These cameras are in public, where expectation of privacy has been ruled against a zillion times.

Go against this, and filming your kids baseball game becomes a legal nightmare.

It seems very easy. Always on spy camera installed for the express purpose of dragnet surveillance? Illegal. Film child’s baseball game? Legal.

I find this attitude I find kind of tiring. Gosh it’s just sooo hard to figure out the difference between Flock Safety and Big Bill’s Little League Sports Photography. It’s actually very straightforward to determine the difference between these two things. So easy, an idiot could do it. Or a judge.

	▲	LeonKnst 18 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		While I do agree it's tiring and agree with your point I think the issue is finding the exact point to draw the line. It's easy to differentiate the two ends.

▲

TehCorwiz an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Haven't stalking and surveillance always had a different interpretation despite mostly taking place in public?

	▲	simoncion 37 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> Haven't stalking and surveillance always had a different interpretation despite mostly taking place in public? Yep. And dragnet surveillance has (pretty much?) always been illegal in the US... but it takes the courts an awfully long time to notice the new dragnets the cops set up. For example, despite the fact that the third-party doctrine says that cops can just walk up and get any ordinary business records someone you do business with has created about you, courts continue to notice and declare illegal new ways in which naive application of that doctrine creates dragnets.