Depending on where you live, your neighbors recording audio may be illegal and you should confront them about it https://www.southerncaliforniadefenseblog.com/2018/04/do-rin...
Either way, it's not a well written post. I'd shred it here but the comments below it already cover what I would have said.
Edit: Parent comment edited such that this makes no sense now
> Because the state offered credible testimony — specifically believed by the trial court — that third parties had unfettered access to the basement of this four-unit building, the defendant did not have a subjective expectation of privacy
GP suggested this wouldn’t be allowed in the hallway of an access-controlled building and precedent suggests that’s accurate. The key is whether a random person could wander into the area without encountering something analogous to a locked door.
If the door to the apartment block wasn’t locked (i.e. Joe Public could wander in and right up to your door), however, then when in the hallway a person would have no more expectation of privacy than when in the street.
These ring devices are also installed outside of the US. The law is entirely different in other countries. A statement as "no reasonable expectation of privacy": why not? Just because people could record and film you doesn't mean it's allowed or that it's ok.
For Netherlands: You cannot just have a camera recording the public. Though there's a bit of leeway, meaning if you have a camera recording your property it's logical that it'll record a bit of the road. You just have to minimize that bit. Interestingly enough, police actually encourages the installation of Ring camera's (so specifically Ring over anything else). It seems you can install these if it's just in front of your door and property. However, if they're on a flat (where neighbours need to walk by your door to get to your door), then you cannot have these.
In the US, it is allowed and is OK, though. Legally, you do not have a right to privacy if you are in a public location as a hallway in an apartment building would be considered. Whether or not it is a nice or considerate behavior is moot when it comes to the law.
Edit: it seems findings have gone both ways in the US for expectation of privacy in apartment buildings: https://illinoislawreview.org/print/vol-2018-no-3/fourth-ame...
The statement probably is entirely reasonable if you're born in the US (as you're used to it). Other countries have other expectations of what's reasonable and normal.
The often repeated "no reasonable expectation of privacy" in a public place to me is entirely odd. It's also something that could change (whether such a change/perception is in e.g. NL or in the US).
Technology makes things possible that weren't possible before at all. Meaning, you can store camera recordings for a ridiculously long time. From my buildings security (again: NL) I understood that legally they cannot store such recordings over 28 days. Above that things become difficult (possible but quite a hassle).
In the past people could see what you're doing in a public space. But nowadays you can easily be recorded and that recording could be stored forever. That was never the case before. As a result, things such as "no reasonable expectation of privacy" should change with the changed circumstances, IMO.
Hence people are using the term in a specific legal way, rather than saying "I don't think it is reasonable to expect privacy here", they are saying "I think legal precedent would make a judge rule there is no 'reasonable expectation of privacy' here".
Generally much of the US protections for photography of the public reach pretty far, nice legal outline here http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
I found this fun guide I think others would enjoy while I was looking up this topic: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_...
Sadly I don't find much on NL would be cool to build a chart to contrast and compare laws in each nation as they pertain to video/photo/audio recording in public.
This is simply not at all true. You can film anything you want in public. I believe the laws around publishing photographs or films of other people is a bit more complex though.
First Google result: https://www.politie.nl/themas/camera-in-beeld.html?sid=42aaf...
This is different from occasionally using a handheld camera.
Because one is surveillance that is meaningfully different from what you could do just by watching someone, and the other is not (this is my argument, not sure whether this is the legal argument in NL)
You could read this as something else, but IMO it was pretty obvious what I was referring to. And for static cameras I'm entirely correct. For other cameras there's been various new restrictions for them as well.
Your summary of "cannot film public scenes or the people who happen to be in them is simple false" for one distorts what I wrote, secondly, if you do this with a static camera, you will have a problem and your statement is _not_ true. Friends had a "crazy lady" with cameras pointing at public space. It took a while, but eventually the cameras were removed. Something similar you can find via Google, plus (work) building security mentions the same.
Then again, after the Brussels terrorist attacks, the police managed to reconstruct the path of a terrorist pretty well by puzzling together all kinds of recordings, so my impression is enforcement is lax as long as nobody complains.
In the US, perhaps. My office in Brussels can't aim a camera at the public road, for example.
The linked article is nothing but SEO spam designed as lead gen for a law firm. A lawyer certainly didn’t write that.