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
Ya but people end up recording a lot more than just their property.

>>jmcgou+L8
You have a right to the view from your property whatever that may be too. I don't understand the issue here. If someone is a busybody neighbor and looking out their window all day they can also be called to testify against you. People's property is and should be treated as an extension of themselves in this matter. Using a camera to view you doesn't change the fact that they are the ones doing the viewing.

I fully agree governments should not be participating and they shouldn't have a secret backdoor. I also agree that you should have the expectation of privacy in your house (hence why I question whether the video ought to be admissible). However, handicapping people's equipment is against even the most basic principle of private property.

>>anon29+P9
The whole argument here is that it isn’t just your property. Filming your property… and something/someone beyond is where the question lies. Generally people don’t have the expectation of privacy when in public (aka on the street) but I would think we conversely don’t expect “not private” to include “video of every time I’ve left my front door”.

Like, if you’re in a public park and someone takes a picture that includes you, generally we say that you consented by being in public. If someone takes a picture of you every morning as you jog by the park because they’re stalking you, we don’t extended “implied consent” to that. If you aim a camera at my house, does that count as implied consent, or is it closer to stalking?

>>vineya+Kd
Stalking:

The behaviour must give you good reason to fear for your personal safety and it must have no legitimate purpose

It doesn't apply here.

Believe it or not you have neighbours watching you leave your house every morning. All streets have nosey neighbours.