difference between these two things. So easy, an idiot could do it. Or a judge.
- LeonKnst 2mo agoWhile I do agree it's tiring and agree with your point I think the issue is finding the exact point to draw the line. It's easy to differentiate the two ends.
- MrDrMcCoy 2mo agoI think the operative difference here is that in the case of the little league photography, the cameras are not fixed in place, are temporary, and are not set up with the intent to capture the identity and actions of everyone in the background. Fixed-installation cameras are permanent, do attempt to capture all possible subjects in its frame, and have an alternate, obvious intent to identify them all. I don't think a Private investigator, paparazzi, or parked police cruiser on a stakeout represent anywhere near the same practical or legal problems as fixed, always-on surveillance cameras. As such, this seems to me like a good place to draw the line.
- Tostino 2mo agoI don't really care about the fixed vs mobile distinction. Police could just use a drone swarm that automatically charges if it were ruled fixed installs were illegal.