Judge: Amazon “cannot claim shock” that bathroom spycams were used as advertised - eviltoast

Tech legal expert Eric Goldman wrote that a victory for the plaintiff could be considered “a dangerous ruling for the spy cam industry and for Amazon,” because “the court’s analysis could indicate that all surreptitious hook cameras are categorically illegal to sell.” That could prevent completely legal uses of cameras designed to look like clothes hooks, Goldman wrote, such as hypothetical in-home surveillance uses.

  • mateomaui@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    If someone is interested in legitimate home surveillance, they usually buy cameras that look like cameras, so people know there’s surveillance and don’t fuck around. Usually.

    Amazon reps are morons for thinking they could claim innocence here.

    • Sonori@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There can be reasons why you might want more subtle cameras, but I struggle to think of legitimate reasons why one would want ones designed to only look hidden in closets and bathrooms.

      • mateomaui@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Hence the standalone “usually.” Also there’s subtle and there’s straight up hidden, and I struggle to find a legit reason for hidden ones unless you’re conducting some kind of sting operation.

    • Crashumbc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not about being stupid, it’s about not caring. Any punishment will be tiny compared to the profit made.

      • mateomaui@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That would apply to listing it in the first place, they’re still morons for thinking they could claim innocence about it in court.

        • Crashumbc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Again, modern strategy for corporations in lawsuits is to delay, delay, delay. The purpose is to continue drawing things out as long as possible. They knew full well it would fail. But it’s a delay.

          • mateomaui@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Cool story, they’re still morons who likely did think they would get away with it.

            Honestly, I don’t know why some of you act like you’re the only ones who understand corporate legal strategy.

    • thenightisdark@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      https://youtu.be/PshDKbs69BM?si=H0Fc9Kq5XRq2-4Cr

      Apparently that video evidence there is fake no one’s ever thought to spray paint the camera - if you could tell it’s a camera.

      It’s almost as if and heavy sarcasm here humans know how cameras work. 🤣🤣🤣

      Can you find the TV trope of infiltrator or burglar sees camera and shoots it or spray paints over it… 🤣