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
This is just the programmer's fallacy. If a human could do something "look out their window" then a machine is allowed to do the same 24/7/365 with perfect memory that can be proven to others completely ignores that the nature of the act has now completely changed.

"I saw them walking down the street yesterday" is not the same as "I saw them walking down the street yesterday at exactly 4:27 PM and returning at 9:19 PM here's exactly what they look like, what they were wearing, what they were holding and since everyone else on my street is also doing this you can get a full recording of their actions the entire time they were outside."