Additionally it is in fact expressly illegal in 13 US states (Alabama, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, South Dakota and Utah) to use video or audio equipment in a private areas without express permission of the observed.

And other restrictions apply in other states: https://www.rcfp.org/first-amendment-handbook/introduction-r...

In Sweden it's also a crime to secretly film someone in a private area (the whole home counts, and even garden and balcony). It doesn't matter who is being recorded or who put up the camera. The maximum penalty is two years imprisonment.

so if you live alone, monitor your own house and a thief come for "a visit" you can get sued and imprisoned?

No, I doubt that. For someone to be convicted for this, criminal intent must be proven. If someone lives alone - and informs any guests that they have a camera inside - it should be hard for the burglar to claim that the home owner intended to secretly film them.

On the other hand, the purpose of installing a camera in the first place would be fairly good proof of intent to secretly film intruders. That's somewhat the entire point of security cameras.

It seems that if you put a hidden wildlife camera in a swedish forest to make nature photos, you can be sued (if I'm not wrong). The "this is my garden" part should be taken seriously.

Not true. Anyone is allowed to take photographs and film in public spaces which should definitely include forests. Though this does not apply to installing permanent cameras in public spaces, which is much more restricted.

The main purpose of a wildlife camera-trap is to be set and left in the wild for days, weeks or months. In this sense can be called permanent. The best models are relatively expensive and can be stolen if you don't hide it carefully. Those camera are also used for fighting against environmental crimes (i.e: exposing arsonists walking the forest at 4AM minutes before a fireforest starts), so can be vandalized.

Ah, I didn't know that, thanks. In those cases you're probably correct that it's illegal to put up such camera without obtaining a permission. Though I don't think it's the law about "Kränkande Fotografering" (roughly translates to "Offensive Photography") - which is the law that makes it illegal to put up secret cameras in a home - that you'd be violating, but rather some other law that regulates surveillance cameras.

Even if it's technically not allowed, AirBnB is not proactively enforcing the ToS by checking the properties prior to rental. Without a legal framework for prosecution, the most we can realistically expect is a refund to the consumer and banishment of the property owner.

Does it matter? I don't expect someone from corporate to be regularly sweeping my Motel 6 room for hidden cameras. That doesn't mean I don't have an expectation of privacy or that Motel 6 has no responsibility to protect that expectation. If there's no legal recourse where I'm staying, I'd expect to be reasonably compensated for any trouble, which it sounds like is happening.

You actually do. An employee of Motel 6 (the housekeeper) sweeps your Motel 6 room every single day, or at least between stays. Furthermore the onsite management is explicitly expected to enforce corporate regulations. Yet no ABNB employee comes anywhere near your 'rental', and there exists framework for enforcing ABNB policy beyond the good-will of the 'hosts'.

If the motel housekeeping or management is the one planting the camera, then I don't see how this is any different than case with Airbnb. Airbnb hosts are explicitly expected to follow the terms of service, just as hotel management is expected to follow corporate policy.

Plus, the whole point of a hidden camera is that it's hidden. If anything, it would be far harder to find a hidden camera as the number of rooms to search increases.

If the motel housekeeping or management is the one planting the camera, then the corporation will be held account. On the other hand, if a host plants the camera, AirBNB's language makes it clear that there is no accountability or responsibility on AirBNB's part. So the incentives to actually enforce that policy are entirely different.

A case could be made against the property owner for fraud. They said they complied with AirBnB rules, and they sold you something based on that statement, but they were not in compliance. Sounds like fraud to me.

How would you imagine that would work? AirBnB employs stealth spying experts that come and sweep the property for cameras?

While I'm guessing you're being sarcastic, a number of corporate head offices use 'secret shoppers' or other similar techniques for ensuring their retail locations are following corporate policy.

Also - remember - while it may be 'your own house' - once you engage in commerce (renting out 'your own house') the rules change for you. Once people start paying - you begin to incur new responsibilities