Time was, if a neighbour insisted on daily filming a family entering and leaving their own home, they would have been given a smack in the mouth for being a nosy bastard.
Quite how recording your neighbours has become socially acceptable I will never understand.
I refuse to have cloud connected cameras, but I understand why my neighbors have made the choices they have.
I'm cynical, but I imagine it goes like this:
"Hello, this is 911, how can we help you?"
"I'd like to report a 39.99 board game stolen off my porch, license plate ZXX-1234"
"Sir, this line is for emergencies. Have you filed a claim with Amazon?"
Porch cameras drive mass paranoia. If you're not prepared to act on the information yourself, you're just feeding your own fear.
The police took the report, but obviously they weren't interested in coming out to take the details of the thief or help me recover the package.
The doorbells also notify you of packages that have been left outside and let you answer the door remotely, which are both useful even if you can't go Blade Runner.
Our package got nabbed, a person noticed the empty box tossed on a nearby street and called the cops. Cops got video from a near by house an image of a unique car; month later they saw the car, arrested him.
He paid for the package and got community service.
I wonder if a remotely openable porch-side "mail box" would find a market.
Usually they give you the choice of what to do.
Though having said that, I live in the UK and do occasionally just get parcels left on my very public doorstep. It's the exception though.
Of course, Rings are essentially worthless for vehicle identification. You would need LPC (License Plate Capture) cameras set up in two directions just for that. They aren't even particularly good for facial identification.
Really, if you wanted something actionable, you would do what I had seen someone else done, which was capture plates and have the right cameras and ... as the secret sauce, an IMEI catcher, filtering out the usuals and highlighting who just blasted past.
If it is one of the Kia Boys around here, they just get out and re-offend.
The problem becomes when a corporation begins filming most neighborhoods and then handing it over to the cops w/o a warrant.
As for the smacking of mouths, I'm glad certain norms have changed.
It isnt - I consider it a blank cheque for 100k whenever I want to cash it.
In most U.S. jurisdictions, including WA (which has some of the more stringent law regulating recording), if you’re stood on their property or even on the street, surveillance of you is legal. About the only obligation you may have is to post signage.
Recording audio conversations is a bit trickier. In WA, they have RCW 9.73.110 [1] which does make provision for any cameras “within [the] building” recording audio — it’s therefore generally best for exterior cameras to *not* record audio given WA is a two-party consent state (with a few exceptions).
Edit: Looks like the person making this ESP32-based solution is in Ireland, which has its own peculiarities but with a bit of effort, it seems like you’d have no issues there either [2].
[1] https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73.110
[2] https://smartzone.ie/are-home-cctv-systems-legal-in-ireland-...
UK: https://www.brettwilson.co.uk/blog/neighbour-cctv-harassment...
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Fairhurs...
Previously - Scotland: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=854e9b90-2dab...
Daily Mail on the issue: Could EVERY doorbell camera owner face £100,000 fine after landmark ruling? How inadvertently filming neighbours and storing footage breaches their privacy under new data protection laws https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10087671/EVERY-Ring...
Depending on the specific circumstances, the domestic use of CCTV could be challenged if its use amounted to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
Some of the analysis away from the front pages has been interesting [1] though:
“During the hearing, some of the main issues under investigation related to:
the field and depth of view of each camera, in particular whether they couldn't ‘see’ Dr Fairhurst or her visitors entering and leaving her property, her car, or the car park;
the sensitivity of their microphones;
the extent to which the devices activated themselves automatically, or were triggered, to capture, transmit or record video images and/or associated audio from the field of view;
whether Mr Woodard consulted neighbours sufficiently before installation or provided adequate notices or warnings after installation of the equipment; and
how and for what purpose Mr Woodard stored and processed the data produced by his devices.”
It looks like neighbor tried to solve this without a court case and he was perhaps not receptive to that approach.
[1] https://www.traverssmith.com/knowledge/knowledge-container/f...
This is exactly why I mostly like privacy laws but think they go slightly too far.
I'm starting to think it's all a giant "bullshit" test to see how far they can push people's obedience. Or they end up conveniently filtering out the people they don't act obedient to the level of filter they've set with their stupid laws and non-enforcement of existing ones like theft.
It's not like people want to put up telescope cams into your bathroom, I think most people would be very against that.
Meanwhile they try to take encryption and anonymity tech away from citizens, in those same exact places.