this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2023
382 points (98.5% liked)

News

23268 readers
2639 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
 

After a spy camera designed to look like a towel hook was purchased on Amazon and illegally used for months to capture photos of a minor in her private bathroom, Amazon was sued.

The plaintiff—a former Brazilian foreign exchange student then living in West Virginia—argued that Amazon had inspected the camera three times and its safety team had failed to prevent allegedly severe, foreseeable harms still affecting her today.

Amazon hoped the court would dismiss the suit, arguing that the platform wasn't responsible for the alleged criminal conduct harming the minor. But after nearly eight months deliberating, a judge recently largely denied the tech giant's motion to dismiss.

Amazon's biggest problem persuading the judge was seemingly the product descriptions that the platform approved. An amended complaint included a photo from Amazon's product listing that showed bathroom towels hanging on hooks that disguised the hidden camera. Text on that product image promoted the spycams, boasting that they "won't attract attention" because each hook appears to be "a very ordinary hook."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] girlfreddy@sh.itjust.works 79 points 11 months ago (9 children)

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.

In what reality is there any need for a door-hook camera except to spy on someone who has not given consent???

Jayzuz. That was some poor mind gymnastics right there.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 43 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Watching the babysitter if you think she's abusing your kids.

Monitoring your office if you're a politician afraid of poisoning.

Making an OnlyFans of Grandma pooping.

Lots of legitimate uses if you're creative enough.

[–] girlfreddy@sh.itjust.works 17 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

Watching the babysitter if you think she's abusing your kids. In the bathroom? Cause that's where towel hooks are.

Monitoring your office if you're a politician afraid of poisoning. See above

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 23 points 11 months ago (1 children)

My jokes aside, I absolutely have towel hooks in non bathrooms. It's turns out there also capable of holding jackets and other things, despite the name.

[–] Gamoc@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yeah but what am I going to do with all my coat hooks? Hang towels on them!?

[–] OrteilGenou@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Are you some kind of anarchist?

[–] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Couldn’t that as easily be a coat hanger or something to hang your keys or bag on? A hook is a hook.

[–] girlfreddy@sh.itjust.works 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

And why could that hallway not be covered by a regular security cam instead?

[–] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago
[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago

but once you advertise it as a surreptitious towel hook and show pictures of it being used as a surreptitious towel hook, it becomes not just any kind of hook. one of the use cases proposed by the manufacturer has become manufacturing illegal pornography by setting up a hidden cam in the bathroom.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

they advertised it as a towel hook AND if they used it to hang hats or whatever it could block the camera. I think its fair to say this is a very creepy camera.

[–] OrteilGenou@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

And what about grandma's onlyfans? Checkmate

[–] Kyatto@leminal.space 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Deterrence is always preferable. Clear monitoring may stop crimes in addition to capturing wanton disregard. A disguised bathroom cam is clearly designed to capture illegal footage. It isn't a deterrent to crime, it's a tool to commit it. Spy cams in general are sleazy and disgusting.

Even a nanny cam, despite the clearly just intentions, allow a crime to happen more so than clear security cameras and can be used for less lawful things due to their design.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-08-15/irvine-man-hidden-camera-wife-drano-allegations

Deterrence stops people from doing bad things in front of the camera. Useful if you have physical choke points that funnel people to the camera itself of course. But if you put up an obvious nanny cam in one room, all you guarantee is that the abuse happens in another.

[–] victron@programming.dev 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You had me in the first half, not gonna lie.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

What? Grandma consented! It's her kink.

[–] dirtypirate@kbin.social 22 points 11 months ago (2 children)

In what reality is there any need for a door-hook camera

maybe for when the police illegally raid, eat your lemon pound cake, steal your money and fuck up your visible cameras?

just because YOU can't think of any use other than creepy doesn't mean the rest of us are so afflicted.

[–] ComicalMayhem@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago

For anyone not in the know, Afroman, famous for the songs Crazy Rap (Colt 45) and Because I got High had his house raided by police. He got most of the raid on film and made the video into a music video.

[–] EpeeGnome@lemmy.fmhy.net 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

None of the police actually ate Afroman's lemon pound cake, just one stared longingly at it for an awkwardly long amount of time, lol. Let's not muddy the waters by accusing those police of something they didn't do, and focus on the blatantly provable (lack of real probable cause, intentionally sabotaging his cameras) and the alleged but highly plausible ("miscounting" some of his cash into their own pockets).

[–] Poggervania@kbin.social 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

He could’ve used literally any other example, but of course he chose the creepy one. Could’ve stood on the stance that businesses would need them for shoplifting ffs.

[–] You999@sh.itjust.works 17 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Except any place where it would make sense to place one within a business would be illegal. You are not allowed to place cameras hidden or not in places where one could have an expectation of privacy.

[–] Omgpwnies@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Not only that, anywhere that a business is allowed to use cameras, they would want to have big, obvious cameras to try to prevent shoplifting.

[–] kitedemon@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 11 months ago

I feel like this quote was intended to be sarcastic, but idk, Poe’s law after all.

[–] kool_newt@lemm.ee 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

For what little it’s worth… consent is not needed if there’s no expectation of privacy… if your visiting somebody else’s house... Bathrooms- yes, bedrooms (where you’re sleeping,) yes...

But a hidden camera in, say, the hallway outside, is perfectly legal. Now if the person is a resident (or, like Airbnb,) they have much higher expectations of privacy.

Also… I would suggest that cameras inside residences generally serve no real purpose at all- and are almost universally employed by creeps. (Exception being apartment entryways… if peephole cameras on the apartment door are not allowed.)

[–] kool_newt@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

But a hidden camera in, say, the hallway outside, is perfectly legal

What if it is positioned to take upskirt photos? I can't be expected to wear underwear at all times.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

the camera's position isn't itself illegal... and they don't have to ask for consent for it to be recording. at least, not in the US.

now, that doesn't mean they're not breaking other laws- and that's really going to come down on jurisdiction. ultimately, it's likely going to come down to what happens with those recordings; and if there's laws specifically against taking such images/recordings in the first place; and if your state considers that act breaking normal expectations of privacy.

definitely not saying it's right- its wrong and creepy- but private property owners have never had to inform people that there were cameras recording... all those "CCTV" warning signs weren't about consent. It was a foolishly misguided system of deterring shoplifting... a hyper-passive-aggressive "WE'RE WATCHING YOU!!!" that actually informed the would-be thieves... they're not actually... watching...

[–] SuckMyWang@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

The fucked up part is there’s a whole industry for this

[–] squaresinger@feddit.de 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It's for when someone breaks into your bathroom.

[–] Neato@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago

A regular security cam would be fine. Most spy cams aren't going to alert anything. They just record.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Hypothetically….

… yeah I got nothing.

[–] Nawor3565@lemmy.blahaj.zone -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Maybe if it was designed to look like a book or something, you could argue it has legitimate uses for home surveillance. But towel hooks are almost exclusively found in bathrooms.

Now, maybe I'm making assumptions here, but I don't think most people keep valuables in their bathrooms, so that leaves exactly one use case this could have, and it's not home protection.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago

precisely. there's no legitimate/legal use case for this.