Re:Redditor finds unsecured surveillance cameras seemingly p...
by kube-system on Wednesday May 13, 2020 @04:25PM
(#23171415)
I did notice that you said "as a service". That doesn't change the situation, really. The person who films is responsible for making sure they film legally. The added "on behalf of a customer" probably doesn't make a difference, unless your local laws care about whether your filming is commercial or not.
Changing the technology from 35mm film to VHS Camcorder to AI powered drone doesn't make a difference. Adding abstractions between the lens and the operator makes no difference. If your organization films with cameras, it should make sure it does so legally.
> So, again: if one of the legal requirements of the CDaaS service is to automatically avoid (or at least not-surveil) any private property—then what would the rule for that look like?
If you have determined that you need to "avoid private property" in order to comply with the law, then the rule you'd want to implement is "don't film private property".
Changing the technology from 35mm film to VHS Camcorder to AI powered drone doesn't make a difference. Adding abstractions between the lens and the operator makes no difference. If your organization films with cameras, it should make sure it does so legally.
> So, again: if one of the legal requirements of the CDaaS service is to automatically avoid (or at least not-surveil) any private property—then what would the rule for that look like?
If you have determined that you need to "avoid private property" in order to comply with the law, then the rule you'd want to implement is "don't film private property".