I’m not much on arguing from legal standpoints, but I think with something like this there is an added effect of the law. If you think something is illegal, I think you’re even less likely to guess someone might be doing it secretly.
Though having typed that out, it makes me think that maybe having something be illegal would be the first clue that someone must’ve been doing it in the first place.
Hmm.
The collective consciousness of society 50 years ago sent homosexuals to prison, so forgive me for not being especially impressed by society’s standards of conduct.
Der Trihs has absolutly no issue with him offering death to the religious, the right wing, and any member of our military forces. He has actively applauded those who set IED’s and those who kill children in an effort to kill a US Seviceman or woman.
He has personally called myself and my brother (a serving US Army member currently in Afghanistan, and in Iraq at the time) liars for providing anecdotal evidence to counter his insane viewpoints.
Because of this, and his absolute un-hesitating willingness to spew such vile viewpoints at the drop of a hat, he has gotten some heat, though most of us ignore him at this point. You can’t argue with someone with no rationality in their viewpoint.
It makes me feel warm and fuzzy for his viewpoints to be seen by others. It’s important to the discourse in general, and society as a whole, for those who are as sick and dangerous as him to be widely known for what they are.
What absolutely baffles me is that he does it with the* full and complete support* of the SDMB staff. When you look at what some folks have been warned for under the “don’t be a jerk rule” you really have to wonder what the fuck they have been smoking.
No it really does. First off there is absolutely NO expectation of privacy in a private residence. You are subject to the whims of the owner provided they do not illegally detain you. If you don’t like it you are free to leave. As far as I know I’m under no obligation to tell you that I have a security system any more than I am to tell you I cook with peanuts. If you car concerned it is YOUR responsibility to ask. Secondly, you and everyone arguing the opposite side likes to couch this in terms of legality or criminal behaviour. If you actually read the OP in the thread being pitted, they make quite certain to mention that the footage is collected from security cameras, not something set up specially for this purpose. Further, unlike creeps who film upskirt videos, the footage is NEVER seen by ANYONE, EVER, unless the homeowner was to be accused of a crime. In this case, nobody is enjoying or profiting from the footage. There isn’t a crime because there is no benefit to the collector of the footage (electronic archive). So I’ll say it again, logically show me HOW someone can be violated, yet be totally unaware of the violation where the act itself has no consequence on any human anywhere with the exception of a particular, extremely unlikely scenario.
Do you have a cite for that? I’m pretty sure that the law would not look kindly upon a homeowner who had peepholes installed in the walls of his guest bathroom, for example.
First of all, I never said private residence. I said"bedroom." And people certainly have an a reasonable expectation therein.
You’re philosophy is wonderfully ignorant of the principles discussed. Security cameras that happen to be focused on the owners bed and capture the mating practices of the homeowner, purely for protection of course, are as transparent as glass. I have a strong feeling a jury would laugh that one right into “guilty as charged” category.
The crime as well as the moral violation is complete when the recording is done. Regardless, there now exists a recording that exists without the consent of a participant. The fact that the victim doesn’t know is immaterial. The fact that no one sees it may prevent it from ever being used as evidence, however, it doesn’t change the fact that some dimwit thinks he needs to violate the privacy of a woman to protect himself, and violates a moral and legal standard in so doing.
A friend of my boyfriend’s family was involved in a huge scandal in Northern California when it was found that the grandfather had installed hidden cameras in his home and videotaped people in the shower and having sex without their consent. I can’t remember if he went to prison or just was fined so much that he went bankrupt, but he was legally punished for it.
You can film people without their consent in public. You cannot film people taking showers, having sex, or engaging in private acts without consent even in your own home.
It’s not only creepy, it’s illegal.
Being online alot =! not having any friends.
And yes, I live at home and I’m currently unemployed. Come back when you have something new.
I don’t assume that because people disagree with me on politics, religion, ethics, whatever, that they’re out to get me, or put me in a concentration camp (which I believe Der Trihs recently said).
Cursory research turns up this:
Outside of the thirteen mentioned states you may place security cameras in any portion of your home. The reasonable expectation to privacy is not defined and will vary from case to case. For example, a cam that merely records the bedroom in full would be acceptable, while one that is focused on the bed to the exclusion of the rest of the room probably would not. Likewise, most states would agree that placing one in the bathroom would be a violation of an expectation of privacy if there were not circumstances making it prudent to do so. (like having someone handicapped in the home or perhaps focused only on the medicine cabinet.) It also makes a difference on who collects the footage, and who else lives in the home. However for a claim against privacy to be valid, the accuser has to demonstrate intent on the part of the collector to deliberately record compromising footage for some reason. So for example, if the camera was aimed at the bed and nothing else, it would be obvious that the collector was trying to record amorous activities. A cam that simply catches the whole room would be more difficult to address.
Something doesn’t have to cause harm to be wrong. If every day at lunch I secretly go into my friend and co-worker’s desk and use a miniscule amount of tobasco sauce, even going as far as to buy my friend some tobasco every blue moon to make up for the loss, it’s still a lame thing to do.
Acid L, I think your argument would be fine if you and your lover had sex on your doorstep or some other security-critical area. I don’t see how you can justify violating privacy and consent in a part of your home that doesn’t have a connection to security system (although on second thought I suppose that really depends on the layout of your house). Anyway, sure the sex partner doesn’t come into harm, but again perhaps your philosophy is different but I don’t think that something has to be harmful to be ethically suspect.
And as far as the legality goes, this thread is pretty bare on cites. I see upon the edit that we have some now. Will re-read.
I can envision the following scenario. It’s partially tangential but I’m bored at work so screw it. Imagine a man, let’s call him Lothario-X, plops down for a new state-of-the-art house complete with an awesome security system. There is a camera that covers the whole bedroom. The video is digitally archived and never reviewed, etc etc. Soooo, after numerous conquests, Lothario-X meets the woman of his dreams and decides to settle down. Everything is hunky dory. Eventually they move in together.
“Gee honey, you really do have a nice place. Don’t you worry about theft?”
“Never fear my darling. I have one of the world’s top security systems. Even if somebody did break in, they’d be identified by my network of cameras.”
“So, the whole house is being monitored?”
“That’s right.”
“Even the bedroom…?”
“Well of course. There are many valuable things in there. Why do you ask?”
“So, you videotaped us having sex, without me KNOWING?!”
“Calm down… the video is never reviewed without a cause…”
"Fuck cause!! I Can’t BELIEVE You. You creep! I’m leaving!! "
“But bon-bon…”
Door Slams
Of course, on the contrary, such a surprise revelation could possibly lead to even greater heights of fun. It all depends on the woman in question. Still, IMO the absence of informed consent and the violation of privacy, perceived or actual, would be hard to get over for most people.
But as with the stolen penny example, something valuable in possession of the victim is being taken without their consent. I don’t see how this automatically applies to the photons bouncing off one’s body.
Sorry, fella, but that does not logically follow. Only the thirteen states in question have laws that expressly prohibit the placement of unauthorized security cameras, but this does NOT mean that in all other states, a homeowner can place cameras anywhere that one desires. Such acts may be prohibited by other laws – privacy laws, for example. So if you’re going to prove your claim, you’ll need to dig deeper.
Besides which, your claim wasn’t limited to security cameras alone. You said that there is “absolutely NO expectation of privacy in a private residence,” and that rather extravagant claim is not limited to the use of security cameras. Moreover, your own cite shows that such a practice is explicitly prohibited in thirteen states, thus demonstrating that your claim is overly broad (to put it mildly).
But for the sake of argument, let’s assume you’re right. Let’s assume that all but thirteen states allowed homeowners to install security cameras anywhere they so choose. Do you honestly think that a judge or jury would be gullible enough to believe that camera within your guest bathroom is nothing more than a security device? I certainly wouldn’t, and no rational person would.
I feel my privacy and right to informed consent are valuable, but I freely admit placing a monetary amount on such a value is somewhat vexsome.
Did you get that bass-ackwards? Just wondering, because that actually “is” one of the places explicitly upheld to the highest standard for expectation of privacy in case law.
Sheesh. You’re just pulling stuff out of your ass. :rolleyes:
Try reading your own cites, douchebag. Reading the entirety of my posts for comprehension would be a good start too; unless cherry picking is a hobby of yours.
Expectations of privacy, vary greatly from person to person and unless written in statute are not “Whatever I think they should be”. In your own home, (per the OP) you can do pretty much as you please as you define the expectation of privacy. In those areas, (most of the country) where there are no laws about where and how you operate your security equipment within your own home, it is subject to interpretation of the homeowner. Guests in that home would need to show a prurient interest or deliberate intent on the homeowner to invade their privacy to have a claim. Suppose for example, the our couple was caught going at it on the kitchen table which was caught by a cam that monitors the large sliding glass doors to the outside among other parts of the room. Still a violation? By your logic, all cameras would a violation of privacy as a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy within their own home. Except for the troubling little fact that the homeowner placed them there, and they are the ones that define the expectation as it is their domicile. YOU as a GUEST do not have the same expectation to privacy in anothers’ home that you in your own. In that case it falls to societal standards which will also vary, and are subject to interpretation.
“Your honor, I drilled a peephole into the walls of my guest bathroom because, according to my personal expectation of privacy, I have the right to watch my guests shower naked without their consent. It’s my house, so I get to set the rules.”
Would you care to guess how such an argument would go over in a court of law?
Do you imagine that sort of case being in criminal or civil court?
Doesn’t matter. Either way, such an excuse would never fly in a court of law.