ChatterBank1 min ago
Ring Doorbell
14 Answers
What do you think of this? Invasion of privacy or useful if you miss a delivery or check who is at the door before opening?
https:/
https:/
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by tiggerblue10. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
There were two options that were open to Dr. Fairhurst: she could have been grateful to Mr. Woodard for having a camera that kept an eye on her property as well as on his; or she could have taken the view that she did, namely, that she saw the camera as an invasion of her privacy. Perhaps, one day, if she has a 'problem', she might wish that she had a neighbour with a camera that watched over her property.
This article gives more info - seems he had a lot of cameras and wasn't very honest....
https:/
https:/
The judge said recording video is fine,
"Her Honour Judge Melissa Clarke said that while Woodard's rights to film his doorstep were stronger than his neighbour's right to walk around free from CCTV surveillance, Woodard couldn't lawfully record audio from the camera, which was sensitive enough to pick up conversations more than 40 feet away:
I am satisfied that the extent of range to which these devices can capture audio is well beyond the range of video that they capture, and in my view cannot be said to be reasonable for the purpose for which the devices are used by the Defendant, since the legitimate aim for which they are said to be used, namely crime prevention, could surely be achieved by something less.
"A great deal of the purpose could be achieved without audio at all," added the judge."
"Her Honour Judge Melissa Clarke said that while Woodard's rights to film his doorstep were stronger than his neighbour's right to walk around free from CCTV surveillance, Woodard couldn't lawfully record audio from the camera, which was sensitive enough to pick up conversations more than 40 feet away:
I am satisfied that the extent of range to which these devices can capture audio is well beyond the range of video that they capture, and in my view cannot be said to be reasonable for the purpose for which the devices are used by the Defendant, since the legitimate aim for which they are said to be used, namely crime prevention, could surely be achieved by something less.
"A great deal of the purpose could be achieved without audio at all," added the judge."
The Ring Door bell is an Amazon product.
It exists to watch and listen to you and your visitors to sell you advertising, and make money for Amazon.
If it detects your garden is overgrown, you will start to get adverts for lawnmowers.
It is an invasion of your privacy, but unless you deny the default settings, you are a willing participant, and deserve to be spammed to death.
It exists to watch and listen to you and your visitors to sell you advertising, and make money for Amazon.
If it detects your garden is overgrown, you will start to get adverts for lawnmowers.
It is an invasion of your privacy, but unless you deny the default settings, you are a willing participant, and deserve to be spammed to death.
Barry1010,
They track you across apps - you must have noticed it.
You are thinking about a greenhouse, or a trailer or a new Phone, and suddenly all the sites you visit, including AB is full of adverts for stuff you were thinking of buying.
Pervasive taletelling at its worse - because you don’t even realise it is happening (and AB gets a cut on every sale).
They track you across apps - you must have noticed it.
You are thinking about a greenhouse, or a trailer or a new Phone, and suddenly all the sites you visit, including AB is full of adverts for stuff you were thinking of buying.
Pervasive taletelling at its worse - because you don’t even realise it is happening (and AB gets a cut on every sale).
the judgment is here:-
https:/
it's a bid long-winded, but it is an interesting read.
https:/
it's a bid long-winded, but it is an interesting read.
1 to 14 of 14
