this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2023
159 points (98.8% liked)

Privacy

2186 readers
263 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
[–] Sarmyth@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 years ago

Yeah, I think we've got a "water pipe" vs. "bong" situation here, and Amazon was letting people say bong.

A camera is a camera. Calling it a bathroom camera betrays it's potentially illegal use too much. There is nothing inherently illegal about having a camera in the bathroom. Film yourself and other consenting adults all day.

Much like how calling to a bong made it contraband, but calling it a water pipe is okay, I believe Amazon will have to mandate that these be referred to as "interior waterproof cameras" going forward.