3 ms·

As an exercise, write the statute: how do you legally prevent Home Depot or Wal-Mart from videotaping their parking lots and adjacent streets as they've been do

by 15155 28d ago

As an exercise, write the statute: how do you legally prevent Home Depot or Wal-Mart from videotaping their parking lots and adjacent streets as they've been doing for the past 3+ decades? I'm genuinely curious how whatever you propose wouldn't be prior restraint.

toomuchtodo 28d ago
I’m currently working with a representative on draft legislation, and will return once I have it and they move to introduce it. “You can just do things.” The video capture is not the issue, but the data processing, retention, and sharing, which can trivially be regulated. CCTV for theft prevention and safety with a restricted retention period and no data sharing off the premises can remain legal. Data broker legislation adjacent.
- 15155 28d ago
  > the data processing Maybe? > restricted retention period Prior restraint. > no data sharing off the premises 1000% prior restraint. In what world is this not abridging the freedom of the press? Good luck.
  - toomuchtodo 28d ago
    > Good luck. Thanks!
  - xahrepap 27d ago
    > In what world is this not abridging the freedom of the press? Why does that freedom supersede all other guaranteed freedoms? For example the US constitution tries to protect its citizens from unlawful searches, etc. just as strongly as protecting the presses. Why do I have to sacrifice my freedom from searches to preserve Home Depot’s freedom to tape others?
    - 15155 26d ago
      This is basic law. Your "freedom from [unreasonable] searches" applies only to the government: the government can be barred by the Constitution from broadly using or obtaining data, Home Depot can't be barred from collecting it or sharing it publicly. Both can be true simultaneously. Furthermore, no relevant court has found these to be "searches" or that they are "unreasonable." Your "freedom from [government] searches" doesn't somehow make my Ring doorbell illegal.
      - xahrepap 26d ago
        Understand. Thanks for the answer. There’s obviously a line somewhere though, right? Like if that same company put a camera in a bathroom stall? So on one extreme with have CCTV parking lot cams, on the other we have bathroom stalls. It seems like we could find where spy cameras that exist solely to break citizens rights to privacy land on the spectrum and write laws around that.
        15155 26d ago
        There are two separate issues here: the government itself being restricted, and the right of the people to collect and disseminate information (in this case, information that is quite arguably in the public interest.) The government can certainly be limited by statute (police may be statutorily required to obtain a warrant to use aggregated ALPR data or may be barred from using it entirely), and may already be limited by existing case law - the relevant courts have not yet decided. Limiting Home Depot from streaming a traffic cam or CCTV footage from the confines of their publicly-accessible property is no different than limiting a news crew who would choose to capture the same footage and share it with the world. This is very basic freedom of speech/press - especially when the information isn't being individualized to any one target (as a credit bureau might do.) Everyone is being collected and processed equally. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v._IMS_Health_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v._IMS_Health_Inc. - and have a look at the panel of Justices that ruled in consensus, even Sotomayor joined the still-existing majority on this matter. GP's proposed legislation almost certainly runs afoul of this fairly-recent decision. > There’s obviously a line somewhere though For the limitation of the government, the line is called "reasonable expectation of privacy." Any reasonable person would expect there to exist reasonable expectation to privacy in a bathroom stall, and the user of the stall has generally taken affirmative measures to ensure the same: they closed the door behind them, locked it. When you are outdoors, especially on public property, you generally have no "expectation of privacy." See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States You may be recorded, the things you are observed doing are admissible in court, etc. in places where you reasonably expect people to be able to observe you. Driving down a public, taxpayer-funded road is the quintessential example of "no reasonable expectation of privacy."

by 15155 28d ago

toomuchtodo 28d ago

I’m currently working with a representative on draft legislation, and will return once I have it and they move to introduce it. “You can just do things.” The video capture is not the issue, but the data processing, retention, and sharing, which can trivially be regulated. CCTV for theft prevention and safety with a restricted retention period and no data sharing off the premises can remain legal. Data broker legislation adjacent.

15155 28d ago
> the data processing Maybe? > restricted retention period Prior restraint. > no data sharing off the premises 1000% prior restraint. In what world is this not abridging the freedom of the press? Good luck.
- toomuchtodo 28d ago
  > Good luck. Thanks!
- xahrepap 27d ago
  > In what world is this not abridging the freedom of the press? Why does that freedom supersede all other guaranteed freedoms? For example the US constitution tries to protect its citizens from unlawful searches, etc. just as strongly as protecting the presses. Why do I have to sacrifice my freedom from searches to preserve Home Depot’s freedom to tape others?
  - 15155 26d ago
    This is basic law. Your "freedom from [unreasonable] searches" applies only to the government: the government can be barred by the Constitution from broadly using or obtaining data, Home Depot can't be barred from collecting it or sharing it publicly. Both can be true simultaneously. Furthermore, no relevant court has found these to be "searches" or that they are "unreasonable." Your "freedom from [government] searches" doesn't somehow make my Ring doorbell illegal.
    - xahrepap 26d ago
      Understand. Thanks for the answer. There’s obviously a line somewhere though, right? Like if that same company put a camera in a bathroom stall? So on one extreme with have CCTV parking lot cams, on the other we have bathroom stalls. It seems like we could find where spy cameras that exist solely to break citizens rights to privacy land on the spectrum and write laws around that.
      - 15155 26d ago
        There are two separate issues here: the government itself being restricted, and the right of the people to collect and disseminate information (in this case, information that is quite arguably in the public interest.) The government can certainly be limited by statute (police may be statutorily required to obtain a warrant to use aggregated ALPR data or may be barred from using it entirely), and may already be limited by existing case law - the relevant courts have not yet decided. Limiting Home Depot from streaming a traffic cam or CCTV footage from the confines of their publicly-accessible property is no different than limiting a news crew who would choose to capture the same footage and share it with the world. This is very basic freedom of speech/press - especially when the information isn't being individualized to any one target (as a credit bureau might do.) Everyone is being collected and processed equally. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v._IMS_Health_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v._IMS_Health_Inc. - and have a look at the panel of Justices that ruled in consensus, even Sotomayor joined the still-existing majority on this matter. GP's proposed legislation almost certainly runs afoul of this fairly-recent decision. > There’s obviously a line somewhere though For the limitation of the government, the line is called "reasonable expectation of privacy." Any reasonable person would expect there to exist reasonable expectation to privacy in a bathroom stall, and the user of the stall has generally taken affirmative measures to ensure the same: they closed the door behind them, locked it. When you are outdoors, especially on public property, you generally have no "expectation of privacy." See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States You may be recorded, the things you are observed doing are admissible in court, etc. in places where you reasonably expect people to be able to observe you. Driving down a public, taxpayer-funded road is the quintessential example of "no reasonable expectation of privacy."