Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy The Internet Technology

'Landlord Tech Watch' Site Lets You Report Landlords Using Tech To Screw Over Tenants (vice.com) 114

Posted by BeauHD from the property-technology dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: A group of activists have released Landlord Tech Watch, a site that allows anyone to report where this "landlord tech" is being used and plot it on a map -- like a version of Nextdoor that turns the tables to hold property owners and real estate companies accountable. The project is the effort of technologists and tenants rights advocates, who say they're aiming to use data to shed light on the use of biometric locks, tenant screening systems, and other technology used by landlords to exert power over tenants.

"It just became apparent that these technologies are increasingly being deployed in residential spaces, and there's so little public information about them," Erin McElroy, a postdoctoral researcher at the AI Now Institute and co-founder of the Anti-Eviction Mapping Project, told Motherboard. McElroy said the project came together following a prominent tenant dispute at Atlantic Plaza Towers, a rent-stabilized building in Brownsville, Brooklyn. The landlord, Robert Nelson, was trying to replace physical key fobs with a facial recognition system, a technology which has been repeatedly shown to exhibit racial bias. The project was abandoned after 136 tenants rallied in protest, filing a legal complaint with the New York State Department of Housing and Community Renewal. "We want to be able to collectively organize tenants from multiple buildings," adds McElroy. "That's the ultimate goal -- whether it be for direct action or policy reform or both."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'Landlord Tech Watch' Site Lets You Report Landlords Using Tech To Screw Over Tenants More

'Landlord Tech Watch' Site Lets You Report Landlords Using Tech To Screw Over Tenants

Comments Filter:

  • Just people lying on their leases (Score:5, Insightful)

    by poptix ( 78287 ) on Tuesday August 18, 2020 @03:25PM (#60415831) Homepage

    This boils down to property owners trying to control who's actually living there, and tenants trying to find ways around it.

    Sure, there are some extremes on both sides (facial recognition isn't really a good idea for this) but that's the root cause of the escalation.

    • Hmm you might be onto something in NYC. They have rent control I think, so subleasing is not allowed.

    • Re:Just people lying on their leases (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Tuesday August 18, 2020 @03:48PM (#60415915)

      Too many unauthorized tenants raise costs for landlords. If offenders can't be identified, landlords raise rents on everyone.

      Most people pushing for "tenant rights" are really just trying to make responsible people subsidize irresponsible people.

      • Re:Just people lying on their leases (Score:5, Insightful)

        by OzPeter ( 195038 ) on Tuesday August 18, 2020 @05:05PM (#60416303)

        Most people pushing for "tenant rights" are really just trying to make responsible people subsidize irresponsible people.

        Or they could just be trying to create a balanced situation where no one gets screwed over.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by q_e_t ( 5104099 )

        Too many unauthorized tenants raise costs for landlords. If offenders can't be identified, landlords raise rents on everyone.

        Most people pushing for "tenant rights" are really just trying to make responsible people subsidize irresponsible people.

        If the rent is $1000 for a one bedroom place then the landlord might get few takers renting to one person. If people decide to split it such that someone sleeps in the living room then $500 each might be affordable. So in fact unauthorised tenants may represent a bolster to rents as without it the most they might be able to rent the place for is $500.

        In reality, people advocating for tenants rights advocate for a stop to things like landlords coming into the house at any time they feel like and snooping aro

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by poptix ( 78287 )
          Three people cause roughly 3x the wear and tear, utility use, and insurance liability. There are also occupancy restrictions (set by cities, usually the fire department). It's not a simple matter of letting more people stay in a place.

          There are strong tenant protection laws in most states, the problem is that most people are unaware of their rights and afraid to exercise them. None of the examples you gave are legal anywhere. Here's an example regarding landlord entry in San Francisco:

          Under state law,

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
            I don't think breaking the law and filling the places is correct, I just wasn't convinced by the GGP's logic.

    • legal and building codes. (Score:5, Informative)

      by fish_in_the_c ( 577259 ) on Tuesday August 18, 2020 @04:37PM (#60416173)

      Where I'm from it was not uncommon for migrant workers to live 3 familes of ( 8 people) to a 2/3 bedroom apartment for 6 month to a year before moving on. If the landlord allows this then they can be in real legal trouble when it is discovered.

      • Where I'm from it was not uncommon for migrant workers to live 3 familes of ( 8 people) to a 2/3 bedroom apartment for 6 month to a year before moving on. If the landlord allows this then they can be in real legal trouble when it is discovered.

        Where I live, there is no limits to the number of residents in a home. The homes are either 3 bedroom or 4 bedroom duplexes. We have pretty severe winters and the lease makes the tenant responsible for heating, hot-water, internet and stove/washer/dryer repairs. Some religious tenants have up to 8 children. Some tenants are students that want to cut costs so they share house rental. As a building owner, I am responsible for taxes, gardening and snow removal. My tenant students are in university. They know

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fermion ( 181285 )
      It needs to be regulated so that it fair. Installing something like facial recognition locks during a lease, other than maybe a common door to the building, is not a reasonable thing. Even using this at a common door is not reasonable as there would be other less intrusion and more accepted solution, like security cameras.

      But I agree with the basic premise, that owners have to protect their rental property and have a right to some level of verification. Given that more than one of my acquaintances rent

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by malkavian ( 9512 )

        Things like limitations on days friends can stay over is just a prop clause. In nearly all cases where it's specified, the landlord won't overly care much if you have someone over a little longer, as long as you play fair. It's there in case you decide to have one more person than pays for rent turn up and live in the area, or more than one. Again, some landlords may waive this for good tenants (assuming it's legal to do so), but it's extremely good leverage to hold over the not-so-good tenants who try a

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by q_e_t ( 5104099 )

          Things like limitations on days friends can stay over is just a prop clause. In nearly all cases where it's specified, the landlord won't overly care much if you have someone over a little longer, as long as you play fair. It's there in case you decide to have one more person than pays for rent turn up and live in the area, or more than one. Again, some landlords may waive this for good tenants (assuming it's legal to do so), but it's extremely good leverage to hold over the not-so-good tenants who try and screw over the landlord.

          Why would you think it's some moral or (why, oh why) a racial thing?

          Sadly, there are also unscrupulous landlords who will use it. I rented many years ago and some of the clauses were unreasonable or sometimes contradictory with others. This means that the landlord potentially has a legal right to evict you as you are likely to break one of the requirements. And I have heard (from people I know) of the threat of eviction then being used as an attempt to extract a higher rent. In that case the people called the landlord's bluff and started packing and the landlord relented. S

    • I happen to be fully against rent control and most form of rent subsidies ( there is a need for subsidies but not control )
      I am a realtor, therefor you would think I am on the side of the landlords. I'm very much to the center and respect both sides.

      problem 1

      This is the basic problem I consistently find https://gothamist.com/news/ric... [gothamist.com]
      the abuse by well healed people knowing the tricks of the system. I can not cite source to make it a link here on slashdot where it's states 2% to 3% of the rent control, sub

      • Is it the case then that in New York, rent control is attached to and follows the renter, with income-based eligibility which is lost if you get a better job? That's an honest question, BTW; not snark or an attempt at starting an argument. In my city, rent control is attached to the property. And if you score a rent-controlled unit, you can practically retire there; with only the Ellis Act and earthquakes having the potential to oust you. That reduces churn and keeps units off the market, driving up the

        • While it was poorly written, it's factual. and I've found more and more over time.

          income's are part of the equation for rent subsidies and landlords can get tax breaks if they go within these plans. but once you are in, you can't get back out for 10 or 20 years.

          I recall that I even research when some lady on 5th avenue in a rent control 4 bedroom
          was doing airbnb, the owner got fined and the owner could not kick her out. she was evicted
          after a year when it was discovered that the income over the years was ex

  • Not really necessary; landlord turned off water (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Thing 1 ( 178996 ) on Tuesday August 18, 2020 @03:29PM (#60415843) Journal

    Decades ago I lived in a shady part of town, for exactly a month.

    Mailed payment for the next month's rent with a check. Landlord turned off the water. He wanted cash, so he could lie to the government. Moved out that day (fortunately I had an empty condo).

    I guess it's a bit more effort to drive around with a wrench. But, this lover-of-money was helpful in my education.

    Suppose with this "tech" he can press a button and deprive all his renters of water.

    • He wanted cash, so he could lie to the government.

      You could have used this for negotiating leverage.

      If he wanted to avoid a 30% marginal tax rate, you could have offered to pay in cash for a 15% discount.

      Win-win.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Some of us actually prefer to follow the law where possible. Strange, I know.

        It isn't what you do when you're being watched. What you do when no one will ever know is the reality of your character.

    • I call BS on this story, or at least the version you're presenting here. I've never met a landlord that twirls their mustache and enjoys bringing misery to tenants. It **costs** money to evict tenants. In many places it's illegal (a crime with jail time attached) to turn off utilities for tenants in arrears. Not to mention, having an antagonistic relationship with tenants nearly guarantees that they will trash the apartment, causing thousands in damages the landlord is unlikely to recoup. (At best the landl

      • It never ceases to amaze me how many people seem to think that criminal law is self-executing, and that civil relief is free, simple, and instant.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by q_e_t ( 5104099 )

        causing thousands in damages the landlord is unlikely to recoup.

        In the UK you have to provide a deposit that can cover some or all of this. If you go further than petty damage you are likely to be prosecuted and required to pay back the landlord's costs.

      • There are a lot of horrible landlords out there. If the tenants are illegal immigrants or have other reasons they don't want the police involved, they will just leave the apartment (or pay rent) if the utilities are shut off. If landlords do that, it's because they think they won't get paid anyway and because the landlords aren't very bright and it's "their" property. I've heard many stories from lawyer friends on things like this - it's pretty common, but, also stupid for the landlord to do due to the risk

  • The Issue I see (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jfetjunky ( 4359471 ) on Tuesday August 18, 2020 @03:35PM (#60415863)
    The issue I see with these things and with property management software, is their ever growing desire for data collection on tenants. Usually for the main purpose of extracting the maximum amount of rent possible given the tenant, lease agreement, and situation. I've heard personal accounts from a friend who works for one of these types of software companies that the software goes so far as to try to track applicants if they go to multiple properties, offering them different rents each time based on the fact they're shopping around. While I know you could argue that it's a free market and supply and demand and yadda, it essentially turns it into a completely one-sided negotiation. One side (the landlord), has access to all kinds of info about you with which they can use to negotiate against you for higher rent. What info do you have about them to counter with? My guess is almost none.
    • Or helping a cabal of landlords enforce a "good old boys" club where they can enforce blacklisting.
    • Call first, and if they wont give you a price before you say your name or number, move on.

    • This is in NYC. Its rent controlled. The landlord cannot jack your rent up.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
        In general NYC is not rent controlled, AFAIK. I could double check with my wife - she's from NYC.
    • Reminds me of the kinds of shenanigans Network Solutions would pull, tbh.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Shotgun ( 30919 )

      While I know you could argue that it's a free market and supply and demand and yadda

      From a libertarian, free market, conservative kind of guy, "free market" only applies when there is an equal amount of information. Conservatives were screaming about food labels and nutrition information on menus as some sort of government interference, assault on free speech, or some such nonsense. My opinion is that is one boldest moves toward a free market ever made, since it bridged the information divide between buyer and seller.

      I regret that Barack Obama was such a corporate sell-out, and did nothi

  • Sounds great (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kohath ( 38547 ) on Tuesday August 18, 2020 @03:49PM (#60415917)

    If I was a landlord, I'd be happy to be featured on a site like that. All landlords want is tenants who pay rent and don't cause trouble.

    Are tenants who use that site more likely to cause trouble? Yes. I think landlords would be happy to avoid that kind of troublesome tenant.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      If I was a landlord, I'd be happy to be featured on a site like that. All landlords want is tenants who pay rent and don't cause trouble.

      Are tenants who use that site more likely to cause trouble? Yes. I think landlords would be happy to avoid that kind of troublesome tenant.

      Where "cause trouble" usually means "knows their rights"...damn uppity peasants.

      /s/ an Aristocrat^W Landlord.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        "knows their rights"

        If background checks and facial recognition are restricted or illegal, then such sites would not be needed. Simply report instances of violations to the appropriate authorities and let them handle it.

        I suspect that such "landlord tech" is in fact legal. And protection from such tech is in fact not "their rights". The site is used to shame landlords since popular support for restrictions or bans does not have public support. Block some squatters from illegally subletting an apartment and they can rally a fe

    • So you're in favor of blacklisting?

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        BLOCKlisting. Please.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Shotgun ( 30919 )

        If the list is published on an open website? Yes.
        I can leave a bad Google review of a business that I didn't even interact with. Why shouldn't I be able to upload pictures of the dog puke that Mary Harrelson let ruin the carpet and the toilet that Bill Nuy left shattered?

  • Accountable for WHAT? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by mi ( 197448 )

    hold property owners and real estate companies accountable

    TFA, in a typical radically Left fashion of Vice, implies, that landlords are some sort of criminal organization, who only still exist because there is "bigger fish to fry" first (such as abolish police).

    But what exactly are the accusations?

    • Where I live landlords were getting around rent caps by using renovation work to create so much noise that tenants would move out. The next tenant would, of course, get to enjoy a much higher rent.

      Also because of leases tenant satisfaction is not a concern. The moment a tenant raises an issue that the landlord created the immediate rebuttal is "we're following the law." It's never "how can we work with you?" There's a lot of ground gears over this, especially during COVID. I tried to reach out to my la

  • Lets balloon the cost of renting so rent will skyrocket. This wont go wrong im sure.

  • Fairly weak examples (Score:3)

    by e3m4n ( 947977 ) on Tuesday August 18, 2020 @04:36PM (#60416161)

    So the article only listed two examples; neither were designed to screw over a tenant.

    Facial recognition is just a bad idea because there could be a dozen reasons why it wont work when you need to get into your apartment. I do not see it as a way to screw over a tenant as much as a wish to not be screwed over by the tenant. Specifically this is NYC where there is rent control, and way too many people illegally sublease to get around increased prices. But facial recognition would likely not solve this either and likely create more issues by restricting access for unforeseen circumstances (I thought of 6 while writing this)

    The background checks are designed to protect the landlord. Almost all landlords do some form of background checks, just like employers and everyone else. This often is criminal checks, as well as credit report to see if you have a history of not paying your rent. Even with a low score, if its low because credit card debt but never a car or rent, a landlord may still approve you. That tells him/her you prioritize paying rent over other bills. Ultimately it is the landlords discretion to do business. A credit report for a application where you are paying on a regular basis is not biased. What IS biased is Farmers insurance using your credit score to determine your insurance quote for car insurance. Your payment history is not a valid indication of how well you drive.

    Now if the landlord was installing a Ring camera at the door or cameras in the apartment I would say they were screwing over the tenant because of capturing images of the tenant and their romantic interludes, friends, etc. things of that nature.

    • Facial recognition is bad because it gives the landlord an exact record of the tenants entering and leaving the premises. When I was still renting, I wouldn't have wanted intrusive crap like that about the property.

      As a landlord, I appeciate the desire to screen and monitor tenants, but I wouldn't dream of putting in such surveillance tech. Subletting is a real problem though. When we suspected a tenant of subletting her place, we parked a car with a dashcam in front of the property for a few days to

      • I agree that facial recognition is like a Ring doorbell, but its even worse. What if it simply doesnt recognize you? What if you got into a fight and got a fracture in your eye socket, or your face/nose was bandaged? This is NYC, what if some mugger slashed your face and you have a nice fresh scar? What if the landlord skimped on heating the hallways so you arent taking your damn ski mask off until you get into your apartment? Not every apartment is plush, there are plenty of slum lords too. What if you go

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by PPH ( 736903 )

          What if you got mugged and had your keys stolen? Or just dropped them on the bus? Every technology needs a backup. And if that means buzzing the manager and being admitted in the middle of the night you can bet that they will upgrade the recognition system pretty quickly.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by e3m4n ( 947977 )

            muggers typically dont ask for keys, just your wallet, but lets assume your purse got stolen. Theyve got to change the locks ASAP when that happens, or re-code a new key fob. The thief has your drivers license with your address, possibly a checkbook with your address, and a set of keys most likely that fit your house, and possibly your car if you own one. Ive never lived in an apartment in NYC, but the ones I lived in when stationed in the navy, the business office had hours, and I dont remember any after-h

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by PPH ( 736903 )

              At least with an old fashion key and a police report you can get a locksmith to get into your apartment.

              You can still get a locksmith to let you into the building. Biometric locks have a backup pin and tumbler cylinder. You just don't get the key.

              muggers typically dont ask for keys

              They take whatever they can get. They might ditch your apartment keys. No sense getting caught in there after the mugging police report. Your car is getting taken. But only for a few miles because they have to ditch that quickly as well. But there are a lot of ways to lose keys. I find them in public toilets, parking lots and in locker rooms all the time.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      Specifically this is NYC where there is rent control, and way too many people illegally sublease to get around increased prices.

      And then there is AirBnB. You get a nice rent controlled apartment but you move out for reasons. So why not keep it and rent it out for parties? The facial recognition is to protect the other tenants from your guests.

  • The big issue with renting is the Rental Housing Business. It's right there in the name. Housing. Business. These are so incompatible with each other that it's why rental housing is as screwed up as it is and no one is happy.

    Housing is not a business. Very few people rent housing because it's better than buying a place to li ve. (There are sound reasons to rent, yes, but if you ask most people, they'd rather not rent). So as a tenant, you're at the mercy of the landlord and life isn't easy. Even if you're t

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      Housing is not a business.

      Well then there go all of your houses and apartment buildings. Who's going to build and maintain them for you? What's their incentive? If housing is a necessity, perhaps the government should provide it. That doesn't work out so well [nextcity.org].

  • I've rented and I've been a landlord. I've lived in bad places and decent ones. I've had good tenants and bad ones. Right now I own and I rent. I can fairly say that I've seen this from all angles.

    Get over it. The landlord wants to avoid being defrauded. They aren't taking anything from anyone, they aren't discriminating or invading anyone's privacy. Their tenants claimed they had X and were going to do Y in exchange for Z. If they really wanted something else they should have been up front about it from th

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Security deposits seem to be a common contention particularly when nothing is actually wrong.

        I wasn't talking about security deposits or any number of other things. I was talking about using technology to enforce things like limits on the number

        Then why was this noticed?

        I would imagine because someone was told that the 2 bedroom apartment they rented for 3 people received an eviction notice after the landlord noticed they actually had 8 people living there. Most likely after getting complaints from other pe

  • There is a huge difference between face recognition and face verification, a much simpler problem. "Racial bias" does not matter for face verification.

    Also, it does not actually exist for face recognition, either; rather face recognition just doesn't work as well for darker faces or faces with characteristics that did not have much training data.

Slashdot Top Deals

On a clear disk you can seek forever. -- P. Denning

Close