Privacy

1321 readers

3 users here now

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

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

167

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

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

30 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

[–] [email protected] 47 points 1 year ago (5 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.

[–] thenightisdark 1 points 1 year ago

https://youtu.be/PshDKbs69BM?si=H0Fc9Kq5XRq2-4Cr

Apparently that video evidence there is fake no one's ever thought to spray paint the camera - if you could tell it's a camera.

It's almost as if and heavy sarcasm here humans know how cameras work. 🤣🤣🤣

Can you find the TV trope of infiltrator or burglar sees camera and shoots it or spray paints over it.... 🤣

load more comments (4 replies)