zlacker

[parent] [thread] 8 comments
1. vineya+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-01-24 17:42:52
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.

replies(1): >>anon29+f
2. anon29+f[view] [source] 2024-01-24 17:44:08
>>vineya+(OP)
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?
replies(2): >>vineya+J1 >>Spivak+08
◧◩
3. vineya+J1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-24 17:49:35
>>anon29+f
If there is a fence or other barrier, I think the answer is yes. There is implied privacy and it has been violated. “Having the memory” is not the same thing as taking a video that can be infinitely reproduced and shared, and I think it’s obvious we should and probably do treat that differently.
replies(1): >>anon29+92
◧◩◪
4. anon29+92[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-24 17:51:12
>>vineya+J1
Can ring cameras see through fences?
replies(1): >>Spivak+X6
◧◩◪◨
5. Spivak+X6[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-24 18:11:22
>>anon29+92
Yes, because they're mounted up high.
replies(1): >>anon29+zA1
◧◩
6. Spivak+08[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-24 18:17:37
>>anon29+f
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."

replies(1): >>Scion9+ND
◧◩◪
7. Scion9+ND[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-24 21:09:12
>>Spivak+08
Yep, but apparently SCOTUS doesn't dispute that fallacy:

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.

replies(1): >>Spivak+EK
◧◩◪◨
8. Spivak+EK[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-24 21:56:47
>>Scion9+ND
I'm not sure I would agree that letting a split decision on a case that ended up being decided on non 4th amendment grounds is really taking a position on the matter but you're right. I'm genuinely not sure what the outcome would be if there was a circuit split and they were pressured into hearing it.
◧◩◪◨⬒
9. anon29+zA1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-25 04:54:50
>>Spivak+X6
Okay then ban mounting them with any view a human wouldn't have with the understanding that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes from being viewed at angles a typical person could not see.
[go to top]