408
Aldi just launched its own £16.99 rival to Ring's battery video doorbell – and it's completely subscription-free | TechRadar (www.techradar.com)
submitted 10 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
121 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/37808020

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 10 months ago (1 child)

Your link completely refutes what you're saying lol

The legality of video recording hinges on the concept of a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” You are permitted to record video of your own property and public spaces visible from your property, such as sidewalks and the street in front of your house.

Maybe try reading it next time "compliance expert"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    That only applies if you aren’t recording audio as well.

    The article is just a general overview of specifically Ring cameras and not specific to any one state or other recording devices. In my state for instance it is also illegal to be able to see license plates from personally owned security cameras, though we have Flock cameras here so yeah…

    Why do so many people on Lemmy just really need a “gotcha”?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    That only applies if you aren’t recording audio as well.

    Reasonable expectation of privacy applies to video recording, audio recording, and still photography. You can be in a public space having a private conversation if you can reasonably expect no one would be able to hear it, but you can't have a conversation in front of a plainly visible surveillance camera and then claim you were being eavesdropped on. You don't even truly need to "consent" to being recorded, you just have to have knowledge that it is happening.

    That's also not what you said, your original comment was "it’s not legal to have a video camera pointed at the street".

    In my state for instance it is also illegal to be able to see license plates from personally owned security cameras

    I'd love to see a law on the books anywhere that says this. License plates do not have more rights than people. By "compliance expert" did you actually mean that you're a cop? Usually cops are the ones going around spreading legal misinformation like this.

    Why do so many people on Lemmy just really need a “gotcha”?

    You were so confident that you were correct that you brazenly posted something that contradicted your misinformation without reading it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 10 months ago*

    I meant that the article was talking about non audio cameras. What you are saying specifically depends on if you are in a single party state or not and what your state laws are.

    What I said was it isn’t enforced but if somebody wanted to pursue you legally they could.

    People in this thread would clearly be surprised about the things that are in the legal books. In the town I grew up in it was illegal to drive a car on a paved road. But that law was written at a time when horses were still more common than cars. Likewise the license plate law in my state was written long before cameras had the resolution to do that from a porch without a large zoom lens and was specifically written to prevent people putting security cameras on mailboxes and other places close to the street. This has created a legal gray area for ring cameras which is pretty much what the article and I in my original post was saying; It’s illegal but not enforced though if somebody wanted to pursue it they could.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent