Amazon 'Cannot Claim Shock' That Bathroom Spycams Were Used as Advertised, Judge Says 136
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.
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.
Totally Agree (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Totally Agree (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In most countries, mounting CCTV in a restroom is illegal even if it's a public one. That's why people go to the restroom to do illegal things like take drugs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That escalated quickly, when your bizarre counter-examples of possible uses include "amateur porn creators who want a secret spycam for some reason" or "makeup tutorials where they want a spycamera for the back of their head for some reason."
You inserted the word "secret" there. The correct word is "hidden". Secret means that something is hidden without the knowledge of the people who are there. Hidden means that it is merely not obvious to the casual observer. The difference is actually quite important.
Hidden cameras are used as second units in professional TV production way more often than you might think. It's not about deceiving the performers. They know they're on camera. It's about putting a camera where it can't be seen by the oth
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and if all a torrent tracker advertised was linux distributions, blender open source movies and other legal uses, the FBI would have no grounds to shut them down.
But torrent sites get shut down all the time.... for pirate movies, and thus this example perfectly explains the product here.
Bit torrent itself is legal, and has plenty of legal uses, but if your service advertises it for illegal uses, your going to have a problem with armed goons with seizure warrants.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, doesn't help since neither side in the US is being "persecuted". Though someone is rambling incoherently about this, but that's what you expect from Elderly Florida Man.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
> 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
>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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
How about selling some item described as "perfect for helping you drive after drinking without anyone finding out."?
This item wasn't sold as having any legitimate uses. It was sold as a camera to help you record people in the bathroom without them knowing. That's not legitimate.
Re: (Score:2)
Very true, and, in fact, the plaintiff isn't claiming that the hidden camera is inherently unlawful. She's claiming, with enough justification to prevent the judge from dismissing the case, that the way the device was advertised on Amazon (with Amazon's approval) was crafted to highlight uses which are violations of multiple laws, and that's what the case is about. She's cl
Re: (Score:2)
There ARE legitimate uses for a concealed camera. It is not the sellers duty to police every use of the item sold post transaction.
Very true, and, in fact, the plaintiff isn't claiming that the hidden camera is inherently unlawful. She's claiming, with enough justification to prevent the judge from dismissing the case, that the way the device was advertised on Amazon (with Amazon's approval) was crafted to highlight uses which are violations of multiple laws, and that's what the case is about. She's claiming that Amazon should have known that the advertisement showed the hooks being used to break the law and should have required the seller to provide pictures that didn't encourage such conduct, such as hanging merchandise on the wall in a store.
Every "tiny wireless video camera" for the past 20 years has been advertised in a way that makes it clear that they can be used anywhere. That's literally the entire purpose of that technology -- hide a camera in your store's break room, in your garage, in your living room, in your kid's bedroom for when the nanny comes over.
Since this is Slashdot -- how is this argument different from all the arguments we "information wants to be free" nerds were using to defend DeCSS 25 years ago?
Re: (Score:2)
So let the judge and jury decide. You are neither. You probably only read the summary anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Ask the judge.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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."
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
The best way to tell a lie is to tell the truth in such a manner as your victim won't believe you.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
That could well be the product, just with changed ad copy.
Was it sold by Amazon? Or by a third party? (Score:2)
Humans do not review every listing posted on Amazon by third parties. To expect them to do so is entirely unreasonable.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe the products should be reviewed by humans before being listed. Amazon has basically become the middleman for Aliexpress.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So the seller should be liable for harmful use of what they sell only if the description says you have to use it to do bad things?
You think it's okay for the pictures to depict that product as being used to unlawfully harm people? The seller should bear no liability for that?
"We didn't put a gun to his head" isn't much of a defense.
Re: (Score:2)
And where did they say that it does? And how do you not see that a towel hook with a camera in it, shown in pictures on the item listing in a bathroom and specifically mentions how "it won't attract attention" isn't a product specifically designed to infringe privacy in a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy?
It's an interesting argumentative style that puts words into someone's mouth, while accusing that person of putting words in someone else's mouth.
Who's the fuckwit now?
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Reading Comments on the Linked Article (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's denial of a motion to dismiss. That's all. (Score:2)
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.
Buy Now!! The ShitCam 2000. (Score:2)
Find out who has been leaving skid marks in your toilet bowl!! Order Now!!!
No Way In The World (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The law does not agree with you.
Re:Legit reasons (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still not convinced privacy is ever realistically achievable in any situation.
There's no such concept as absolute privacy. No legal mandate exists. There is however a concept of "reasonable expectation of privacy" in law. Which is why it's legal to put cameras pointing at the women's change room to record who goes in and out, but not *IN* the women's change room.
Re: (Score:2)
There's legitimate reasons to put cameras in bathrooms, theft and vandalism are two which was a big problem for us during Covid.
No. That's a reason to place a camera outside a bathroom door. There is zero valid reason to put a camera in a bathroom without disclosing to any person going to that bathroom that the camera exists. None. We can not live in a world where everyone is assumed guilty up front and must prove their innocence to the point they need to be seen in their most private moments in order to prove it. That's bullshit, and a sign of a irreparable distrust. I get it. I grew up in America, where we pretty much make paranoi
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, that is exactly what is done is when you want to fly. You are presumed to be a criminal until you prove you're not.
Re: (Score:2)
We can not live in a world where everyone is assumed guilty up front and must prove their innocence to the point they need to be seen in their most private moments in order to prove it. And yet, that is exactly what is done is when you want to fly. You are presumed to be a criminal until you prove you're not.
Oh, don't get me started on that security theater bullshit. That's a completely different kettle of rotten fish.
Re: (Score:2)
There's legitimate reasons to put cameras in bathrooms, theft and vandalism are two which was a big problem for us during Covid.
Nope [safewise.com]. If there's an expectation of privacy cameras are illegal. And hidden in a residential bathroom (the towel rack picture) there's definitely an expectation of privacy.
I'm honestly curious what Amazon's actual defence is going to be, for the size of cut they take they can easily afford to have a human review any listing. Yet that's not the first incredibly sketchy product listing I've seen. I mean this is pretty much the same camera [amazon.ca]. It has no WIFI (it records to an SD card) and the battery only lasts a
Re: (Score:2)
There's also incredibly powerful legal reasons NOT to put cameras in bathrooms. Like accidentally creating kiddie porn when a 9-year-old girl uses the bathroom and has no expectation that there would be a fucking video camera filming her taking a piss.
There's other ways to deal with theft and vandalism of a bathroom that doesn't involve violating child protection laws that put you in fucking jail - like putting a lock on the door and having people request access to the bathroom if they need it.
Re: (Score:2)
There's legitimate reasons to put cameras in bathrooms, theft and vandalism are two which was a big problem for us during Covid.
At least in the USA, federal and state law disagrees with you. By law, you are given an expectation of privacy in a change room at a clothing or in a restroom at a supermarket or store. And at least 18 states makes it illegal to put cameras in certain areas (like bathrooms or dressing rooms.)
IANAL, but I suggest people to learn the law before making hazardous assumptions.
Re: (Score:2)
There's legitimate reasons to put cameras in bathrooms, theft and vandalism are two which was a big problem for us during Covid.
At least in the USA, federal and state law disagrees with you. By law, you are given an expectation of privacy in a change room at a clothing or in a restroom at a supermarket or store. And at least 18 states makes it illegal to put cameras in certain areas (like bathrooms or dressing rooms.)
The somewhat disturbing thing is that O(32) states presumably do not. And expectation of privacy can be waived, whereas laws explicitly banning cameras cannot, so there are advantages to those laws existing at the state level, particularly because it's generally harder to get someone charged with a federal crime.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't let ethics get in the way of profits.
Lawsuits like this make unethical behavior less profitable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't let ethics get in the way of profits.
I feel like this is probably a plague in every boardroom across the country.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are incorrect. There are many things (including products) that are illegal on a civil level. Toys get recalled for being unintentionally dangerous to children playing with them, with no criminal charges, every year. Drugs get pulled off the market when dangerous side effects show up later on, with no criminal charges. And so on.
You should learn what words mean before you use them.
Re: (Score:2)
Toys get recalled for being unintentionally dangerous to children playing with them, with no criminal charges, every year.
You seem not to understand; being illegal is not a necessary component of a civil case. This is a civil case. Companies can face both criminal and civil lawsuits. This case is purely civil; the product being illegal is not a necessary component for a civil lawsuit to proceed. The OP asking if the product was illegal which it is not.
You should learn what words mean before you use them.
And you should learn the difference between criminal and civil law before you start attacking others. Or should we go over why you missed the point?
Re: (Score:2)
Toys get recalled for being unintentionally dangerous to children playing with them, with no criminal charges, every year.
You seem not to understand; being illegal is not a necessary component of a civil case.
Now you're moving the goalpost. You didn't say a civil case had to be illegal, you said it couldn't be illegal.
And you are completely, utterly, totally full of shit, and so childish you resort to outright lies rather than admit you're wrong.
As expected.
Re: (Score:2)
Now you're moving the goalpost. You didn't say a civil case had to be illegal, you said it couldn't be illegal.
Please cite where I used the words "could not", That is no where I used those words. I am not responsible for your imagination.
And you are completely, utterly, totally full of shit, and so childish you resort to outright lies rather than admit you're wrong.
As expected.
So instead of addressing any real points you engage in ad hominem attacks and call me childish? Apparently this is the kind of person you are.
Re: (Score:2)
Why bother? You're already lying about what's been said, you will continue to do so. Be your own monkey dancing to the organ. Grownups have better things to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, right, missed it's a civil suit.
Still, no section 230 then?