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
But that's my point you have a right to look out from your property and observe what you see. If you glance out your window and see a stabbing in someone else's property or a theft you can be called to testify. You can be compelled.

What next? Anyone with a cochlear implant can't use the phone because it's a recording device?

A camera is an extension of our eyes. If we have a right to look out from our property and observe so do the cameras.

It's not nice but this is clearly a situation where two competing and important rights coincide and conflict.

>>anon29+Oe
For me this is not about anyone's ability to watch the camera feed whenever they want to.

> A camera is an extension of our eyes. If we have a right to look out from our property and observe so do the cameras.

Personally, for me, it's about recording and storage that I'd be uncomfortable with. I have a hearing aid and I it's "recording", sure, but only to apply some kind of amplification/equalizing and then the audio is gone. Not stored, not sent to Amazon, not sent to police. If doorbell cameras worked the same way, then that'd be awesome. But afaik they don't.