[HN Gopher] Judge: Amazon "cannot claim shock" that bathroom spy...
___________________________________________________________________
Judge: Amazon "cannot claim shock" that bathroom spycams were used
as advertised
Author : MBCook
Score : 206 points
Date : 2023-12-04 20:33 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| jacquesm wrote:
| You wonder why they even have a review team if this passed.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| To be able to tell press inquiries "we have a review team".
| bluGill wrote:
| Of course to the courts that means an effective review team,
| and so gets Amazon in more trouble for them not being
| effective. (note Amazon is not setup like ebay, and thus Ebay
| can get by without a review team in ways amazon cannot
| despite being similar)
| jacquesm wrote:
| Apparently they spent 8 months in court arguing this
| already. Think about that: instead of just admitting they
| fucked up they are running out the clock on the legal side.
| Insanity, that alone should be enough to double or triple
| any damages.
| belval wrote:
| That part is confusing to me because it specifically calls out
| items that are for violating privacy. Any defense from "we are
| not responsible for how a product is used as long as it's
| legal" or "our safety team inspects products that could hurt
| people" (AC appliance without a properly grounded case) would
| have sounded much more reasonable to me.
|
| The reality of it is probably that reviewers can only spend ~1
| minute per item before flagging it or not, the reviewer was a
| bit on "autopilot" and didn't flag it because it doesn't look
| like a camera at all.
| bluGill wrote:
| You cannot possibly review this in one minute. You need a
| team of different experts and they need time to think. If you
| saw this for one minute before looking at this article you
| probably wouldn't think about this use case - even though it
| is obvious once someone points it out. So Amazon needs to
| show they gave the review team enough time to think about
| this type of thing.
|
| Amazon might be able to get out of this if they can show the
| court a long enough checklist of things they did look for
| that this does pass. If that list is long enough (a term I
| specifically did not define!) they can argue they did due
| diligence, this is just different from everything they
| thought of and so it slipped threw the cracks. Of course the
| checklist better have a clear procedure for "something else
| not on this list" and a it needs to be clear anytime
| something not on the list is thought of that the process gets
| that new thing on the list. This is NOT easy or cheap.
| belval wrote:
| > You cannot possibly review this in one minute.
|
| I didn't mean to imply that you can. It's more that at
| Amazon's scale, they are surely constrained by how many new
| items are put up for sale every second. If even just 1/100
| needs to be reviewed, then that's a considerable amount of
| work. Once the pipeline is setup their workforce probably
| got progressively better so they increase the review/day
| targets to match. That loop does not have a lot of feedback
| so they probably raised it too high at some point and this
| is the result.
|
| All of that to say, it's much more likely to be a process
| failure than anything else. They probably tried to optimize
| that process but cut too close to the bone and this is the
| result.
| tdeck wrote:
| How about this shower head spy camera? Does it take more
| than a minute to figure out how this might violate
| someone's privacy?
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Bathroom-Shower-Security-Cameras-
| Outd...
| metadat wrote:
| Is there an archive snapshot of the _Towel bar Cam_ product page
| as displayed by Amazon?
|
| Kinda wondering what the product actually looks like, and how
| Amazon allowed it to be presented.
|
| Edit: whoa, @navels how'd you do that?! Thank you, amazing:
| https://web.archive.org/web/20230527030738/https://www.amazo...
|
| The product reviews are creepy.
|
| --
|
| Rest of my comment for posterity:
|
| There's an image in TFA, though it's only a partial, limited
| view: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-
| content/uploads/2023/12/MS-v-...
|
| Another article from yesterday contains a zoomed in image but no
| description:
| https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2023/12/amazon-may-be-...
|
| If we knew the product ID it could be checked for existence on
| archive.org.
|
| Anyhow, the research link I used is:
| https://www.google.com/search?q=%22it+wont+attract+attention...
| navels wrote:
| https://web.archive.org/web/20230527030738/https://www.amazo...
| gnfargbl wrote:
| That link doesn't mention anything about it being a "bathroom
| spy camera".
|
| It was sold as a nanny cam which is really a legitimate, if
| slightly distasteful, function. There is an image of it shown
| with towels on the hook, but it isn't stated or implied that
| it should be used to spy on people as they use the bathroom.
|
| I'm a big fan of holding tech companies to the same standards
| as other industries, but not a big fan of holding them to
| _unreasonably high_ standards.
| 0xEFF wrote:
| It literally says spy cam in the product title.
| praptak wrote:
| It's obviously only for the legitimate usage by the James
| Bond type of spy.
| praptak wrote:
| Nanny cam is obviously a crappy attempt at covering the
| seller's ass and no judge should believe it.
| gnfargbl wrote:
| Are nanny cams not a legitimate product?
|
| If they are a legitimate product, how do we tell the
| legitimate product from this (in your words) "crappy
| attempt at covering the seller's ass?"
|
| If they are a legitimate product and we can't reasonably
| tell the difference, why should Amazon have banned this
| product?
| space_fountain wrote:
| I mean I also have a morbid curiosity, but is there anything
| that could have been there that would have made it ok? This
| isn't lock picks were a lot of people buy them to mess around
| with and to get back into their own property
| fckgw wrote:
| Maybe some dude who likes to watch themselves shit?
| rhqq2 wrote:
| Or possibly watch others take care of their private
| business? Either way, facilitating maximum perv is not a
| great look for Amazon.
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| It's pretty common for people taking a sport seriously to
| record themselves to improve their technique.
|
| So maybe competitive shitting?
| mamurphy wrote:
| Another commenter posted the archive page. No comment on
| whether this "made it ok," but some of the other photos show
| the hooks being used in a different context, more like a
| nanny cam.
|
| This one (https://web.archive.org/web/20231204210803/https://
| m.media-a...) shows hooks in what looks like a mudroom
| catching an image of a person in black clothing in a ski-
| mask, indicating a use case of the hook would be to
| surreptitiously record a thief.
|
| On the archive, it is advertised as a "Hidden Clothes Hook
| Camera, Mini Spy Camera HD 1080P, Nanny Cam with Motion
| Detection, Wireless Security Camera for Home/Office/Pet
| Monitor, Video Recorder No WiFi Needed, No Audio" with no
| mention of it being a "bathroom spycam."
| space_fountain wrote:
| Yeah, but I mean I assume the people selling date rape
| drugs do a bit of wink, wink, nod, nod, thing too. Do you
| think literally a single person bought this and used it as
| a nanny cam? I think I can imagine, maybe it got used
| outside of a bathroom, or got used by people play acting
| hidden cameras, aka used with everyone's consent, but I
| don't think it gets much worse than this, except maybe for
| this other product amazon still sells
| https://www.amazon.com/Bathroom-Shower-Security-Cameras-
| Outd...
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| > Do you think literally a single person bought this and
| used it as a nanny cam?
|
| There is actually one person who left a review and seems
| to have bought it with a less nefarious purpose than
| spying on someone in the bathroom:
|
| > I set this up on my back window to keep an eye out for
| any suspicious activity in the area behind our house. We
| share a communal back yard area and people tend to walk
| through quite often. I love how this camera is disguised
| and I can place it anywhere!
|
| However, it does appear to be marketed for the nefarious
| purposes despite the comical "bad guy with ski mask" you
| need to hide the camera from _for some reason_.
| huytersd wrote:
| Absolutely. Making sure the help is not stealing. Spying on a
| spouse you suspect is cheating in your home. Filming
| contractors while they work in a room to make sure they're
| not cutting corners etc.
| tzs wrote:
| The "Customers who bought this item also bought" for it is
| interesting...it seems to be all women's bathing suits.
| tyingq wrote:
| "It puts the lotion on its skin"
| chias wrote:
| Dear courts, do this one next https://www.amazon.com/Bathroom-
| Shower-Security-Cameras-Outd...
|
| The product description is... wild.
| metadat wrote:
| Even while the lawsuit unfolds, Amazon still hasn't done a
| sweep.
|
| Should I be shocked?
| Someone1234 wrote:
| I love technology, but some things we're able to build today
| cheaply and using mass-market parts concerns me. Hidden cameras
| can be so good now that it is impractical for someone to find
| them.
|
| You may disagree with that assertion, but I'd put to you that
| maybe you just haven't seen some of the top-end products where
| the only clue is pin-hole sized, or even invisible like hidden
| behind the LCD screen of a set top box/clock/etc.
| onionisafruit wrote:
| Or maybe you have seen some top-end products without realizing
| it.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Or, in this case, perhaps some of the top-end products saw
| you.
| kennethrc wrote:
| "In Soviet Russia, ..."
|
| OK, I'll see myself out :)
| pixl97 wrote:
| Hidden cameras, hidden microphones, hidden sensors, hidden
| wifi, etc.
|
| Miniaturization has and will lead to these devices becoming
| more powerful and everywhere in our environment.
| autoexec wrote:
| At lest in this case it was not a top-end product. The girl
| found out about it and interestingly she's even accusing amazon
| of "marketing and distributing a defective product"
| kshacker wrote:
| So can I sell a camera with the following description?
|
| SpyCam
|
| Disclaimer: should not be used for spying
| btilly wrote:
| There is historical precedent.
|
| My favorite were winemaking kits sold during Prohibition that
| told you what you needed to avoid doing, because doing that
| would make wine.
|
| https://grapecollective.com/articles/prohibitions-grape-bric...
| unaindz wrote:
| That's really funny, thanks for sharing.
|
| It's worth to point out that the article tells it was legal
| to make wine in your own home during the prohibition because
| of a loophole.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| It's a common trope in grey markets.
|
| Not sure to what extent this is still the case, but when I was
| messing around with greyzone drugs about a decade ago, they
| tended to be sold on technically legal, UK, Swedish, Polish etc
| web stores. They'd have names similar to illegal drugs they
| were analogues of and like descriptions of the effects. But
| have the disclaimer "not for human consumption. Research
| purposes only".
|
| Of course even the purportedly pure chemical products were
| unsuitable for actual research or standards use due to lack of
| attestation to purity(at least with most vendors) and so on.
|
| It didn't affect the legality, probably just a weak attempt to
| avoid potential liability.
| folmar wrote:
| This is the situation of cannabis seeds in at least large part
| of the EU. You can have/buy/sell the seeds but it's illegal to
| grow them.
| bluGill wrote:
| Maybe. Can you should legitimate uses that people actually buy
| this for? There are legal uses for a spyCam. Check with your
| local laws though as what is legal is different in different
| areas. For example you can use a spyCam to see who/what is
| knocking over your garbage can - anything you film would be
| legal. I'm sure there are a lot of other legal uses for a
| spyCam.
| bdw5204 wrote:
| A spy camera that looks like a towel hook seems like a product
| that should be illegal to sell. For what legitimate purpose would
| somebody want a towel hook camera? Don't most people put towel
| hooks in bathrooms?
|
| It seems perfectly reasonable to hold Amazon legally responsible
| for selling this product even if it was a 3rd party seller (not
| clear from the article). A product whose intended use is to
| secretly record videos of people in settings where they will
| probably not be wearing clothes should be unlawful to sell just
| as it is (or should be) unlawful to knowingly record such videos
| without informed consent.
| notatoad wrote:
| "you can't sell a spy cam that looks like a towel hook" is sort
| of too broad and too specific to be a good law. what does
| "looks like a towel hook" actually mean? a law like this would
| end up having some unintended consequences, where bad actors
| use it for something like claiming all their competitors
| products look like towel hooks.
|
| i think what's happening here is really the ideal solution: you
| can sell a camera that looks like anything, but if somebody
| uses the towel-hook spy cam that you sold for it's obvious
| intended purpose, you're liable for the damages.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| I'm not sure I can agree with either of you.
|
| I definitely don't agree with "thing I don't like should be
| illegal".
|
| And I can't really agree with "People who sold something I
| don't like should be liable for it's use".
|
| I think the "blame" for objects should lie in the people that
| misuse them. Now, obviously, it's _a little_ hard to come up
| with legitimate reasons to have a towel hook camera.
| However... All you 're asking for is smaller cameras.
|
| To which we restart this whole thing with _" These super
| small cameras should be illegal"_.
| pcl wrote:
| There is a world of difference between a tiny camera and a
| tiny camera mounted in a towel hook.
| diputsmonro wrote:
| I understand where you're coming from, but the effect of
| rules like that is to essentially create a system where
| spying on people with towelhook cameras is totally legal
| and easily doable unless you happen to get caught.
|
| Most laws could be reduced in the same way, but a lot of
| dangerous illegal activities have proactive protections,
| like regulations on purchasing and selling guns, etc.
|
| Small cameras as a class are probably too broad not to sell
| as a rule, but cameras sold with a specifically designed
| case to pass them off as other objects might be a step too
| much. Of course one could always drill a small hole into
| anything and add a camera, but we shouldn't just be giving
| the offenders the tools so easily right off the shelf.
| superjan wrote:
| The "ideal" is not yet reached: the judge rejected a motion
| to dismiss, there is no verdict yet. And then there's appeal.
| Amazon has deep pockets.
| paulddraper wrote:
| AFAIK, "towel hook" = "coat hook" and is often placed in
| entryways.
| thsksbd wrote:
| Where Amazon gets nabbed is the listing specifically says
| towel hook.
| bhelkey wrote:
| It's up to the legal system to decide whether this was
| advertised as a hidden bathroom camera.
|
| I imagine that the advertising pictures of the camera holding
| a towel made this a rather easy decision.
| paulddraper wrote:
| > a product that should be illegal to sell
|
| Is the suggestion that should be "marketing that should be
| illegal"?
| Zigurd wrote:
| Amazon doesn't need, or, rather, shouldn't need laws in order
| to do the right thing.
| toolz wrote:
| and what is the "right" thing with regards to a coat hook
| camera?
|
| I know someone who put a spy camera in their kitchen to catch
| a person drugging their beverages. Could've just as easily
| been a coat hook spy camera.
|
| To go at it from another angle, how about those snake cameras
| that bomb detection units sometimes use. You can use that for
| illicit purposes and good purposes.
|
| I'm not saying the wrong thing is to ban these things, all
| I'm saying is that it's not quite so black and white as some
| people are making this out to be.
| thsksbd wrote:
| It's advertised as a towel hook. By their own admission,
| the product is designed, meant and marketed to be used in a
| bathroom.
|
| That's what's great about the case. They can't claim that
| they're not liable because it is meant for legitimate use
| because they advertise specifically for an illegal use.
|
| By their own admission, they have to find a legitimate use
| of a bathroom spy cam.
| tzs wrote:
| The archive.org copy of the listing linked elsewhere in
| this thread shows it listed as a clothes hook. One of the
| photos does show towels on it, suggesting it can work as
| a towel hook, but another shows a coat on it and is not
| in a bathroom.
| Zigurd wrote:
| It doesn't matter what you, or I, think is the right thing
| to do. Commerce is a consensual act. I can deny you a deal
| on any basis. Amazon did not exercise judgement.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| The standard answer is to prevent the crime that happens in
| bathrooms: drug use, rapes, bullying, et cetera.
|
| But that's a BS answer IMO. If you actually want to prevent the
| crime, the criminals have to know the surveillance is there.
| Make the cameras visible, or take the doors off the bathroom
| stalls[1]. People will be outraged at that; but hidden
| surveillance is even worse.
|
| 1: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/some-
| water...
| asveikau wrote:
| Looking at the photo of the product, it'd be substantially
| less sketchy to put it _somewhere other than a bathroom_ for
| home security purposes. But I know a lot of people are
| sketched out by putting security cameras indoors, even in a
| living room or hallway. I 've got lots of cameras on my
| perimeter but none inside the house.
| chankstein38 wrote:
| Yeah I thought the quote in the article claiming there were
| "legitimate and legal uses" was odd. They said "like in-home
| surveillance" but... why do you need to surveil your bathroom?
| What legal purpose does that serve? Maybe a way to film
| burglars while they don't know they're being filmed? But isn't
| part of the reason security surveillance works is visible
| cameras making people do the "right thing" or whatever. The
| quote was so weird. I don't see any legitimate use that doesn't
| have a pretty easy contradiction.
| tiltowait wrote:
| We have coat hooks that look similar to this in our foyer. I
| can definitely see a legitimate use for a camera there, and
| having it be discreet would be great.
| wavemode wrote:
| "should be illegal" isn't really a tenable criteria to require
| vendors to apply to their products. What does that even mean,
| broadly? A product is either legal to sell or it isn't.
| tyingq wrote:
| I guess you could argue nanny cam for when the kid is being
| bathed, but of course, that's not the only activity it would
| monitor.
| Sanzig wrote:
| Good. Amazon has been happy to rake in commissions for years from
| dodgy products sold by third party sellers (uncertified
| electrical equipment, scam flash drives/SSDs, spycams, etc) and
| then turn around and blame the marketplace sellers when the
| inevitable happens.
|
| Unlike eBay, Amazon goes to great lengths to sow confusion about
| what it sells versus its marketplace participants. The average
| user thinks that when they buy something off Amazon, they're
| buying something procured and vetted by Amazon, when it's really
| a marketplace seller using Amazon's logistics services.
|
| Well, they can't have it both ways, either Amazon is a well
| vetted marketplace or the wild west. They can't project one image
| to their customers and claim another in court.
| space_fountain wrote:
| And I'm not convinced we need a wild west either, at least if
| it's also more or less impossible to trace responsibility back
| to the producer. It's pretty new for something like Amazon to
| exist with the ability to market (through product
| recommendations), handle payments, and handle shipping
| logistics for a product that they need never even see. It means
| it's easy for manufacturers like this to basically get away
| scot free because they have to invest literally nothing in the
| US that can get taken away in the event that they turn out to
| be doing something like this. Some of the lines on the product
| page are chilling.
|
| > [(Motion Detection Mode)] When you turn on its motion
| detection mode, the camera will automatically start to record a
| video when motion is detected. You do not need to worry about
| missing any important moments, ensure the security of your
| home, garage or anywhere you want.
|
| Every line they're sure to end like this is being used for home
| security, but idk that someone could read this and think that
| was true
| Sanzig wrote:
| eBay is a wild west, but it's at least honest about it. It's
| very clear when you buy something from eBay, it's coming from
| an independent seller, and eBay provides you all the history
| of seller feedback so you can try to vet the seller yourself.
| They also provide a dispute resolution system through PayPal
| that heavily favours the customer.
| toast0 wrote:
| > And I'm not convinced we need a wild west either, at least
| if it's also more or less impossible to trace responsibility
| back to the producer.
|
| I don't think it's wise to try to end the wild west. At the
| end of the day, we've been able to send money overseas and
| get things of questionable quality practically forever; some
| of the earliest writings are complaints about quality of
| foreign sellers. It's unreasonable to expect a courier to
| accept full responsibility for the packages it delivers, and
| it's usually not feasible to take effective action against a
| foreign seller.
|
| It might be reasonable to require a registered agent for a
| seller who is realistically subject to the legal
| jurisdiction(s) where products are warehoused/shipping
| originates though. It's generally pretty easy and inexpensive
| to find registered agents for incorporation requirements, but
| I imagine if there were real consequences for registered
| agents of products being warehoused, costs would be real as
| well. If that drives people to Aliexpress, so be it?
| Pxtl wrote:
| Yes. I'm quite tired of hearing "it's not our fault that toys
| full of lead were sold on our storefront and stored, fulfilled,
| and shipped from our warehouse in boxes bearing our logo! When
| we said that we 'recommend' the product, we meant, like,
| algorithmically, not for realsies. We had nothing to do with
| these products! It's all XGZDoo, a company we kicked off the
| store. And now would you like to buy any products from XGZDee,
| our latest new seller?".
| grobbyy wrote:
| I like having a Wild West, but it should be clearly
| advertised as such. AliExpress and eBay are clearly Wild West
| platforms and I appreciate them.
|
| Getting scammed on Amazon is different. Amazon should be
| fully liable since very sophisticated customers can be
| confused by commingling, marketplace settlers, algorithmic
| recommendations, etc. all designed to look legitimate to the
| unwary while being completely unsafe.
|
| I stopped buying food and medical products on Amazon
| because... scams.
| oceanplexian wrote:
| I like having an online store with better selection than
| whatever I can get at the local Big Box store.
|
| People forget how bad it was before Amazon, packages took
| weeks to deliver with even less accountability than Amazon
| (i.e no reviews). I remember the days of paying $40 for a 3
| foot HDMI cable. Bought an unsafe or defective product at a
| "Trusted" retailer? Enjoy your $3.50 check from the class
| action lawsuit 3 years later.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > with even less accountability than Amazon (i.e no
| reviews)
|
| Given that Amazon reviews are utterly worthless, I'm not
| sure that's an example of Amazon having more
| accountability.
| Pxtl wrote:
| Right? Maybe at this point it's mostly historical inertia
| and they've converged to similar UIs, but the mental brand
| people have for these companies is very different.
|
| eBay is buying from Some Guy. AliExpress is buying from a
| sketchy unlicensed and unregulated warehouse in China.
| Amazon is a _store_. These are the reputations they
| cultivated for themselves.
| isk517 wrote:
| I've had to explain to my father so many times that just
| because you've bought something off of Amazon does not mean
| that you bought it from Amazon. They really should have a
| separate store front for 3rd party sellers.
| Sanzig wrote:
| Honestly, given that it seems like tons of retailers are
| trying to follow Amazon's lead with a marketplace system, I
| think we need a consumer protection law to require companies
| to make it _very_ clear to consumers when they are buying
| from third party sellers. The issue is rampant. Here in
| Canada, CBC did an investigation about Best Buy 's
| marketplace listings on their online store [1]. It's greed,
| pure and simple: these large retailers are willing to
| mortgage their reputation for some risk-free sales commission
| and absolve themselves of any liability by blaming their
| marketplace sellers.
|
| [1] https://youtu.be/Gdc9_uPETIE
| legitster wrote:
| Amazon used to have a rule that all sellers had to have a US
| business address. So you at least had importers stateside who
| could deal with product liability questions.
|
| They got rid of it to compete with Wish.com et al who had huge
| product selections. But the product quality on Amazon has been
| awful ever since then.
| voytec wrote:
| > Amazon has been happy to rake in commissions for years from
| dodgy products sold by third party sellers (...) and then turn
| around and blame the marketplace sellers when the inevitable
| happens.
|
| They've also been happy with making it harder for the customer
| to choose a particular seller (especially one w/o Amazon
| Storefront site)
| JohnFen wrote:
| This is the main reason why I stopped buying things from
| Amazon. It became too difficult to separate the wheat from
| the chaff, in part because it became 90% chaff.
| wiml wrote:
| I've started using Amazon's website to find a product and
| then going to the seller's website to buy it... what goes
| around comes around, I guess.
| duxup wrote:
| I was helping my kids pick out Christmas gifts recently.
|
| I searched "lego" on amazon. Numerous knock off non lego
| products all over the place, many with very similar boxes, even
| lego numbers and fonts and all.
|
| It's just one ongoing scam site now.
| redserk wrote:
| The wild thing is, Amazon's first-party offerings generally
| stand out well by itself! They don't need to trick people with
| Marketplace junk. They could completely drop the marketplace
| and still be, IMO, the most useful shopping subscription.
|
| I can get my weekly groceries, soap, toilet paper, a TV, and
| socks with a handful of clicks. On my doorstep. The same day I
| click. No driving to a store, no walking around, just grab off
| my doorstep. This is the entire reason I find Amazon worth it
| (even a steal!). I don't care for millions and millions of
| items, of which many are duplicitous clones.
|
| This marketplace trend has been completely ridiculous and I
| hope Amazon (among others!) are found to be just as responsible
| for what's sold. A lot of electronics I've seen are dodgy at
| best, but very clearly dangerous at their worst. If there's a
| problem, just spin up a new nonsense "brand name" to mask the
| problems of the former one.
|
| This marketplace trend has completely turned me off from other
| websites. Target and Walmart's websites are immensely
| frustrating. I haven't used Newegg in ages.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > This marketplace trend has completely turned me off from
| other websites
|
| If I can't find what I want in a local store, I order
| directly from manufacturer's websites instead of using any
| online marketplace (when possible -- which is the majority of
| the time).
| jjk166 wrote:
| I don't think the people buying spycams off Amazon are too
| surprised when a spycam arrives. If Amazon had put a big banner
| at the top of the page saying "this is a third party product,
| it seems skethy af" I doubt any of the purchasers would change
| their behavior. Certainly no one at Amazon duped someone into
| accidentally setting up a bathroom cam.
|
| Spycams are legal to sell in the US, and it is the
| responsibility of owners of cameras to use them legally. I
| wouldn't expect a brick and mortar store to certify that the
| products they sell are impossible to be 'used to "infringe
| privacy," "surreptitiously record others for sexual purposes,"
| or "create and store child sex abuse material"' and be held
| liable when one of their products is used as such. Perhaps the
| sale of such cameras should be more regulated, but it shouldn't
| be Amazon's place to decide that the law is insufficient and
| fix it.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| Its just denying a "motion to dismiss"
|
| pretty low hanging
|
| but it is federal district court, a bit more serious than a West
| Virginia state court
|
| fun stakes
| thsksbd wrote:
| this is a trial you want dismissed. After that you try your
| darndest to settle.
|
| After all, do you really want a jury of 6 men (ie dads of
| little girls), a 6 women (ie identifying with the victim)
| adjudicating this? When you're one of the most despised
| companies in America?
|
| Settle Amazon. Settle quickly.
| binary132 wrote:
| I think it's evil that they would even defend themselves tbh.
| thsksbd wrote:
| Bastards like this being able to defend themselves as best as
| possible is the corner stone of our rights.
|
| What I think is evil is that the firing squad isn't on the
| table for the marketing department.
| neilv wrote:
| I'd expect Amazon product safety people to know what these are.
| Spycams have been widely advertised for decades, often overtly
| targeted specifically for use of spying on women.
|
| For example, pretty early in Web history (before WiFi and then
| IoT were popular), "X10" cameras were advertised heavily:
| https://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~kuan/x10.html
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| I mean it's a spy camera that only makes sense in a bathroom.
| There's even a _showerhead_ one sold on Amazon.
|
| I'm not even sure it's humanly possible to look at one of these
| and _not_ realise the primary use case is criminal.
|
| The only conclusion I'm left to draw from this is either that
| no actual review takes place, or that the review is merely
| there to ascertain "is this product literally illegal right
| now?"
| autoexec wrote:
| You can create convoluted excuses for the showercam too. For
| example, cases where you wanted to keep an eye on a
| babysitter while they bathed your child or a nurse or
| caretaker bathing an adult/elderly family member who was
| disabled.
| lakpan wrote:
| Ph-lease! You don't need to be that damn close to "keep an
| eye on", and actually I don't think you'd really _want_ to
| be that close.
| isk517 wrote:
| Holy crap, that one that flat out says 'We are not responsible
| for what you do with this camera'. Usually that is something
| they slip into the fine print, not make the main point of the
| advertisement.
| scrollbar wrote:
| The article links to an amazon search results page for "bathroom
| spy camera"
|
| Here is the first result: "1080P Bathroom spy Shower Nozzle
| Hidden Spy Security Cameras Mini Camera DVR 32GB,Mini Nanny Cam
| Smart Home, Indoor Outdoor Baby Camera"
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Bathroom-Shower-Security-Cameras-Outd...
|
| Kind of incredible that this still continues. They at least give
| some kind of cover for the use case of a "baby camera" but
| honestly even that feels so flimsy. This is disturbing.
| walrus01 wrote:
| the "baby camera" part is just the vendor keyword-stuffing for
| search results so that their product will show to more people.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Why can't the third party seller be held accountable? Why do we
| allow unaccountable third party sellers carte blanche access to
| US consumers?
|
| The way that I see it if someone is harmed then they are due
| justice. If Amazon lets dodgy international third party sellers
| run hog wild and harm consumers then Amazon should be at fault
| here. Otherwise there is no incentive to police these things,
| there are victims, Amazon makes money, and sellers aren't held to
| account. It's ridiculous.
| Phil_Latio wrote:
| > spycam industry
|
| I believe China banned them. There are still spycams from chinese
| vendors, but I think they only supply foreign customers. Anyone
| can confirm or has more insight?
| hnburnsy wrote:
| Sort of related...
|
| https://www.kxan.com/investigations/son-of-buc-ees-co-founde...
|
| >The son of a co-founder of the nationally renowned Buc-ee's
| convenience store was arrested Tuesday in Travis County and faces
| 28 separate state jail felony charges of invasive visual
| recordings. A woman reported she and a few friends were visiting
| the lake house with Mitchell Wasek when one friend, who works
| cybersecurity for the Department of Defense, noticed a charging
| port with a hidden camera plugged into the wall of their
| bathroom, court records state. The group of friends left with the
| camera and on its micro-card found dozens of videos of themselves
| and other people in bathrooms and bedrooms at the lake house as
| well as at Mitchell Wasek's Dallas apartment, according to court
| records.
|
| Another story reports...
|
| >Amazon records linked purchases of a half-dozen spy cameras and
| hidden cameras to Mitchell Wasek, the affidavit says.
| m4dc4pXXX wrote:
| Gross. You can do the search on amazon ("bathroom spy camera")
| and there are tons of results. One is even a shower nozzle !
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-12-04 23:02 UTC)