Privacy

1101 readers

1 users here now

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

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Ategon@programming.dev

danielintempesta@programming.dev

166

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

submitted 10 months ago by flumph@programming.dev to c/privacy@programming.dev

33 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

[–] sonori@beehaw.org 12 points 10 months ago (1 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 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months 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 10 months ago

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