Turret3857 comments on The hidden legal dangers of your video doorbell and security cameras - how to protect yourself without getting caught out

[–] Turret3857@infosec.pub 6 points 1 month ago (4 children)

this isn't relevant to those of us in the USA, it looks to be for europeans, to save anyone in the US a click.

[–] Hal@piefed.nz 2 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I guess not directly relevant, but the point is still there. The article basically came down to the fact that the guy was recording his neighbors' conversations without consent.

If I lived in the US I'd be checking laws before recording audio.

I don't live in the US or the EU and still disable audio in my cameras because of this.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] Turret3857@infosec.pub 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

most states in the US are one party consent recording states, whether thats a positive or not depends on the person you're talking to.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Hal@piefed.nz 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

So recording a conversation on your camera between two other parties still breaks the law in a one party consent state, because no party in the conversation has consented to the conversation being recorded.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Turret3857@infosec.pub 2 points 1 month ago

Hmm.. I suppose thats right. I'm not sure, I don't actually know what would hold up in the US or not just due to how abysmal all of our privacy laws actually are. I'd hope that you're right in that case though.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent