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

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
[–] flumph@programming.dev 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It depends. This case is brought against Amazon because the plaintiff was specifically (allegedly) injured by a product sold by Amazon. The judge/jury might find that Amazon's safety practices were negligent, which might have a ripple effect on other retailers safety practices. Alternatively, the judge/jury might find the products themselves are illegal, which would impact the whole industry*.

* So technically only the court / circuit the litigation is being brought in, unless it's appealed to the Supreme Court. Then the verdict impacts the whole country.