In most states and federally, one party consenting to a recording is sufficient, so in those cases it doesn't matter that you, the visitor, give consent.

In states with two party consent laws, I think you're required to have signage or other explicit message that declares recording is in progress (this may be different for residential properties): a Ring logo may not be sufficient.

There’s usually an option to not record audio in the software because in the states that require consent of all parties, audio recording is usually still not allowed without explicit consent of everyone in a non public location even if a notice is placed.

What about a 3rd party? You give consent to the homeowner, but do you also give consent to Amazon?

One party is sufficient. Whether you give consent -- to anyone -- doesn't matter. Your interlocutor is free to consent anyway.

AFAIK there is only one state with single party consent.

FWIW: https://recordinglaw.com/party-two-party-consent-states/

> Does that mean Amazon was invited to the conversation? Should you as a visitor to the home expect that every logo you see in the house means that you agree to have that company present in your conversations during the visit

In short. Yes. Some states only require the _owner_ of the device to consent to being recorded. PDF download below

[1] https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...

Some states only require the _owner_ of the device to consent to being recorded.

I hope that's the law everywhere (especially private property) or else security cameras could not exist be legal.

It's not. In e.g. Germany, security cameras may not film public areas, or anything outside of your own property (and also not private streets leading up to your mailbox).

Additionally, they must always be clearly labeled, clearly visible, and before getting into the range of them you'll have to have a visible sticker warning about them, and having a clear GDPR privacy policy as well as contact data for whom to contact to retrieve or delete the footage in case it might contain you.

I am fairly sure that some places do not, but consent is implicitly obtained through signage.

And heavily regulated signage at that, in terms of design, content, and visibility—not just anything that says something somewhere.

Consider this though: you walk into a casino and start gambling, and the casino hires a third party company to watch its security cameras. No one seems to have any issue with that arrangement; is this really so different? I think the key to understanding the situation is that the establishment makes the rules; the establishment put the like button there.

This calls out a really interesting extrapolation of privacy laws that have existed for many years.

For a long time, I (as a human) have permission to watch people around me.

I also have the legal right to record what is happening around me (many states only require one people to be aware of recording activities)

I also have the legal right to record YOU, assuming we are in a location where I can lawfully stand. And I can tell other people what I saw.

Now, I can put a camera somewhere, record EVERYONE, track people, and sell that tracking information.

All because we didn't anticipate the computing potential to record and process EVERYTHING.

So do we consider the web and websites to be public places or private places, and does out change depending on who runs the site?

Is a government website a private setting? Is a personal blog private or public?

I wonder if other countries have already explored this and written some law about it.

Any website that is not behind a pay wall or does not require me to login to read the content, I would consider it to be a public site.

I think you are using "public" differently here than a lot of people would. A public bathroom is still "public" in that it's available to anyone and doesn't require specific information about you to use. However, most people would still consider it a private place, and expect their privacy to be respected while using it.

That's a good distinction. If the casino sent someone to listen at an unaffiliated restaurant that is different to the casino having agents in it's own premises.