Privacy

2452 readers

171 users here now

Icon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Ategon@programming.dev

danielintempesta@programming.dev

159

Judge: Amazon “cannot claim shock” that bathroom spycams were used as advertised (arstechnica.com)

submitted 2 years ago by flumph@programming.dev to c/privacy@programming.dev

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Tech legal expert Eric Goldman wrote that a victory for the plaintiff could be considered "a dangerous ruling for the spy cam industry and for Amazon," because "the court’s analysis could indicate that all surreptitious hook cameras are categorically illegal to sell." That could prevent completely legal uses of cameras designed to look like clothes hooks, Goldman wrote, such as hypothetical in-home surveillance uses.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] mateomaui@reddthat.com 43 points 2 years ago (8 children)

If someone is interested in legitimate home surveillance, they usually buy cameras that look like cameras, so people know there’s surveillance and don’t fuck around. Usually.

Amazon reps are morons for thinking they could claim innocence here.

[–] sonori@beehaw.org 13 points 2 years ago (2 children)

There can be reasons why you might want more subtle cameras, but I struggle to think of legitimate reasons why one would want ones designed to only look hidden in closets and bathrooms.

[–] mateomaui@reddthat.com 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Hence the standalone “usually.” Also there’s subtle and there’s straight up hidden, and I struggle to find a legit reason for hidden ones unless you’re conducting some kind of sting operation.

[–] sonori@beehaw.org 3 points 2 years ago

Exactly, probably why the lawsuit focused in on these types in particular.

load more comments (5 replies)