RSS
Cameras, Privacy And The Law
from the what's-it-all-mean dept
Found over at Alan Reiter's Camera Phone Report is this story written by a Kansas City Star columnist talking about how everyone's overreacting to the "dangers" of camera phones by worrying about a specific technology, rather than the misuse of that technology. The writer lists a bunch of other devices (including watches and MP3 players) that include cameras, but which no one is calling to ban. However, his overall point is that technology trumps privacy - and on top of that, technology trumps the law. The issue we should be focusing on, according to the article, is making laws that protect privacy, not ones that outlaw technology. Then, if someone is using the technology to violate someone's privacy, you go after them for breaking the privacy law - not the law banning the, otherwise useful, technology. Makes sense. Of course, if you then combine it with another article (found at Smart Mobs), it raises other questions. This is a case where a man with a wireless security camera system realized that he was getting video from a neighbor's security camera instead of his own - and witnessed the neighbor abusing her foster children. He called the police and the woman was quickly arrested, which is clearly a good thing. However, where does the law stand on video like that, which is accidentally intercepted? Is it only a privacy violation if the voyeurism is intentional? Clearly, there are a lot of new legal and privacy issues raised by new technologies - and trying to simply outlaw technology or cram new technologies into old laws isn't going to cut it.
5 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- Justice Department Wants $5 Million To Bolster Its Efforts As Hollywood's Private Police Force
- Schrödinger's Download: Whether Or Not An iTunes Music Sale Is A 'Sale' Depends On Who's Suing
- We Don't Have A 'Wild West' Internet Now, But We Will If SOPA Or Similar Is Passed
- One Nation, Under Guard
- Supreme Court Denies Appeal For The Pirate Bay Founders
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
No Expectation of Privacy
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Expectation of Privacy
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
Interception of AUDIO is protected and has all sorts of legal consequences... interception of VIDEO is not. Since the most common camera out there (X10) has both, be very, very careful NOT to hook up (and definately DON'T RECORD and then turn over to Law Enforcement) the audio portion.
Believe it or not, under current law, the video is unprotected.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
technology and voyeurism
He/she is potentially a faceless criminal and could very easily get away clean and benefit from their voyeurism. If the person he/she spied on found the tape and tried to go after his or her violator, he or she would have an immensely difficult time doing so!
Technology is a very dangerous thing, especially since cameras are getting smaller and more common (cell phones, wristwatches, etc). The worse thing about technology crimes is the fact that they can be performed so annonymously that it would be close to impossible to catch him or her who is violating privacy rights. That is just an example though. I'm sure there are many more ways technology can harm peoples' right to privacy.
Obviously, this is a very extreme case, but it still is very possible and I'm sure it has happened before. I believe that there needs to be some kind of very concrete technological laws set. If not, technology (especially video technology) will advance even further until privacy ceases to be.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Thanks for teaching
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment