Hacker News Reader

> It’s reasonable to push the burden of procuring that consent onto whoever controls entry to the space, with terms like this.

I don’t agree. I think if consent can’t be obtained, the only reasonable action here is to not collect the information.

The comparison to a zoom meeting is not 100% because if you’re walking past such a camera, you’re pretty likely to notice it and have the option to not step into view or obscure your face.

View on HN

I think the legal argument would be that the owner of the recording device (in this case the TV) was informed and therefore responsible for informing others.

The question I think would centre on two things: is burying the information in a ToS acceptable for “informing” and is the amount of data collection proportionate for providing the service. I think the answers to both those is no.

Yes, that is probably their reasoning.

I agree with your framing of the two problems, but I’d add a third: It is a large mistake to assume that the person installing the TV (thus agreeing to the ToS) is going to be present whenever it is being used around new people. It just assumes too much about the way people organize their lives, homes, purchases.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com