Our vacation rental had surveillance cameras. The landlord used them a lot
sfgate.com
sfgate.com
It takes one bad guest for your neighbors to be against you.
I have exterior cameras (3, recording all exterior entry points) - and noise detection devices. I quickly check the cameras at check-in and then once or twice during each day of stay. Goal is to make sure the number of people matches the reserved guest count and no parties are occurring. I don't allow guests to bring any outside visitors. I have a very strict limit on 6 people max. My house rules can't be any more clear on this - and I've still encountered a few guests that have broken the rules. They risked their stay being terminated without refund.
I charge $725/night for 6 guests - I haven't had any complaints about the cameras. 60+ reviews, 5.0 stars, been doing this for a little over a year. I am super upfront about cameras in the house rules and house manual. If I did not have the cameras, and some of the rule violations I've had, I'm not sure I'd be able to keep hosting (my county requires a special exception). It's tough out there for Airbnb hosts to be good neighbors.
Also, fun fact, Airbnb does NOT protect you from damage causes by pets.
> Then he started going on about there being a poop on his property
Really irks me how the author dismisses the landlord's complaint about the dog shitting on his property in this sentence. The landlord has a no pets policy, why should he have to clean up after your friends dog?
The last Airbnb I rented had a "mystery pooper" - gigantic dog poops in the yard every morning. Turns out a neighbor's hound had the run of the area and liked to poop there. I only know it because I heard it outside one night and got the exterior light flipped on just in time. I sure wasn't picking them up - not my dog, not mine to clean up.
It's possible that it might be a priori impossible.
No. If you think the author "admitted" breaking the rules, then we don't agree on how to be a reasonable person while renting someone your property. I don't think anything was in "let it slide" territory. It was in "give benefit of the doubt" territory. It seems pretty clear to me that if what the article said is true, then the author did not in fact break any rules, as others have said to you.
I disagree both that the author "brought a dog to the property" and that a reasonable person wouldn't invite a guest with a dog for a few hours.
> What about "no pets" says you can bring a dog, but just for a small amount of time?
Human reasonableness. Just like like listing says a place can house a specific number of people, it doesn't mean you can't invite more than that number temporarily. The people/animals staying for the night is completely different than guests. That's why.
We just have a fundamental difference of opinion here :) My own rules explicitly state that I do not allow visitors onto my property (exceptions for service professionals). I also send a reminder to guests within the 48 hour cancellation window on the "no additional guests / no visitors" rule. Insurance doesn't cover them (neither Airbnb nor my STR policy). I have no issues keeping my place booked, and 99% of the guests follow the rules.
Sounds extremely restrictive compared to hotels or short term rentals.
That's harsh. Reality is, I have no issues keeping my place booked. I've maintained a perfect 5.0 / Superhost status so far on Airbnb - and I generally have no issues with guests following house rules.
> reminding someone a couple days before their arrival
I said I remind them within their free, 48-hour cancellation window. They get a reminder right after they book - allowing them to cancel without penalty if they disagree.
>e pretty pissed off if some airbnb listing hid "no guests"
Uh, yeah, I'd be pissed too. It's a good thing I don't hide it. Where did I say I hide it? I said it is in my house rules - which Airbnb presents to the guest before booking. I then send an automated reply, immediate after booking, so that there is no ambiguity.
There are a ton of properties where I live doing short term rentals.
It prevents folks who want to live here full time from buying and it drives up longer-term rental rates.
I guess you got yours so good for you.
A lot of us have no sympathy when yall have problems, though.
I'm having trouble imaging why you wouldn't be able to. Worst case scenario you need to head to home depot and get a ladder/drill or whatever, but that's about it.
“Sorry, I have no control over it” he says, “it’s required by law”
The instructions for getting settled in the house were first how to disable the electric fence then how to unplug the surveillance system during the stay, and obviously how to reenable them all on checkout.
This is how it should be done.
I am utterly infuriated by the attitude that breaking rules is okay. It's all the more galling that our society rewards some rule breakers. When I'm feeling particularly petulant I can sort of understand how one would feel an attraction toward authoritarianism and totalitarianism.
From a realpolitik perspective renting your house to strangers is dumb simply because a significant quantity of strangers are rule-ignoring dicks.
Edit: I am aware service animals cannot be prohibited. Service animals are not pets.
Things are not black and white and wishing for a world where they are black and white does no one any good. We're all better off accepting the complicated nuances of the world and acting accordingly.
Some countries have mandatory military service. I wish the United States had mandatory labor in a public-facing position-- retail, hospitality, etc. I think it would go a long way to making people feel less entitled to break rules or conjure nuance where very little exists.
The simple fact is...when you start accepting money to allow others to use your stuff, things out of your control are going to happen. Of course, I'm not excusing these "certain type of people" you are discussing (I think most of us call those people "assholes"), but as they say...shit happens.
I worked with the public in a variety of retail and volunteer capacities over the years. I watched my family's property get destroyed as part of our small business and just accepted it as a cost of doing business. Americans, at least, mostly treat their own property poorly and are really awful to others' property. They also, by and large, can't follow basic instructions or simple rules-- especially if the rules present an inconvenience to them.
If you have a severe allergy to animals, you shouldn't be renting your home to random strangers.
Having worked with the public in a variety of retail and volunteer capacities over the years I would agree, and expand, to say that short term rentals of your home to strangers is always a bad idea. People are, for the most part, poor stewards of anything that doesn't belong to them, and terrible at following rules.
My parents had a beach home rental for years. It was a gigantic pain in the butt. Tenants would break furniture, steal things, and generally treat the house poorly (with zero recourse, as the the house was 5 hours from primary residence and "managed" by a rental agency). Only "upside" was this was priced into the fees. I don't think I would ever do short-term rentals to a remote house - too much risk, too much work.
If you’re renting a house people will expect to use it like one, no matter how many rules are trying to make it into some more restricted experience.
Because "No pets" means "do not bring a pet". If you want it to mean something else, you need to be more clear.
> When I'm feeling particularly petulant I can sort of understand how one would feel an attraction toward authoritarianism and totalitarianism.
Huh.
https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/1869/assistance-animals
https://help.vrbo.com/articles/What-is-HomeAway-s-service-an...
The author stated before that there were no dogs on the property but was forced to admit that there was indeed a dog. It is therefore plausible he is also taking liberties at his other statements
If the renter had video cameras in the house, and the only image he could find of the dog was sitting on the porch, it probably wasn't because the owner didn't bother looking.
> The author stated before that there were no dogs on the property but was forced to admit that there was indeed a dog.
The author didn't have a dog. Someone brought a dog, and they stayed on the porch. The owner believes they caught the renter in a gotcha, but they didn't.
[a] Take a look at the size of the lens on the back of your mobile phone. That's how small high-quality cameras already are today.
But, a hardwired camera with no active illumination, behind an opaque sheet of IR transparent plastic (basically the kind of plastic on many modern electronics) would be incredibly hard to detect (without tearing everything apart).
There are certainly devices that can detect localised electric fields, wireless transmissions or make it relatively easy to spot shiny surfaces (such as camera lenses).
…but, and I say this with absolute confidence; there is no device that exists that can detect if you are being observed or not.
So, to some degree, it may be possible to find common wireless cameras, and if you’re some DIY house owner installing their SPY PRO secret camera from Amazon for $50, you can probably find it.
…but, the point the parent comment is making is that there are, and, increasingly will be, cameras you won’t be able to detect.
You’re best off to operate under the assumption you are being filmed when you hire a house, and, increasingly, just when you go around your daily life.
Was it worth installing the CCTV?
Or entertain them.
Can you give me just about one example besides some creep who spied on his guests?
I don't think that cameras in hotel rooms are in any way city dependent.
I specifically excluded the creepy owner or manager who spies on guests.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitive_compartmented_inform...
Not saying you should run spycams, but always practice good network security.
Next time I'm in an airbnb I'm definitely nmap'ing and trying this out. ;)
There are certainly cameras in hotel public areas where no one has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Right and the article clearly states that all the cameras they had trouble with were outside in public areas. I don't think I've ever been in an airbnb that had cameras inside the house.
Same for swimming pool or lawn maintenance. The person renting would be the first to demand a refund if the swimming pool has a strange color/odor or if the garbage is overflowing. The property manager can do a daily video check and ask for pool maintenance person to do a check if the water doesn't look good.
Finally, many vacation homes have their own dedicated water systems. Its perfectly possible that the water source can only cater to 6 adult, or that the septic system can dispose for only a max number of people. If the renter comes with a big group, then there will be no water, or the septic system will overflow and clog. Again, in those cases, the group renting will be the first to complain and ask for refunds. So it is important to check via a camera the number of guests coming and making sure it is below the max number of people that the property can accomodate.
Cameras achieve a similar result at a low cost to the landlord, but at the cost of the privacy of the people renting the home – I certainly wouldn't want cameras pointed at the swimming pool!
The first thing to point out is these are not mutually exclusive, I think both parties have broken some moral boundaries.
More importantly though, if we accept that this guest´s bad behaviour justifies the use of a camera to detect it, does it also justify the owner (presumably) spying on every guest? Even those who don´t break any rule at all? Do we consider that okay - the ends justify the means, the owner has the right to monitor for house rule violations? If so, where´s the difference between this and being spied on by Facebook or other communication platform? You rent your "online presence" from them, pay them by having ads shown, a contract like any other. Why then shouldn´t they spy on you to monitor for breaking any arbitrary rules?
I wonder if that domestic exemption still applies once the property is rented out to someone? I hope not.
And as will all laws, if a landlord feels they can't comply with the laws on data privacy, CCTV and so on – then they should close their business.
[1] https://www.dataprotection.ie/en/dpc-guidance/blogs/domestic...
You also need to check for cameras yourself, and there are articles on how to do that. You should also ask the landlord point-blank "Are there any cameras in here?" in case he just "remembers" some that he "forgot" to put in the disclosure. Human nature: many people are less willing to lie to you directly.
Although the NSA could be monitoring and blackmailing the American political leadership…
Obviously it doesn't apply here specifically, but there's a reason evidence obtained illegally can't be used to prosecute criminals. If we accept that two wrongs make a right then everyone is just worse off.
>Obviously it doesn't apply here specifically
Cameras in the lobby, the hallways and the elevators, sure. But in a hotel room?
That's a great way to kill your business in no time.
https://www.alternativetravelers.com/airbnb-effect/
https://www.epi.org/publication/the-economic-costs-and-benef...
I think if they do it, at least in Europe, the need clear signage that the room is under CCTV surveillance and I do think that this is a legal requirement in most European countries and even the extremely camera happy UK.
I think I'd bolt might fast if I find such signage in my room. If they put up cameras without indicating it that would be sure as hell illegal.
I think like a hotel - these cameras were at the lobby, the hallway, the elevators, and the outdoors. Nothing was viewing the personal space.