zlacker

[parent] [thread] 3 comments
1. vineya+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-01-24 17:45:29
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?

replies(2): >>anon29+41 >>ipaddr+K3
2. anon29+41[view] [source] 2024-01-24 17:49:08
>>vineya+(OP)
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.

replies(1): >>barbaz+Ea
3. ipaddr+K3[view] [source] 2024-01-24 17:59:37
>>vineya+(OP)
Stalking:

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.

◧◩
4. barbaz+Ea[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-24 18:31:10
>>anon29+41
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.

[go to top]