A better law would simply say video that is viewing your property from the outside cannot be used as evidence or something like that.
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.
I’m much more ok with a static image of the front of my house than a continuous stream of everyone coming/going and everything that happens in the windows.
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.
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?
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.
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.
"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."
> 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.
https://www.aclu.org/cases/moore-v-united-states
https://www.aclum.org/en/press-releases/us-supreme-court-dec...
In the case, Moore v. United States, federal agents, without a warrant, surreptitiously installed a small surveillance camera near the top of a utility pole in a Springfield, Massachusetts neighborhood and used it to record the activities at and around a private home over an uninterrupted eight-month period. Agents could watch the camera’s feed in real time, and remotely pan, tilt, and zoom close enough to read license plates and see faces. They could also review a searchable, digitized record of this footage at their convenience. The camera captured every coming and going of the home’s residents and their guests over eight months, what they carried with them when they came and went, their activities in the home’s driveway and yard, and more.
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.
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.