Hacker News Reader

Comment by pwinnski | Hacker News Reader

The privacy of whom?

Google seems to favoring the privacy of those who might be recorded by the camera. The owners of the cameras object. I'm not entirely sure why: do they expect privacy while recording others?

View on HN

You really aren't using your imagination if you can't figure out potential uses for a hidden nanny cam.

What if I want to see:

* If my cleaning person is stealing?

* If my cleaning person is using the right chemicals on my stove?

* If the nanny is shaking the baby?

* If my husband is having an affair?

* If my teenager is doing drugs?

* Which sibling actually started it / threw the first punch?

Those are just off the top of my head, I'm not even being creative.

> What if I want to see: If my cleaning person is stealing?*

Use your camera. The status light doesn’t disable its ability to record and transmit video. You want to record these people without their knowledge. That is just wrong.

More fundamentally, change the people you interact with or your relationships with them.

> That is just wrong.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "wrong"?

For instance, it's perfectly legal to record inside your house - visibly or not - provided it's not in an area or place where the user would expect privacy (usually meaning a bathroom or similar place - but could be extended to bedrooms depending on consent and other reasons).

It might be considered unethical, perhaps even immoral, depending on the reasoning or ulimate purpose for those recordings. But legally there isn't anything wrong about it.

Note: This all depends on your local or other laws of course...

Unless you're hiring, marrying, and raising the dumbest people around, they're probably smart enough to not perform those activities in front of a video camera in any case.

Security cameras don't usually have indicator lights, so the safe assumption is always that the camera is recording.

Security cameras also don't always look like security cameras...but most (especially Nest devices) do. However, if I was trying to find out some kind of nefarious activity within my home, I wouldn't put up an obvious security camera, unless it was to redirect the potential perp toward somewhere that has the actual camera - hidden as a book, or something similar - ideally, it fits right in with its environment, and doesn't look at all out of placce...

Are you filming a reality show that depends on catching a cleaning person stealing, using the wrong chemicals, etc?

Or is the point to ensure your cleaning person is not stealing, using the wrong chemicals, etc?

The lights boost the purpose of deterrence, while making it harder to unethically record people. That's the point.

I would never have a Google-made camera in my house, and I really dislike defending them, but people who want a hidden cam need to hit up the nearest spy shop. Nest cams are for security, not "gotchas," and the always-on light serves security well.

Most people live with others in the same home, and more than one person can "own" a camera. Sometimes when no one else is home, privacy is expected of an otherwise shared space. I imagine in those circumstances, it can be comforting to know that the camera is actually off when you want it to be.

Which to me is saying that a burglar's right to know he's being recorded outweighs the property owner's right to catch burglars.

I don't really think the former should ever outweigh the latter.

I think that has to be it. I'm really surprised that people are objecting to having a "camera active" light.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com