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
I take no offense with you watching/recording your property. But I guess we can agree that lots of door cameras are actually pointed directly at the street in front of the house. So they are recording public property if you so will.

And that should not be allowed, if we want to continue to live in a free society, where freedom includes not being digitally trackable at any time.

>>pintxo+jm2
> And that should not be allowed, if we want to continue to live in a free society, where freedom includes not being digitally trackable at any time.

This really, truly does not follow for me. You do not have a right to not be viewed in public. That is fundamentally not a right. It's like... if you and your friend set up shop on a sidewalk, and shout at each other your conversation, and someone records it... should they be charged for illegal recording? If so, why is that any different than recording a street preacher / politician's speech? At some point there's an implied consent w.r.t fair use.

There should be limitations. I do think you should not be able to redistribute such content without permission, but that's not what's happening here. The cameras are meant for your own viewing. There are ethical issues in my opinion with the data being sent to a third-party 'cloud' provider, but there is no fundamental ethical issue with simply recording the view from your abode in such a way that any human would normally be able to also view.

Look... I get the creepiness aspect. I get it might feel wrong. Rights are like that. The right to do what you wish with your property, including to look out from it and view whatever it is you see, is actually also a basic right, and insofar as the rights are coming into contact, I don't see why it would be held subservient to your alleged right to privacy on a public view.

I don't see why we arbitrarily draw a line saying 'being recorded in public' means it's not a free country. Couldn't you also say that 'not being able to record what you'd otherwise see from your person' is also anti-freedom. I feel there's an immense amount of nuance lost here and people are quick to sacrifice one freedom for another.

>>anon29+PD2
You are misrepresenting my argument here. I have zero intention to restrict your rights to view the public. What I take offense with is uncontrolled (permanent) storage of views of the public.

If there is no agreement on these things being materially different, and thus requiring a different evaluation of competing rights, then further discussion is mood.