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

151–160 of 173 posts

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

#151

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

pcl wrote: post #78
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I can agree with either of you. I definitely don't agree with "thing I don't like should be illegal". And I can't really agree with "People who sold something I don't like should be liable for it's use". I think the "blame" for objects should lie in the people that misuse them. Now, obviously, it's a little hard to come up with legitimate reasons to have a towel hook camera. However... All you're asking…

There is a world of difference between a tiny camera and a tiny camera mounted in a towel hook.

No there isn’t.

Because with a small camera, what are you going to do? Ban mounts that can hold a camera? You going to ban a towel holder with a pin hole?

Someone is always going to unhappy.

The simple rule for anyone who says “there aught to be law against” is “no there shouldn’t”. There is nothing truly new under the sun. We have broader laws that restrict bad behavior. We do not need to narrowly control life to ever tightening degrees of control.

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

#152

Post by ChainOfFools »

pixl97 wrote: post #27
Someone1234 wrote: post #6

I love technology, but some things we're able to build today cheaply and using mass-market parts concerns me. Hidden cameras can be so good now that it is impractical for someone to find them. You may disagree with that assertion, but I'd put to you that maybe you just haven't seen some of the top-end products where the only clue is pin-hole sized, or even invisible like hidden behind the LCD screen of a set top box/…

Hidden cameras, hidden microphones, hidden sensors, hidden wifi, etc. Miniaturization has and will lead to these devices becoming more powerful and everywhere in our environment.

Well one response could be that people develop a habit of using the bathroom or shower in the dark or near-dark whenever they're not entirely sure of the motives of whomever might maintain that bathroom. And a market for stupendously overpowered porrable infrared strobe lights that clip onto the back of your phone case will form alongside it.

Whatever does develop as a response, one thing is certain:the victims bear the cost for defending themselves once again. thanks to an often overweening, at best misguided, and to be blunt, possibly self-interested motivation to protect the special interests of aggressors, predators and assholes at the victim's expense.

See also: people whose response to someone pointing out that many aftermarket ( and increasingly, factory stock) headlamps are becoming bright enough to blind other drivers is to tell them, with a straight face, to wear sunglasses or get their windows tinted, or look away. At night. While driving.

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

#153

Post by pcl »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #151
pcl wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a world of difference between a tiny camera and a tiny camera mounted in a towel hook.

No there isn’t. Because with a small camera, what are you going to do? Ban mounts that can hold a camera? You going to ban a towel holder with a pin hole? Someone is always going to unhappy. The simple rule for anyone who says “there aught to be law against” is “no there shouldn’t”. There is nothing truly new under the sun. We have broader laws that restrict bad behavior. We do not need to narrowly control life to ev…

Selling something on Amazon that's purpose-designed and purpose-advertised for creepy videos in the bathroom is different than selling something on Amazon that's small and requires creativity and skill to hide in a mount.

The bar is lower for a product that some creeper can order something on Amazon and install it with a screwdriver, vs something that requires woodworking (or 3d-printing or injection molding or papier-mâché or whatever) skill in order to disguise.

Edit: the thread here is about selling on Amazon, but I see your response a few levels up mentions legality period. IMO the law should treat marketplaces like Amazon differently than individual possession. And of course, there’s a muddy line in between the two. Which is why I think law should be judged by humans rather than code.

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

#154

Post by supertimor »

0xEFF wrote: post #104
gnfargbl wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That link doesn't mention anything about it being a "bathroom spy camera". It was sold as a nanny cam which is really a legitimate, if slightly distasteful, function. There is an image of it shown with towels on the hook, but it isn't stated or implied that it should be used to spy on people as they use the bathroom. I'm a big fan of holding tech companies to the same standards as other industries, but not a big fan…

It literally says spy cam in the product title.

As well as under the “Recommended uses for product”section it says, “ Pet, Spy”

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

#155

Post by tremon »

gnfargbl wrote: post #127
praptak wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nanny cam is obviously a crappy attempt at covering the seller's ass and no judge should believe it.

Are nanny cams not a legitimate product? If they are a legitimate product, how do we tell the legitimate product from this (in your words) "crappy attempt at covering the seller's ass?" If they are a legitimate product and we can't reasonably tell the difference, why should Amazon have banned this product?

Nanny cams do not need to be disguised as not-a-camera.

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

#157

Post by nuancebydefault »

chias wrote: post #100
metadat wrote: post #4

Is there an archive snapshot of the Towel bar Cam product page as displayed by Amazon? Kinda wondering what the product actually looks like, and how Amazon allowed it to be presented. Edit: whoa, @navels how'd you do that?! Thank you, amazing: https://web.archive.org/web/20230527030738/https://www.amazo... The product reviews are creepy. -- Rest of my comment for posterity: There's an image in TFA, though it's only a…

Dear courts, do this one next https://www.amazon.com/Bathroom-Shower-Security-Cameras-Outd... The product description is... wild.

That one is unsafe since it supports powerline ethernet. Powerlines should not be in a shower. Other than that, it is supposed to be looking after babies. It is unsafe to leave babies in a shower, water or not, camera or not. Also there is no clear usage description, how to mount, how to pair,... I can't believe it passed CE certification.

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

#158

Post by nuancebydefault »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #151
pcl wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a world of difference between a tiny camera and a tiny camera mounted in a towel hook.

No there isn’t. Because with a small camera, what are you going to do? Ban mounts that can hold a camera? You going to ban a towel holder with a pin hole? Someone is always going to unhappy. The simple rule for anyone who says “there aught to be law against” is “no there shouldn’t”. There is nothing truly new under the sun. We have broader laws that restrict bad behavior. We do not need to narrowly control life to ev…

I see you got downvoted. I might get downvoted as well by saying I mostly agree with your point... To me it doesn't make sense to have a law against producing, selling or buying towelhanger/cushion/bathroom cams. Any (not even mini) cam can be used for illegal spying.

Also, a lot of sold products can be used lawfully as well as unlawfully.

In the end, Amazon's reputation is at stake. It seems like they are cannabalising their reputation that took years to build, by selling questionable items. Hopefully getting bad attention by lawsuits will incentivise them to scrutinize the products they sell or let sell on their platform.

So yes, unfortunately there is no way out of the mechanics of free market/capitalism for this problem.

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

#160

Post by BobaFloutist »

72deluxe wrote: post #150
BobaFloutist wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty common for people taking a sport seriously to record themselves to improve their technique. So maybe competitive shitting?

I can't even fathom the rules for that - is it mass, texture, ease of departure? The mind boggles.

Like many Olympic sports, I would assume there would be multiple categories:

1. Weight participants, feed them equally. Whomever has the shortest time time from start to end of defecation wins. 2. Highest weight of of single, uninterrupted mass. 3. Best form.

Post reply on HN