418
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2023
418 points (98.4% liked)
News
23305 readers
5038 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Completely missing the point. It was very clearly being advertised to be used in this way, and it was approved by amazon. It would only be comparable if gun manufacturers were advertising "a drug dealer will never notice you're carrying it" or something similar.
It's not illegal to put a hidden camera in your bathroom, though.
Just like it's not illegal to take a gun to the shooting range.
No, it wouldn't. Guns are for shooting just like this camera is for recording. What you shoot and record is what makes their usage illegal.
Missing the point. They are arguing that this was being advertised for illegal use, and thus they are responsible. The other poster was drawing a comparison by implying that gun manufacturers should be held responsible for when guns are used for illegal purposes. I'm pointing out that it would only be comparable if they were being advertised, even if just clearly implicitly, for illegal use.
How are these being advertised for illegal use? There's nothing illegal about setting up hidden cameras on your property.
Does the product page specifically state that it's for use on property that isn't yours without permission?
But there is something illegal about filming people in the bathroom on your property without their consent.
Can you cite where you're getting this information from?
Before I do this. . .are you saying you think it might be legal to film someone without their consent when they are using your bathroom?
No, I'm asking for a source for your information.
That's why I asked if you can cite where you're getting your information from.
So you realize it's illegal, but also need me to cite that it's illegal?
The reason I'm hesitant is that it's a complicated question that is going to be different based on jurisdiction. IANAL, but do have an interest in interpreting law. However, I certainly have zero experience with Brazilian law. So this could turn into a wild-goose chase of me learning Brazilian law for no reason. . .when we both realize that filming someone in your bathroom without their consent is illegal.
Well, you just said "it’s a complicated question that is going to be different based on jurisdiction."
If it's not illegal in the jurisdictions this product is being sold, then your 'it's illegal' argument holds no water. Hence why I asked you to cite where you're getting your information.
Yes, it's complicated because I would have to answer the question multiple different ways. Like 2 party consent states are going to be different than 1 party consent states. And every state is going to be slightly different, with Brazil also being different.
But it seems like we agree: it's illegal to film someone in your bathroom without their consent. So why the busy-work exercise?
Under what jurisdiction? You seem to be ignoring this very important fact.
Just admit you don't know whether it's illegal instead of pretending you do.
Or, you can cite where you're getting your information like you should have done from the very beginning.
Seems like you're taking the busy-work route, lol.
Holy shit, are you talking about this case? It's literally in the very first line of the article. I figured that was just a given. Lol my bad for giving you any credit.
Sorry, you changed your initial stance to 'without consent.' That's a very important distinction to make, because having a hidden camera in your bathroom is not in itself illegal.
Unless you can cite something otherwise.
This is exactly why most retailers aren't responsible for their products being used in an illegal manner.
I suggest you re-read the beginning of this comment chain to get a better idea of what we're talking about.
My very first question to you:
And you are saying I now "changed your initial stance to ‘without consent.’"
lol. Classic. How about you just admit you're wrong?
For example, Michigan law (MCL 750.539(a) and MCL 750.539(d)) makes it unlawful to “install, place, or use in any private place, without the consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy in that place, any device for observing, recording, transmitting, photographing, or eavesdropping upon the sounds or events in that place.”
Most states have similar laws.
From a video camera manufacturer: https://reolink.com/blog/is-security-camera-in-bathrooms-legal/
In most jurisdictions, it is illegal to install video cameras in bathrooms without explicit consent. Bathrooms are considered private spaces where individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
According to the laws passed by some of the states in the U.S. like Alabama, California and Massachusetts, it is unlawful to put video cameras in bathrooms and other private places where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
These locations include but are not limited to:
You do realize just cause it’s called a “towel hook”doesn’t mean it only holds towels, right? Also - towels aren’t exclusively hung in bathrooms.
Yes, I understand that. What that has to do with my point is beyond me, however.
I’m pointing out there are legitimate places for a towel hook with hidden camera to be located. Something used for illegal activity is on the onus of the person performing the illegal act, not the manufacturer or distributor of the tool.
If something is only used for illegal activity, then I agree Amazon would have culpability.
No one is blaming the hammer manufacturer or Home Depot for selling a hammer to the guy who attacked Pelosi’s husband. You blame the moron for being a trash human. Same is true here - there are legitimate uses of a towel hook camera. Placing one in the bathroom is not one of them, and the person who placed it there is the only person at fault.
Again, missing the point. Go back and read my first post.