zlacker

>>nickth+(OP)
I wish those doorbell cameras would blur the background in such a way that passersby and neighbors' houses don't show up in their video. If this was the case it wouldn't matter much whether people or the manufacturer itself share the video.

>>barbaz+w7
This should be a legal requirement.

>>pintxo+T7
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.

>>anon29+m8
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.

>>vineya+fd
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?

>>anon29+ud
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.