Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge: Amazon "cannot claim shock" that bathroom spycams were used as advertised

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 173 posts

Re: Judge: Amazon "cannot claim shock" that bathroom spycams were used as advertised

#41

Post by toolz »

Zigurd wrote: post #23
bdw5204 wrote: post #9

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 vid…

Amazon doesn't need, or, rather, shouldn't need laws in order to do the right thing.

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.

Re: Judge: Amazon "cannot claim shock" that bathroom spycams were used as advertised

#42

Post by scrollbar »

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.

Re: Judge: Amazon "cannot claim shock" that bathroom spycams were used as advertised

#43

Post by withinboredom »

ReptileMan wrote: post #19
ceejayoz wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Perhaps most alarming to the plaintiff, Amazon's Product Safety Team specifically inspected the camera to "ensure" that Amazon wasn't platforming a product being used to “infringe privacy,” “surreptitiously record others for sexual purposes,” or “create and store child sex abuse material.” This is the key bit that makes it different from your examples.

That is kinda tricky because >Tech legal expert Eric Goldman wrote that a victory for the plaintiff could be considered "a dangerous ruling for the spy cam industry and for Amazon," because "the court’s analysis could indicate that all surreptitious hook cameras are categorically illegal to sell." That could prevent completely legal uses of cameras designed to look like clothes hooks, Goldman wrote, such as hypotheti…

If it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it probably isn't a lemon. I don't think you have to be too creative here. I don't think it is reasonable for any spy cam to be legal, since the majority of the time you'll be recording people without consent (otherwise, what is the point in getting one).

Re: Judge: Amazon "cannot claim shock" that bathroom spycams were used as advertised

#44

Post by bluGill »

ceejayoz wrote: post #10
jacquesm wrote: post #3

You wonder why they even have a review team if this passed.

To be able to tell press inquiries "we have a review team".

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)

Re: Judge: Amazon "cannot claim shock" that bathroom spycams were used as advertised

#45

Post by space_fountain »

Sanzig wrote: post #13

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…

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

Re: Judge: Amazon "cannot claim shock" that bathroom spycams were used as advertised

#46

Post by thsksbd »

paulddraper wrote: post #21
bdw5204 wrote: post #9

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 vid…

AFAIK, "towel hook" = "coat hook" and is often placed in entryways.

Where Amazon gets nabbed is the listing specifically says towel hook.

Re: Judge: Amazon "cannot claim shock" that bathroom spycams were used as advertised

#47

Post by bhelkey »

paulddraper wrote: post #21
bdw5204 wrote: post #9

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 vid…

AFAIK, "towel hook" = "coat hook" and is often placed in entryways.

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.

Re: Judge: Amazon "cannot claim shock" that bathroom spycams were used as advertised

#48

Post by chickenpotpie »

gretch wrote: post #30
space_fountain wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a pretty new thing to have online market places with the kind of scale that exists today while claiming no duty to know about the things being sold. If Walmart or your neighborhood mom and pop tried to sell this everyone would be up in arms so it's weird that some people think it's a good idea to structure society in a way where we strip any responsibility away. On the gun shop we do actually require some duty o…

I don’t think it’s new at all. Fb marketplace takes inspiration from Craigslist which takes inspiration from newspaper classified ads. If you went to a classified ad and bought a toaster or something and it was bunk, would you think about holding the newspaper accountable?

No, but I would if they sold bathroom cameras.

The issue isn't of quality, it's an issue of legality

Re: Judge: Amazon "cannot claim shock" that bathroom spycams were used as advertised

#49

Post by [deleted] »

bdw5204 wrote: post #9

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 vid…

[deleted]

Re: Judge: Amazon "cannot claim shock" that bathroom spycams were used as advertised

#50

Post by pixl97 »

jacquesm wrote: post #22
ReptileMan wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is kinda tricky because >Tech legal expert Eric Goldman wrote that a victory for the plaintiff could be considered "a dangerous ruling for the spy cam industry and for Amazon," because "the court’s analysis could indicate that all surreptitious hook cameras are categorically illegal to sell." That could prevent completely legal uses of cameras designed to look like clothes hooks, Goldman wrote, such as hypotheti…

It's pretty easy actually: If a product has more creepy usages than that it has contrived good usages you should probably err on the side of caution.

No, this is a pretty poor argument.

Simply put anyone coming after your product can submit a completely unrealistic set of abuses they could do with your product whereas your products normal uses may only cover a few particular tasks.

If you (the state) doesn't want a product on Amazon, you should be required to show meaningful evidence the product can both be harmful and is against the law to sell in your jurisdiction.

Post reply on HN