Hacker News Reader

Comment by pc86 | Hacker News Reader

In the US you don't have any expectation of privacy in public (or at least severely limited) and the courts have upheld again and again that recording public areas, even from a private area, is completely find. Some jurisdictions require notification or consent for audio recording, but not all.

View on HN

I find it really unfortunate that the US is so blatantly disregarding data privacy. In a world of eroding freedom, lack of data privacy can become a severe safety risk. The return of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the reversal of Roe v. Wade and Russia's recent moves give me an idea of dynamics that can turn dark quickly.

RvW is an interesting point here - I routinely saw people camped out recording every entry point of a Planned Parenthood for example, including separate cameras pointed lower to capture licence plates. I'm assuming they later post these online or run some kind of ALPR on it for harassment.

Yup, and the same people are outraged that people are posting home address details of Supreme Court Justices. The same court that ruled it was legal to post the home address of obstetricians so people could protest in front of their homes.

People and companies in US don't know what 'privacy' means. All software companies (maybe except Apple), car companies (especially Tesla), telecoms, etc. just collect huge amounts of customer data not giving a damn about consent.

> In the US you don't have any expectation of privacy in public

It's not clear that "on your property" counts as "in public" in all cases.

Front yard, visible from the street, probably "public" in most jurisdictions. Backyard, or somewhere shielded from view without entering yours or someone else's private property? I would argue that is "private" space that should be protected but it would probably come down to the specific circumstances to be certain.

This is the operational definition I'm working from.

But do you enjoy that people in the US don't have this expectation of privacy? Do you believe those laws could change?

Who would want to live next to someone after a lawsuit between you? This is a neighbor-relations issue first and foremost.

Sounds like relations between these two neighbors is already pretty bad -- the guy crosses the street to walk on the other side? Because he was asked not to point his security camera at someone else's property? Some people are just... children.

Wait til you see two neighbors arguing about property lines.

At least that I can understand. It has implications on right of way, usage, easements, property values, etc. without even getting into issues of adverse possession (which combined with property value issues can become real trouble).

The line between "please don't point your camera onto my property" - something I would respect as a courtesy regardless of the law - and "I'm going to cross the street not to interact with this person" goes straight through mental illness in my opinion. Normal, stable people do not behave that way.

A lot of "Normal" people are not stable. People are petty, vindictive and childish, to think anything else is just flying in the face of evidence.

My front door is not a 'public area', not really

You don't have a legal expectation of privacy anywhere visible from public property, including even the inside of your house viewable from a public easement/street.

Because of this, it's legal for someone to point a camera right inside your window or front door. It's also illegal (public indecency) for you to be naked in your own window or open door.

If I set up a telescope to look inside your window most people would call that an invasion of privacy, even if the telescope was set up on public property. Having a high resolution digital camera where images can be zoomed and a very sensitive microphone that can pick up conversations is similar, in my opinion.

in my neck of the woods if your far enough away that someone has to use binoculars or some other artficial means, even eyeglasses, they are breaking the law. you, the one being observed are not at fault.

"naked in your own window or open door. "

That's legal in Canada, or at least the police won't arrest you if you do it in your apartment across from a school.

Mine is; amazon drivers take a snapshot every time they deliver a package (I guess this is proof it's been delivered?). Many people can easily walk up to it, unimpeded. Hell, neighborhood kids run onto my front yard and sit in my trees (get off my lawn!!!). It meets every necessary definition of "public", while still being property that belongs to you.

A US law is shaped by what we think is

1) acceptable behavior

2) enforceable, practically

I think video recording laws are largely influenced by 2).

I can angle my Ring camera to my smoking hot neighbor so I can record her doing yardwork. Creepy AF (breaks rule 1) but at what angle is it not obviously deliberate? Turned 10 degrees toward her lawn? 30?

Point being, I think US recording laws are too liberal but we need a defineable limit for privacy.

Maybe photon distance? Capturing photons traveling further than 30m into the aperture is invasive? (half kidding)

A physical mask that blocks the view to the hot neighbour, but not to your areas of interest would give them some reassurance.

What about the satellites mimicking God watching over everyone?

I am not really fine with with them, but that's another can of worms.

Ok, but what if I am trying to monitor my driveway where I park my vehicle but the hot neighbor's flowers are in the same line of sight just beyond my parking space? It's not always feasible to block a portion of the view without blocking the entire reason for having the camera in the first place.

I think a German court would ask in such cases which has more weight: a) your interest in security, or b) your neighbour's interest in privacy. I think the default is b), but there are cases where a) has more weight, for example if your house was already broken into and you can reasonably explain why this exact angle is crucial for your security. Just catching some flowers in the picture does not make a strong case for b).

From the street photography articles I've read; if you can see it from a public space then its fair game, which I think is reasonable. But in your scenario the camera is on your private home, so most people would expect reasonable privacy from being recorded.

Yes, if it's in public it's fair game thanks to the 1st amendment.

The nextdoor homeowner probably has a right to setup a tripod, a laser pointer (or a similar bright spot light) and point it directly at the neighbor's Ring camera iris.

i would ask my nieghbour if they care about it or not, perhaps make a guest feed if they are agreeable to mutual camera coverage, let them have some opportunity to see what is on camera and where it points

> I can angle my Ring camera to my smoking hot neighbor so I can record her doing yardwork

Probably too late to add that this was a hypothetical, but I'm glad the voting on this indicates how much we despise what's legally allowed.

Police capture a tremendous amount of data using this theory. But citizens don't have access to that data because it's considered confidential.

this post reads luke a paradox

This is not true; rules vary state to state. In Massachusetts, for example, you cannot "secretly" record others, in public or private.

Putting out the yard sign or one of the stickers that comes with the Ring camera solves the "secrecy" issue.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com