Airbnb is Banning Indoor Security Cameras (theverge.com) 103
Airbnb will no longer allow hosts to use indoor security cameras, regardless of where they're placed or what they're used for. In an update on Monday, Airbnb says the change to "prioritize the privacy" of renters goes into effect on April 30th. From a report: The vacation rental app previously let hosts install security cameras in "common areas" of listings, including hallways, living rooms, and front doors. Airbnb required hosts to disclose the presence of security cameras in their listings and make them clearly visible, and it prohibited hosts from using cameras in bedrooms and bathrooms.
But now, hosts can't use indoor security cameras at all. The change comes after numerous reports of guests finding hidden cameras within their rental, leading some vacation-goers to scan their rooms for cameras. Airbnb's new policy also introduces new rules for outdoor security cameras, and will now require hosts to disclose their use and locations before guests book a listing. Hosts can't use outdoor cams to keep tabs on indoor spaces, either, nor can they use them in "certain outdoor areas where there's a great expectation of privacy," such as an outdoor shower or sauna.
But now, hosts can't use indoor security cameras at all. The change comes after numerous reports of guests finding hidden cameras within their rental, leading some vacation-goers to scan their rooms for cameras. Airbnb's new policy also introduces new rules for outdoor security cameras, and will now require hosts to disclose their use and locations before guests book a listing. Hosts can't use outdoor cams to keep tabs on indoor spaces, either, nor can they use them in "certain outdoor areas where there's a great expectation of privacy," such as an outdoor shower or sauna.
what about condo common areas? (Score:2)
what about condo common areas?
Re: (Score:3)
How does this help? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not seeing how banning interior security cameras is going to prevent people from trying to hide cameras inside the house that were already breaking the existing rule.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Aside from how off topic this is, the peer reviewed research says that guns are used between 2 and 10 times as often for legal self defense as to commit crimes. Bans will - obviously - have a disproportionate effect on the law abiding over the criminals, so it will reduce the legal use of guns for self defense more than the criminal use. (And FBI data says that having, and using, a gun is the single more effective way to avoid being injured or robbed in a violent assault or robber, even the the attacker sho
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
> Aside from how off topic this is, the peer reviewed research says that guns are used between 2 and 10 times as often for legal self defense as to commit crimes.
Please link it.
> And FBI data says that having, and using, a gun is the single more effective way to avoid being injured or robbed in a violent assault or robber
If you have the gun with you AND know you are being attacked. That's 2 conditions that are often not true at the same time.
NRA propaganda cherry-picks and doctors context. They are ev
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Please link it.
NRA propaganda cherry-picks and doctors context. They are evil. If there is a Hell, they will fry.
Why bother? If you can't tell the difference between the NRA and the FBI, you're clearly uninterested in peer reviewed science, and incapable of understanding what it is. You probably also believe Kellerman's assertion that anyone who dies within a mile of their home must have been killed with their own gun, regardless of the actual cause of death. (Speaking of cherry picking, or, really, making shit up.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Ain't no gun nut gonna back shit up.
And I say gun nut because these people *always* find a way to justify doing absolutely nothing. They'd sooner see 1000 more Uvalde's than any kind of limitation at all on getting a gun.
Crazy thing ... rewind a 60 or 70 years when school shootings didn't happen. You'll also find that many high schools at the time had rifle/shooting clubs as a school sport or activity. My old high school has (long disused and since repurposed) rifle range in the basement.
Just to spell it out for the people who refuse to think for themselves: we had a time when children were allowed to have and bring guns to school and fire them on school grounds even - but safely and under adult supervision - and despite
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, so you chose to admit you're full of shit... (Score:4, Interesting)
... instead?
Why bother?
That works.
Evidence of no evidence is evidence of being full of shit.
But while you're busy making shit up, here's a list of studies proving you're full of shit. [harvard.edu]
Covering topics such as:
- Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense
- Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments, and are both socially undesirable and illegal
- Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense
- Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime
- Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense
- Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime
- Few criminals are shot by decent law-abiding citizens
- Self-defense gun use is rare and not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions
Also, if your argument that something is "between 2 and 10 times as often" as something else related - that's not statistics, that's pulling numbers out of your ass.
Not to mention that using murder instruments 10 times (or two times) "for defense" means that in at least half of the cases "defenders" are actually the ones committing the crime by trying to kill an unarmed person.
While gun nuts are up to 10 times more likely to use guns to attack people and threaten and attempt murder than "criminals".
You are literally arguing that people with guns are pulling guns on people 10 TIMES MORE THAN CRIMINALS DO.
I.e. That they are paranoid lunatics whose crimes go unreported. Probably cause they tend to use guns to threaten their wives and kids.
Which IS all supported by the points... well... basically all on the list above.
Re:Ah, so you chose to admit you're full of shit.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It is simply a tool, an implement, you can be killed just as easy with a claw hammer as with a firearm.
Ah yes, as we all got that training before using a claw hammer.
1) assume your claw hammer is always loaded
2) never point a claw hammer at something unless you intend to use it
3) never use a claw hammer unless you intend to destroy what you use it on
4) ensure the area behind your target is clear before utilizing the claw hammer
Pretending a firearm is simply a tool and comparable to a claw hammer is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst.
Your assessment of ammosexuals is accurate but not all fir
Re: (Score:1)
1) assume your claw hammer is always loaded
Oh, and I fort to pass on some very insightful advice I once received. "you never have to reload a rock". Advice like that is how you survive real life and not by protesting the existence of an object that you believe is the only way to harm another.
Re: (Score:1)
> You seem to feel that ONLY guns are weapons and dangerous. Humans did a fine job of killing one another with bladed weapons for years. It is simply a tool, an implement, you can be killed just as easy with a claw hammer as with a firearm.
With knives and hammers you have to get fairly close to the victim, and risk retaliation if you fail. With a firearm you can stand out of their reach and fire multiple shots before they have a chance to reach you. Your chance of missing and retaliation is much lower.
Re: (Score:1)
> You seem to feel that ONLY guns are weapons and dangerous. Humans did a fine job of killing one another with bladed weapons for years. It is simply a tool, an implement, you can be killed just as easy with a claw hammer as with a firearm.
With knives and hammers you have to get fairly close to the victim, and risk retaliation if you fail. With a firearm you can stand out of their reach and fire multiple shots before they have a chance to reach you. Your chance of missing and retaliation is much lower. If you have it in your mind that you are going to kill somebody and don't want a messy skirmish, then a gun gives you the best odds.
Your are proving my point. Have you ever heard of a "Tueller Drill". Standard LE training to basically disprove your beliefs and get new recruits to think about safe distances. Basically an "attacker stand 21 feet away with a training knife from a LE officer with a holstered training weapon. The recruit knows that the attacker will charge and attempt to use the bladed weapon on the recruit. The proctor even counts it down. Almost always the attacker is able to use the bladed weapon prior to the office
Re: (Score:3)
- Self-defense gun use is rare and not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions
Also, if your argument that something is "between 2 and 10 times as often" as something else related - that's not statistics, that's pulling numbers out of your ass.
Not to mention that using murder instruments 10 times (or two times) "for defense" means that in at least half of the cases "defenders" are actually the ones committing the crime by trying to kill an unarmed person.
While gun nuts are up to 10 times more likely to use guns to attack people and threaten and attempt murder than "criminals".
You are literally arguing that people with guns are pulling guns on people 10 TIMES MORE THAN CRIMINALS DO.
I.e. That they are paranoid lunatics whose crimes go unreported. Probably cause they tend to use guns to threaten their wives and kids.
Which IS all supported by the points... well... basically all on the list above.
This. I'm a practitioner of self defence (Krav Maga) and I'm glad I'll likely never have to deal with a firearm being pointed at me in real life (we train gun defences because it's in the syllabus, but likely never to happen to me). The big thing people who've never trained for self defence don't understand is just how little time you get. If you're in a dangerous situation then the gun on your hip is already too far away... Let alone that loaded gun you left in a drawer upstairs which your kid knows how
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for another cogent reply. All good points, however I would suggest that even you underestimate the effectiveness of a bladed weapon. Real encounters never go as predictably as in training, attackers simply are not trained and therefore do not act as logically expected. The best defense for any violent attack is to run like hell if you can. If you can not or are not "allowed" to then you are correct, expect and plan to be injured. I can tell you that 100% of the time against a blade you will be cut. But even in the simplest of take downs, there are scuffed and banged up parts. How you mentally handle that actuality may determine if you survive or not.
100% this... it doesn't take much in the way of a stabbing for it to be fatal, so if you can get away, why the fuck not? With regards to knife fights, the best thing you can do is just don't (or all fights for that matter, you win 100% of the fights you don't have).
In training, we're told and repeatedly demonstrated with training knifes that in a knife fight, you will be cut... Training just gives you the chance to choose where (arms are better then a knife to the centre mass)... still would rather neve
Re: (Score:1)
although I feel that knowing how to fall down without hurting myself is a skill that will come in handy as I get older.
All I can do is laugh at this! I was one of the trainers at my department and the most difficult thing to get them to do (other than show up!) is to do fall drills. I generally had them do sets of 20 with returning to their feet as fast as possible. Trying to explain that most injuries do not occur from the strike but from the banging their noggins on the concrete just would not sink in with many. If there is was any advice I could give for real life encounters, it's to remember that. Being "knocked ou
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
used between 2 and 10 times as often for legal self defense as to commit crimes.
Does this include suicide? You are shooting someone who is trying to kill you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
guns are used between 2 and 10 times as often for legal self defense as to commit crimes
If true, that just means people with legal guns pull them out 10x more frequently than is necessary.
Re:How does this help? (Score:4, Insightful)
Bans will - obviously - have a disproportionate effect on the law abiding over the criminals, so it will reduce the legal use of guns for self defense more than the criminal use.
Ah yes, the old "if-guns-are-outlawed-only-outlaws-will-have-guns" argument. This argument might be valid if gun-control advocates were trying to *ban* civilian use of guns, and most of them are not. Instead, they are trying to be more selective about who gets to have guns. That means things like stricter background checks, which, of course, will disproportionately affect criminals (and psychotic individuals).
The more logical slogan would be "If we try to prevent outlaws from having guns, then fewer outlaws will have guns". It's not as clever or catchy, but it's more accurate.
Also, with regard to what guns are most often used for... citation please. (I'm the second poster to call you out on this). Last I checked, the #1 cause for gun-related fatalities in the US was suicide. Followed (very closely) by murder. All other causes (law enforcement, accidents, self-defense, undetermined) trail far behind.
Re: (Score:3)
Killing with Guns in the USA and Canada 1977-1983: Further Evidence for the Effectiveness of Gun Control
This article, published in 1989 by Catherine Sproule and Deborah Kennett of Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, examines the results of several other studies and analyzes killing rates in the United States and Canada for the period from 1977 to 1983 to demonstrate the relative effectiveness of Canadian gun control. The authors start with the expectation that the rate of killing by guns will be lower
Re: (Score:1)
Even though Canada has banned handguns, handguns represent more than 50% of homicides by firearms in Canada.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3510007201
Canadian culture is not as aggressive as US culture (from your statistics). Even when you exclude firearms the US still has a higher murder rate than Canada. You are comparing an apple to an orange.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3510006901
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expand
Re: (Score:2)
But the studies clearly show that banning (sic) handguns lowered handgun crime. So yes, it in fact clearly addressed your point. I'll say it again: restrictive laws on handguns lowered handgun crime. Read both of the posts I made on the two different studies. It didn't eliminate handgun crime, but it lowered it, and not just relative to the U.S.: it lowered it in Canada. Significantly.
Re: (Score:2)
Gun Control and Rates of Firearms Violence in Canada and the United States
This article was published in 1990 by Robert Mundt of the University of North Carolina. The study looks at Canadian and U.S. rates of violent crime, suicide, and accidental death over time (1974-86) to attempt to determine if Canadian gun restrictions enacted in 1977 affected these rates in Canada when compared to the U.S. In brief, Mundt concludes that the restrictions had little perceptible effect in decreasing the rates in Canada i
Re: (Score:2)
There are many countries which banned handguns and yet hand guns are used by criminals. Citation: Canada.
OK, I've tried to ignore than overwhelming flood of off-topic replies in this thread but I can't just let this one go. "Canada" isn't a citation. Just using that word in a sentence does literally nothing at all to support or refute a claim. It's an almost comical real-world implementation of the chewbacca defense [tvtropes.org].
For the record, I don't have a horse in this fight. I have some views on gun control that brand me as a right-wing gun-crazy fanatic by my friends on the left, and some views that brand me as a gun
Re: (Score:2)
Remember the most "successful" criminals were not brought low their criminal actions, they were busted by mundane offenses that gave the police the tools to go after them.. and THEN tack on the larger more heinous crimes.
So strict/tighter gun control laws means the police can then go after the crooks..
ie: They know Billy is a catalytic converter thief but they can't find any on him when they stop him.. But.. hey..
Re: (Score:2)
The more logical slogan would be "If we try to prevent outlaws from having guns, then fewer outlaws will have guns". It's not as clever or catchy, but it's more accurate.
Not so much. There's the "forbidden fruit" effect at work here. Tell someone that they can't have something and they'll try that much harder to get it. And not legally. The market for stolen guns or illegally imported guns is huge. And the Mexican cartels would like to thank you for their new markets.
Re: (Score:2)
The more logical slogan would be "If we try to prevent outlaws from having guns, then fewer outlaws will have guns". It's not as clever or catchy, but it's more accurate.
Not so much. There's the "forbidden fruit" effect at work here. Tell someone that they can't have something and they'll try that much harder to get it. And not legally. The market for stolen guns or illegally imported guns is huge. And the Mexican cartels would like to thank you for their new markets.
Of course, the best way to dry up the supply of stolen guns is to pass safe storage laws requiring people to lock up their guns when unattended. It's also by far the easiest way to reduce the rate of accidental firearm injuries and deaths. But that's gun control, so a lot of knee-jerk gun rights advocates will scream about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Many criminals are not in legal possession of the gun they are using in the commission of their crime. They can't go to the gun store and buy them because it gets flagged. So they would have to go buy them from someone where no paperwork is done. AKA gang members aren't buying their guns from the gunstore because those places have to do background checks, where as your brother's best friend doesn't (depends on the state).
For example, it is already illegal for a felon to buy a gun legally. This just makes it
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, the old "if-guns-are-outlawed-only-outlaws-will-have-guns" argument. This argument might be valid if gun-control advocates were trying to *ban* civilian use of guns, and most of them are not.
Believe the bolded part all you want. That will not make it true. I have been hearing calls for "gun control" for all of my life and the end goal, whether you acknowledge it or not, is to prevent the common citizen from owning an effective weapon.
I do not own any guns. I am fearful of ordinary people owning guns as a small subset of those people are angry, violent, and unable to think more than 5 minutes ahead. That being said, I would die fighting for the right to own an effective weapon. It is the last li
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, the old "if-guns-are-outlawed-only-outlaws-will-have-guns" argument. This argument might be valid if gun-control advocates were trying to *ban* civilian use of guns, and most of them are not.
Believe the bolded part all you want. That will not make it true. I have been hearing calls for "gun control" for all of my life and the end goal, whether you acknowledge it or not, is to prevent the common citizen from owning an effective weapon.
Well, I'm in favor of stricter gun control, and I would never try to ban civilian use of guns. Just about 100% of the people I know are in favor of stricter gun control, and not a single one of them wants to ban civilian use of guns (indeed, some of them own guns themselves). That's not a very scientific sample, of course, but it does tend to support my statement.
If you want a slightly more scientific sample, we can look at recent polls. 56% of Americans think that current gun laws are not strict enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Bans will - obviously - have a disproportionate effect on the law abiding over the criminals, so it will reduce the legal use of guns for self defense more than the criminal use.
Ah yes, the old "if-guns-are-outlawed-only-outlaws-will-have-guns" argument. This argument might be valid if gun-control advocates were trying to *ban* civilian use of guns, and most of them are not. Instead, they are trying to be more selective about who gets to have guns. That means things like stricter background checks, which, of course, will disproportionately affect criminals (and psychotic individuals).
The more logical slogan would be "If we try to prevent outlaws from having guns, then fewer outlaws will have guns". It's not as clever or catchy, but it's more accurate.
Also, with regard to what guns are most often used for... citation please. (I'm the second poster to call you out on this). Last I checked, the #1 cause for gun-related fatalities in the US was suicide. Followed (very closely) by murder. All other causes (law enforcement, accidents, self-defense, undetermined) trail far behind.
And repeatedly demonstrated incorrect in most developed countries that have gun control. In the UK or Australia it's easier for me to get a gun than it is for a criminal. Why, because I've no criminal record and just want a shotgun or bolt action rifle for the purposes of entertainment or possibly for my vocation (I.E. as a farmer might). If you cant shoot well with a Lee-Enfeild, you're still going to be shit with an AR15 (and probably hurt yourself in the process).
Functional gun control makes it diffic
Re: (Score:3)
Aside from how off topic this is, the peer reviewed research says that guns are used between 2 and 10 times as often for legal self defense as to commit crimes.
*Citation needed.
Re: (Score:3)
Sandyhook must have been one have of a day for you.
Re: (Score:1)
Biden is in the best mental shape he's ever been in.
That isn't really saying much.
Re: (Score:2)
Biden is in the best mental shape he's ever been in.
That isn't really saying much.
It's also statistically very, very unlikely. Most 81-year-olds are not in "the best mental shape they've ever been in". If Biden really is, that makes him a curious outlier, neurologically speaking-- we should sequence his DNA to find out his secret.
Re: (Score:2)
Moot, he only has beat the nuttier guy, not a normal candidate. The guy in one strait-jacket has an advantage over the guy in two.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The op was probably in parody mode. SNL already did that over-defending Joe gag.
> He gets lost in his own sentences.
Both main candidates do. The debates will be the Great Lost-Off.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know, even if that is true he is still a better choice than Trump because he tends to listen to his advisors - Trump is adamant that he is always the smartest person in the room and doesn't WANT advisors; he wants yes-men.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I do not belive I am lying.
I do not know enough about Biden or whatever mental acuity tests he's taken etc. to pass solid judgment. As such I at least try to phrase my statements to not sound like I know something I do not.
Re: (Score:2)
Does that make Trump not in decline as well? Certainly not. Does
Re: (Score:2)
I am European. The man has been on YOUR screens for decades. To me he gets shown for maybe twenty seconds once a month when there's a news segment about American politics, and was completely unknown to the general European population until four years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess his memory has a severe case of the hiccups, then.
Re: (Score:2)
"Disciplined people usually get better jobs"
Why didn't I think of that?
Re: (Score:1)
>> "Disciplined people usually get better jobs"
> Why didn't I think of that?
Because you're not disciplined enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How does this help? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not seeing how banning interior security cameras is going to prevent people from trying to hide cameras inside the house that were already breaking the existing rule.
For the hidden cameras it makes the rule violations a bit easier to enforce. Now renters have a simple heuristic in that ANY indoor security camera they find is banned and sends a stronger message to owners that indoor cameras are BAD. It probably doesn't help much, but it should help a little.
But I think the real issue is that the private/common distinction was a bit problematic. When I'm inside a house I do have an expectation of privacy even in the common areas. I should feel comfortable walking around in my boxers or initiating a private moment with my partner (even if the private moment finishes in a bedroom). Renters find any sort of indoor camera to be very intrusive.
Re: (Score:2)
But I think the real issue is that the private/common distinction was a bit problematic
The "Private" space should be the Portion of space being exclusively rented to one Guest; regardless of its normal use.
Absolutely If you have rented exclusive use of the entire house; there should be no cameras inside there --
that's not a common area. If you rented an Apartment in an apartment complex -- everything inside your space
is a Private area, and the common areas would be the hallways and other facilities o
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
your rights to put up cameras in the Living rooms and hallways if they are Outside the areas rented in the listing.
Do you throw one of those D&D dice to decide whether to put in a capital letter or not?
It's not about hidden cameras (Score:5, Interesting)
A lot of Airbnb and other short-term rentals aren't profitable unless you can tack on a bunch of fees after the fact. It's a common trick to lure people in with a low rate that hotels can't match and then charge them cleaning fees and other fees in order to make up the difference and keep the whole thing profitable.
Airbnb doesn't care about the landlord's profitability though they care about throughput because they take a percentage of everything. And just like there is always a ton of uber and Lyft drivers willing to try their hand at driving as a second job there's a nearly unlimited supply of people with just enough retirement savings to buy a rental property and try their hand at being a landlord. That's what Airbnb is counting on
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. But, let's look at it from the perspective of a guest. The old policy requires a two-step process to claim there is a violation: (1) the guest(s) must judge whether or not a camera is a violation; and (2) the guest(s) must write up the claim in sufficient detail so that Airbnb can understand the situation well enough to act upon i
My 0.02 (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's their own damn house. There is no such thing as an Airbnb "unit".
If Airbnb wants to implement the same rules as hotels then they need to be taxed and regulated as such. If they're still claiming these are people's homes being rented out then the homeowner can damn well put up cameras to protect themselves and find out who's destroying their property.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately I don't know how to enforce that.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's their own damn house. There is no such thing as an Airbnb "unit".
If Airbnb wants to implement the same rules as hotels then they need to be taxed and regulated as such. If they're still claiming these are people's homes being rented out then the homeowner can damn well put up cameras to protect themselves and find out who's destroying their property.
If you don't want to play by AirBnB's rules, then list YOUR house on a different service.
The level of entitlement to think you can use a service but ignore their rules......
And then what? (Score:1)
> the homeowner can damn well put up cameras to protect themselves and find out who's destroying their property.
I'm not sure how such would work. Even if they had video of a perp busting their stuff, what can they do about it? Taking it to the cops will possibly get them in trouble with AirBnB for not disclosing cams, and possibly fined or jailed under local peeping laws.
Ignoring whether it's "fair" or not, it doesn't seem practical.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why parents with babies should just walk around any airbnb unit with a naked baby... done. Suddenly any pictures/video recordings contain something too dangerous for non-parents to posses. I'm surprised this is not used more often.
That is actually a great idea. Want to install hidden cameras? Now you are a child pornographer, with all the legal and reputational risk that entails.
Re: (Score:2)
It's their own damn house. There is no such thing as an Airbnb "unit".
If Airbnb wants to implement the same rules as hotels then they need to be taxed and regulated as such. If they're still claiming these are people's homes being rented out then the homeowner can damn well put up cameras to protect themselves and find out who's destroying their property.
I'm willing to wager the majority of listings on Airbnb or other similar services are no longer, if they ever were, owner occupied units looking to make a little money on the side.
Re: (Score:2)
Almost certainly. AirBNB is essentially 'Uber for houses' (or maybe Uber is AirBNB for cars, I dunno), and one thing I remember very vividly about Uber's early days was the promise that it was ride-sharing rather than taxi driving. You're already going from A to B via C? Why not earn some money from the guy needing to go from C to B? And now look at how it works. There is absolutely no reason to assume AirBNB is any different.
Re: (Score:1)
but then uber took control of the pricing of rides, the system of posting them, ect.
If uber let drivers for X rate I can take someone from C to D at time A
Re: (Score:2)
Sure they can. Just not through AirBnb.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's really to stop them from continuing to install hidden cameras in the Airbnb units?
Hopefully being banned from Airbnb if they get caught, though I admit I did not read the article.
Airbnb is now back on my list (Score:3)
This is a good move. Externally-facing monitoring systems such as doorbell cameras are still permitted, within limits, while interior-facing monitors are completely banned. Besides the threat of being de-listed, this puts some real teeth into the threat of being sued. If we find a host who is spying on us after April 30th, there's no question they are breaking their contract with Airbnb by doing so.
Here's the actual announcement [airbnb.com] from Airbnb.
Re: (Score:2)
Every time I see AirBnB mentioned it’s because the nightly fee is reasonable but the cleaning and facilities fees are straight up price gouging. Often times much more expensive than a hotel. If I’m expected to clean after my stay then what is the $500 fee for?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Calm down snowflake. In your day having a public restroom with black people offended you.
Re: (Score:2)
Externally facing cameras are still allowed so you can make sure they aren't inviting anyone else.
Seems a bit extreme to me? (Score:2)
As a guy living in a duplex right now? I've considered AirBnBing out the upstairs unit before. (Currently, it's a non-issue because my adult daughter moved back in with me and is using it. But at some point, I'll be back to it being vacant again.)
I don't have indoor cameras set up in there (only a few outdoor ones). But I feel like first off? AirBnB has no leg to stand on to demand I "inform customers of their presence"? I don't necessarily mind telling them I have them? I feel like really, it's for their o
Re: (Score:2)
Stop making sense. Tech companies do not like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop making sense.
I couldn't tell? All the question marks on the the end of non-questions made my brain hurt?
Re: (Score:2)
?
Re:Seems a bit extreme to me? (Score:4, Informative)
So... technically... (Score:3)
All the residents of an apartment complex have to do now to ensure that their neighbors won't rent out their apartments to party people who cause a ruckus all night long is to install cameras in the corridors?
Good to know.
REDUCE AIRBNB HOST INSURANCE PAYOUTS (Score:4, Interesting)
I was a host with Airbnb for several years until they started to change how they do business -- from charging fees, to demanding changes in procedures for booking/reserving/reimbursements, to creating a list of criteria which disqualify a host from collecting ANY funds from Airbnb's guarantees for damage to hosts' property during any stay.
When Airbnb guests caused property damage, all Airbnb did was give my personal account a few hundred in travel credit instead of a proper payout to repair damages. So I installed a security camera (PER THEIR GUIDELINES) to properly chronicle future guests' damages. But Airbnb found another way of NOT paying out their guarantees because they decided to change my Superhost status retroactively.
Now they're changing THEIR OWN GUIDELINES of security cameras so that they can argue that hosts are violating Airbnb policies, all of which conveniently allow Airbnb to provide more plausible deniability and REDUCE THEIR PAYOUTS against damage claims.
And at every step of the way, they increased their fees (both to hosts AND to guests) and made the calculus so obvious that I don't host on Airbnb anymore, and I don't guest with them either -- hotels and motels are cheaper.
Creepy (Score:1)
Can you imagine the uproar if a hotel chain announced they were installing in-suite cameras?
You tech bros and your "disruption" are just creepy, man. Creep, creepy, creepy.
AirBNB jumped the shark... (Score:2)
Their popularity seems to have been their downfall. In the past air "BNB" meant, the hosts took care of their home, and were possibly nearby, or had someone close to do it for themselves.
Now it has become an industry. People took mortgages, which they could not otherwise pay, and lent their homes to larger companies like Vacasa. It is good to have professional services for listings, photographs, and cleaning. But the security aspect (the guest stole all the china and messed up the place!) needs a more local