Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy

Amazon 'Cannot Claim Shock' That Bathroom Spycams Were Used as Advertised, Judge Says 136

Posted by msmash from the holding-accountable dept.
An anonymous reader shares a report: 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."

Because "Amazon approved product descriptions suggesting consumers use" the spycam "to record private moments in a bathroom," US district judge Robert Chambers wrote, "Amazon cannot claim shock when a consumer does just that." "These allegations raise a reasonable inference Amazon sold a camera knowing it would be used to record a third party in a bathroom without their consent," Chambers wrote.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Amazon 'Cannot Claim Shock' That Bathroom Spycams Were Used as Advertised, Judge Says More

Amazon 'Cannot Claim Shock' That Bathroom Spycams Were Used as Advertised, Judge Says

Comments Filter:

  • Totally Agree (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jhuebel ( 44324 ) on Tuesday December 05, 2023 @09:51AM (#64056439)
    Admittedly, I didn't RTFA, but even on the face of it I have to agree with the decision to deny Amazon's motion to dismiss. These are products that are specifically designed to violate a person's privacy in a place where there is an expectation of privacy (the bathroom). Could you perhaps argue that some other hidden camera used in a public place is allowable? Yes. But that's just not what this is.

    • Re:Totally Agree (Score:5, Insightful)

      by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Tuesday December 05, 2023 @10:01AM (#64056479) Journal
      Is it illegal to sell a camera designed with the express purpose to spy on people in bathrooms? If not, why is this a case?
      Probably because of the nature of the US justice system, where you seek damages not from the most guilty person, but from the entity with the deepest pockets.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by jhuebel ( 44324 )
        I skimmed the article and it appears that they're basing their complaint on "intent", which is often the case in the US justice system. It isn't illegal to sell the item itself in the US, as far as I know. But the description and images in the product listing display an "intent" to violate a person's privacy where there is an expectation of privacy and explicitly encourage the purchaser to use the product in an illegal manner.

        • I skimmed the article and it appears that they're basing their complaint on "intent", which is often the case in the US justice system. It isn't illegal to sell the item itself in the US, as far as I know. But the description and images in the product listing display an "intent" to violate a person's privacy where there is an expectation of privacy and explicitly encourage the purchaser to use the product in an illegal manner.

          I'm dubious of the chances of this working. After all what's the difference between intent to violate a person's privacy and intent to defraud?

          For example...
          https://www.amazon.com/Portabl... [amazon.com]
          https://www.amazon.com/Flash-D... [amazon.com]

          If intent was something that sticks Amazon would have been shut down or forced to police itself long ago. Apparently if you operate a storefront you can simply claim ignorance and harbor no responsibility for the products sold on your own site. Even ones you take physical possession of

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by sjames ( 1099 )

            1 TB flash drives exist and are legal. I can't say if the one you linked is or is not 1TB without examining it. It probably isn't but Amazon could credibly claim to be a victim of the fraud rather than an accomplice.

            As for the "heater", WTF?!? but again, Amazon could claim to be the victim.

            The difference is that in the case of TFA, the ad-copy approved by amazon actually suggested using the product for criminal activity.

            Note that the judge has NOT found Amazon liable. He only found that their liability or l

          • I skimmed the article and it appears that they're basing their complaint on "intent", which is often the case in the US justice system. It isn't illegal to sell the item itself in the US, as far as I know. But the description and images in the product listing display an "intent" to violate a person's privacy where there is an expectation of privacy and explicitly encourage the purchaser to use the product in an illegal manner.

            I'm dubious of the chances of this working. After all what's the difference between intent to violate a person's privacy and intent to defraud?

            Maybe one related example would be a gun manufacturer that advertises that its guns can be used to shoot disliked people. There are reasonable uses for guns and gun sales are legal, but the advertising of illegal actions with that product may be illegal in a criminal sense or maybe punishable in a civil sense.

          • If you're dubious of this lawsuit working it's because you don't know very much about liability and privacy violations of minors. Big bucks here
        • The item itself may not be illegal, but the *use* in question certainly is. Let's say a car manufacturer advertised a reinforced bumper (quite legal) that was "great for clearing out the slowpokes ahead of you" (probably not so much so).

      • A criminal prosecution requires a specific law to be violated.

        This is a civil lawsuit, which only requires that the plaintiff show quantifiable harm caused by the defendant.

        Amazon will lose if this goes in front of a jury, so it'll likely be settled out-of-court.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by piojo ( 995934 )

          It can't be that simple, can it? For instance ending a relationship can cause quantifiable harm but someone wouldn't be liable for that, right? And what about action versus inaction, and acceptable (in accordance with societal norms) versus weird (shouting at someone unexpectedly) actions? Are there guidelines for which actions are permissible (and if they cause harm, so be it) versus which actions incur liability for harm caused? Or does the decision depend on both the action and the harm?

          • Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by sjames ( 1099 )

            The "guidelines" are usually called "the law".

            It can get complicated. It can be explicitly codified as the written law, or it can be the common law which is mostly well understood.

          • Yes and no. Remember palimony? Civil suit, though you have to be bucking some law in order to get punitive damages.

            Even though this Amazon suit is civil, what the original purchaser did was absolutely illegal, and Amazon is being sued for assisting. Just because a case is civil does not mean that actions were not criminally illegal - after all, remember that OJ had both a criminal and a civil trial for the same death. It's harder here to prove criminal intent for Amazon, so the civil process is being use

      • Is it illegal to sell a camera designed with the express purpose to spy on people in bathrooms? If not, why is this a case?

        Whether or not something is illegal would be a criminal case and a matter for the state or federal government. This is a civil case and the legal threshold is whether the plaintiff can demonstrate harm and damages.

        Probably because of the nature of the US justice system, where you seek damages not from the most guilty person, but from the entity with the deepest pockets.

        I assume from your name and your stance that you are not in the US but in Europe. Does Europe not have the idea of civil cases? Admittedly consumer protection in the EU is stronger and that people do not need to sue for as many things, but civil cases exist in the EU as far as I am aware.

      • > Is it illegal to sell a camera designed with the express purpose to spy on people in bathrooms? If not, why is this a case?

        Cameras don't spy - they record or transmit.

        People spy.

        You're welcome to film yourself or your consenting adult friends in your bathroom but not other people.

        The tool is just a tool.

        • You're welcome to film yourself or your consenting adult friends in your bathroom but not other people.

          Why would you need a hidden camera to record "yourself or your consenting adult friends"?

          • Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • There are valid use cases. When a spouse is a caretaker they probably want to monitor the bathroom to make sure that the patient's spouse (child) doesn't fall or need assistance. A sign on the bathroom wall saying, "This bathroom is video (and sound) monitored, so let me know if you want to use it and I'll disable it while you are in here," will protect the privacy of others.

            • A sign on the bathroom wall saying, "This bathroom is video (and sound) monitored, so let me know if you want to use it and I'll disable it while you are in here," will protect the privacy of others.

              Your example explains the need for a camera in a bathroom, but not the need for a hidden camera.

              • Exactly, and you're right. I missed that completely until you mentioned it. A camera in that location should be prominently displayed. Now that I think more about it, I'd like to mention something else: I have a lot of cameras inside and out, no bathroom or bedroom, and I have configured them so they don't have flashing lights or motion-activated lights.

                When they do detect motion at night, the infrared lights come on, but that's the way it is.

                Thank you for catching my error.

        • A tool can be designed for a purpose, like hammering nails. I suppose I could use a screw driver to pound a few nails in. But a reasonable person is going to admit that there is an intended purpose.

          On top of the visually implicit purpose of a camera disguised as an ordinary household object. Is that the purpose is explicitly stated in the copy created by the seller. They want people searching for hidden cameras and spy camera and bathrooms to find this, and to use it.

          I don't think anyone is arguing that Ama

          • Comment removed based on user account deletion

            • In this case, the purported uses do matter, since it is plainly obvious that the purpose for this device was to illegally spy on someone. After seeing the sample image of the product, there is no way I believe that an Amazon employee deemed this device to be harmless.

          • A tool can be designed for a purpose, like hammering nails. I suppose I could use a screw driver to pound a few nails in. But a reasonable person is going to admit that there is an intended purpose.

            On top of the visually implicit purpose of a camera disguised as an ordinary household object. Is that the purpose is explicitly stated in the copy created by the seller. They want people searching for hidden cameras and spy camera and bathrooms to find this, and to use it.

            I don't think anyone is arguing that Amazon or the seller be held responsible for the behavior of other people. But instead to be held responsible for creating and offering products with a particular harmful intent.

            Small keychain-sized pepper spray is explicitly designed, marketed, and sold to women with the intent to cause physical harm to human beings. That is the object's entire purpose. If a woman walks into a church and pepper-sprays the pastor for preaching against abortion, who committed the crime of assault -- the woman or the pepper-spray manufacturer? What portion of civil liability for the pastor's medical and property damages should the pepper-spray manufacturer share for specifically advertising the produ

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by sjames ( 1099 )

          In this case, the ad copy suggested that the tool is designed to be used by someone to spy on someone who has not consented. The judge found that damning enough to determine that the lawsuit cannot be dismissed, it will require a trial to determine liability.

          A tool is just a tool, but a tool is generally designed for a purpose. It may be promoted for particular uses.

        • Except that this product appeared to be marketed as a way to spy on others unknowningly, and the item resembles a hook that is only used in bathrooms or locker rooms. This was not a home security or safety device. The intent that this product was primarily to be used to commit illegal acts is pretty clear. The issue for Amazon is that it should have known this, and that it claimed it had reviewed products to prevent this sort of thing, and yet it seems that Amazon was still selling these items anyway. Thi

      • While the cynic in me says you're correct and that Amazon is involved because of their almost infinitely deep pockets, I have a feeling that whatever retailer advertised these products specifically for the use case of capturing video of people in the bathroom is gonna get in trouble. And here's why:

        1. this is a product that is specifically advertised for spying on people while they are in the bathroom with a reasonable expectation of privacy, and was advertised as such on Amazon, where Amazon has approval

      • >Probably because of the nature of the US justice system, where you seek damages not from the most guilty person, but from the entity with the deepest pockets.

        You just hit on the heart of the US tort system.

        • When more than one entity is responsible for causing harm, maybe ability to pay should be more important than degree of liability.

          I think most reasonable people would agree that--given these facts--great harm was done here.

          Was all of the harm done by Amazon? No.
          Was most of the harm done by Amazon? No.
          Was great harm done by Amazon? I say yes.

          The fact that the person who did the most harm can't afford to pay a large judgment doesn't mean that someone else who did great harm shouldn't have to.

        • No, the person who purchased tis spy cam is most likely charged with a criminal act. Ie, the most guilty person is indeed being held accountable. Amazon is on trial for essentially aiding this act. This lawsuit is against Amazon and 10 "John Does", so details of who these are is vague and it's unknown. Though some of the John Doe's were the people making the camera.

          It's unreasonable to assume that only Amazon is being punished and not the pervert who spied on the girl.

      • It's complicated. It doesn't appear to be criminal, or if it was not easily prosecuted. But in civil law you can make some pretty amazing leaps to tie people to the harm that they cause.

        Ignoring the complexities of the legal system. Those of us with common sense can see that Amazon made a bad call. Putting profit over public safety is not really going to fly once us (the public) gets a whiff of what is going on.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sjames ( 1099 )

        Yes. Aiding and abetting a crime is itself a crime.

        If using a product as advertised would be a crime, it is a crime to sell it. OTOH, if the product has some legitimate use but is mis-used to commit a crime, then the product is legal and liability is solely of the (mis)user.

        That's why grey market cable de-scramblers sold in some magazines were touted for stabilizing weak video signals and not for getting free cable channels.

        • As I pointed out upstream in this thread, a shopkeeper could legitimately use these cameras to spot shoplifters, and if their advertisement had shown this use I can't see how they'd be held liable for this kind of misuse. As it is, by showing them being used in a bathroom where there's a reasonable expectation of privacy, they could be considered to be putting the idea into people's minds and causing people to break the law who wouldn't have done so otherwise. Yes, that's a bit of a stretch, but a good la

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by sjames ( 1099 )

            And that latter part is why the judge won't simply dismiss the suit. It'll take a trial to see if Amazon is liable.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by taustin ( 171655 )

        Is it illegal to sell a camera designed with the express purpose to spy on people in bathrooms? If not, why is this a case?

        That is what this case will determine.

      • So, the seller would need to ask the buyer what the intended purpose is? Would they need to do follow-up to ensure the buyer was telling the truth? Just because a camera is disguised doesn't mean its owner plans to violate any laws with it.

      • This isn't a criminal case, its a civil case.

        Even if its legal to sell it, if someone is harmed by a product and the person selling the product knew and worse even encouraged others to use it for that harm, then its liable to the consequences of that at least to the victim who was not party to that sale and thus didn't get a say in the harm caused by the transaction between amazon and the pervert.

        Now as to whether it SHOULD be illegal, well I'd argue that if your selling something with the intention that it

      • Go into a gun shop and ask to buy a gun because you need to go kill a specific person. You'll find out that your 2nd amendment won't help you. Furthermore if you do get a gun and do go shoot the person the guy who sold it to you is liable since he knew the specific intent up front (a concept of knowledge intent) and thus has breached their duty of care to the injured party.

        This is an entirely consistent US legal principle. You can sell all sorts of things, but you are liable if you specifically sell it to s

    • Re:Totally Agree (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DarkOx ( 621550 ) on Tuesday December 05, 2023 @10:08AM (#64056501) Journal

      I could just as easily put a towel bar camera on the wall by the shop sink and it would be totally legal an acceptable.

      The problem isn't the product. Its entirely the marketing and positioning of it. I am not really clear on the law here and I bet if someone with deep enough pockets wanted to litigate things the laws that we do have will run into 1A issues.

      The hardware store can sell, duct tape, rags, zip ties, bags, etc all separately. However if they aggregated all these items into a single box and labeled it 'rape kit' they are likely to run afoul of some kind of incitement, or abetting type crime.

      I am not really defending the product or Amazon here, just suggest that if they showed it next to a laundry tub or utility sink in some work-space and not a bathroom there would not be an issue.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by jhuebel ( 44324 )
        That's an excellent example (duct tape, rags, zip ties). Selling those things separately is completely legal. They all have legal uses. But when you advertise them individually or collectively ("rape kit") for an illegal use, you're breaking the law.

        • So would selling a gun with an ad that says, "Great for hunting or killing your wife" break the law? If so, which one?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by necro81 ( 917438 )

        I could just as easily put a towel bar camera on the wall by the shop sink and it would be totally legal an acceptable.

        Keep in mind this is a civil lawsuit, not a criminal prosecution. So "legal" and "illegal" aren't the appropriate concepts to use. This girl claims that she was harmed (hard to argue that, based on the summary). The guy who installed and used the camera probably has broken the law (didn't RTFA). The girl is claiming that Amazon, too, bears some responsibility for what happened. But a

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        It's a civil suit, so they are arguing that Amazon is at least partially liable for the harm done to them by the hidden cameras. The basis for the claim is that Amazon knowingly advertised the products as tools for invading people's privacy.

        The judge is saying that an Amazon can't argue that they are shocked that someone would use the product for the purpose their advertising indicated it was ideal for.

    • It's a hook, I don't see the specification that restricts this to a bathroom.

      Could be in a director's office, the break-room, the kitchen, the board-of director's room.

      There's other things than hoohas to spy upon.

    • I'm confused how this is in anyway Amazon's fault and not 100% the fault of the person who installed the camera -- regardless of how the cameras was marketed. Someone could buy a power drill from Amazon and use it to make a hole in a bathroom wall to spy on someone. Would Amazon and/or DeWalt (manufacturer) be liable for that? I can see the marketing too... "This drill is so good at making holes, you can see clean through them."

    • Seeing a picture of it, it is very clear that this was designed to take illicit pictures. This isn't a monitor to check for home burglary, as the bathroom is not where you expect burglars to be.

      Anyway, the problem here is that Amazon does not due diligence on the products it sells. This is a part of how it makes a profit, by expending minimal effort, since effort always costs money. Even if it has underpaid people looking at each product, there's no oversight. Amazon is most definitely not a discount d

  • What you mean these? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Hank21 ( 6290732 ) on Tuesday December 05, 2023 @10:00AM (#64056471)
    https://www.amazon.com/Colorfu... [amazon.com] I mean, it's pretty obvious it's a camera!?! :P

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DarkOx ( 621550 )

      Dang - even though those are obviously not real cameras - how creeped out would you be if you went to use a friend or relatives bathroom and show those lined up on the shower curtain bar across from the can!

      That is the 'what were they thinking product of the day' for sure

    • The best way to tell a lie is to tell the truth in such a manner as your victim won't believe you.

      • The best way to tell a lie is to tell the truth in such a manner as your victim won't believe you.

        That sounds almost exactly like something Sir Humphrey Appleby would say:

        Bernard: I was just wondering, Minister, if we might not use the Rhodesia solution?
        Humphrey: [beat] Bernard, you excel yourself! Of course, Minister, the Rhodesia solution!
        Hacker: What are you talking about?
        Humphrey: Oil sanctions, remember? A member of the government was told about the way British companies were sanction-busting.
        Hacker: What did he do?
        Bernard: He told the Prime Minister.
        Hacker: What did he do?
        Humphrey: He told the Pri

      • Gaslighting. That is called gaslighting.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Calydor ( 739835 )

        I disagree. The best way to tell a lie is to tell the truth, but conveniently leave out a few key details which the person you're talking to will fill in - incorrectly - on their own.

  • Humans do not review every listing posted on Amazon by third parties. To expect them to do so is entirely unreasonable.

    • Maybe the products should be reviewed by humans before being listed. Amazon has basically become the middleman for Aliexpress.

      • Good luck getting a human to even respond to you never mind review every item. All of these online entities have dumped humans for automated processes with little to no recourse, e.g. automated copyright bots.

    • In the summary, the plaintiff alleges it was reviewed by humans 3 times and was allowed to be sold anyway. In the article it says

      Perhaps most alarming to the plaintiff, Amazon's Product Safety Team specifically inspected the camera to "ensure" that Amazon wasn't platforming a product being used to “infringe privacy,” “surreptitiously record others for sexual purposes,” or “create and store child sex abuse material.”

      If that is true, Amazon cannot claim it was not reviewed by a human.

    • Then if they're too lazy to curate their product inventory to make sure that they aren't selling devices that are literally advertising the ability to break the law and in the best case "accidentally" create kiddie porn, then they can pick up the slack when named as an accessory to such activities.

      I'm pretty sure these things aren't sold at Home Depot, Lowes, Best Buy, etc. - what do their product buyers know that Amazon can't figure out with orders of magnitude more resources available to them?

      • The lawsuit already alleges that it was reviewed by humans multiple times so that the OP's hypothetical point is somewhat moot.

    • Humans do not review every listing posted on Amazon by third parties. To expect them to do so is entirely unreasonable.

      Why? They take a cut of the sales. Is it so infeasible for them to have an employee spend 5 minutes glancing at the listing to make sure it's not super obviously a scam or illegal?

    • There is no "It is too hard to abide by the law" exception to the law.

      Companies cannot get out of legal responsibility because they set up their business so that it is difficult to obey the law. If your business can not reasonably obey the law, then the business gets shut down.

      If they can find a way to have computer software to satisfy the law, then they do not have to use humans. If they cannot program the computers to obey the law than they can be required to use humans, even if it is unreasonable.

  • In the comments of the linked article, someone did make one reasonable case for having a camera in a bathroom: they had a family member was a drug addict who would hide out in the bathroom to abuse fentanyl. HOWEVER, I still don't think you would use a hidden camera in that case. You would install a very visible camera and make sure anyone who used that restroom was aware the camera exists. You would likely also position it to avoid certain camera angles. That's a situation that's obviously not ideal for

  • The judge just said, "You can't just wave it away." That's all. They haven't levied a judgment.

    As for a "potentially dangerous ruling for the spycam industry", well, don't fucking point a camera at a toilet in your ads. There, solved that for you.

  • Find out who has been leaving skid marks in your toilet bowl!! Order Now!!!

  • No Way In The World (Score:3)

    by JustAnotherOldGuy ( 4145623 ) on Tuesday December 05, 2023 @03:37PM (#64057767) Journal

    There's no way in the world that Amazon didn't know what this would be used for, even without the "to record private moments in a bathroom" bit in the product description itself.

    That bit just seals the deal; it's possible that there might have been a microscopic shred of plausible deniability without it, but having it in the description is going to be a fatal and self-inflicted wound.

    No doubt that poor little Amazon Inc will throw a 20-story building filled with lawyers at this girl to try and bury her, but this looks bad for Amazon in my not-a-lawyer opinion.

Slashdot Top Deals

How many hardware guys does it take to change a light bulb? "Well the diagnostics say it's fine buddy, so it's a software problem."

Close