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 hypothetical in-home surveillance uses.
If someone is interested in legitimate home surveillance, they usually buy cameras that look like cameras, so people know there’s surveillance and don’t fuck around. Usually.
Amazon reps are morons for thinking they could claim innocence here.
There can be reasons why you might want more subtle cameras, but I struggle to think of legitimate reasons why one would want ones designed to only look hidden in closets and bathrooms.
Hence the standalone “usually.” Also there’s subtle and there’s straight up hidden, and I struggle to find a legit reason for hidden ones unless you’re conducting some kind of sting operation.
Exactly, probably why the lawsuit focused in on these types in particular.
It’s not about being stupid, it’s about not caring. Any punishment will be tiny compared to the profit made.
That would apply to listing it in the first place, they’re still morons for thinking they could claim innocence about it in court.
Again, modern strategy for corporations in lawsuits is to delay, delay, delay. The purpose is to continue drawing things out as long as possible. They knew full well it would fail. But it’s a delay.
Cool story, they’re still morons who likely did think they would get away with it.
Honestly, I don’t know why some of you act like you’re the only ones who understand corporate legal strategy.
https://youtu.be/PshDKbs69BM?si=H0Fc9Kq5XRq2-4Cr
Apparently that video evidence there is fake no one’s ever thought to spray paint the camera - if you could tell it’s a camera.
It’s almost as if and heavy sarcasm here humans know how cameras work. 🤣🤣🤣
Can you find the TV trope of infiltrator or burglar sees camera and shoots it or spray paints over it… 🤣
They make a good point. If you sell someone a camera that specifically looks like a towel hook, where would you expect them to use it? I can’t speak for anyone else, but I don’t generally put up towel hooks in the living room or the garage…
And show pictures of it used in a bathroom.
“Your honor, we thought it was an entryway coat hanger.”
- Amazon, probably.
Neither here nor there, but suction cup towel hooks in the kitchen are amazing. Dropping every towel on the ground every time you open the oven and then pretending they’re clean enough to dry your hands is just silly. Amazon should be culpable for selling tailored voyeurism tools.
Is your floor that dirty?
You don’t walk on your floor?
You walk around the kitchen with muddy boots? I have house slippers like a civilized person. I also don’t live in a bubble and I don’t sweat the small stuff.
No, I usually go barefoot. And I have three kids and two cats. I don’t keep my home to model standards, no. I live there.
I don’t keep my home to model standards
But you do keep your tea towels to such standards 😋
I don’t know about the rest of it but house slippers?!? You can’t get away with just slipping that in there. Why do you have shoes for your house?!?!? How dirty do you keep it in there??? 🤣
I keep it clean by taking my outdoor shoes off. I highly recommend these
Two things little bit more seriously. One is that I have people take off their shoes in my house so that I can walk around barefoot and not get my feet all filthy.
While I prefer not to have things on my feet I do admit those look pretty comfortable.
Bruh you never just want to have warm cozy feet?
No I just don’t use my oven
Cleaner than the overwhelming majority of kitchens. Most people are just gross and don’t realize it. You drop a piece of food on the ground, you wash it to get the hair and dust off. You drop a towel on the ground several times while handling food and somehow the same doesn’t apply. It’s cognitive dissonance.
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.” That review allegedly did not prevent the spy cam from being used to do just that, the lawsuit alleged, putting consumers at risk of alleged harms suffered by the plaintiff
I didn’t know this was a service Amazon performed, but I guess they don’t really…
✓ It’s a camera.
✓ It’s hidden.
✓ It’s best hidden in places where people take off their clothes.Yep, no way anyone could use that for sexual abuse.
“A loss for Amazon could put the online retailer on the hook for punitive damages.”
I see your pun mr article author…
So is it just Amazon getting hit for this? Or will they be going after the manufacturer as well? Also, what about all the other companies that sell spy cams? Do they get a pass?
So is it just Amazon getting hit for this? Or will they be going after the manufacturer as well?
Nowadays it’s hard to tell the difference between Amazon and Ali Express. Even if it’s a third-party dropship business selling through Amazon, it’s still Amazon doing the listing, selling, and transaction processing.
Even if you argue that the same store can sell stuff elsewhere, Amazon is still the one selling those. At best, you’d need to argue that after hitting Amazon, other stores should follow.
It depends. This case is brought against Amazon because the plaintiff was specifically (allegedly) injured by a product sold by Amazon. The judge/jury might find that Amazon’s safety practices were negligent, which might have a ripple effect on other retailers safety practices. Alternatively, the judge/jury might find the products themselves are illegal, which would impact the whole industry*.
* So technically only the court / circuit the litigation is being brought in, unless it’s appealed to the Supreme Court. Then the verdict impacts the whole country.
Removed by mod
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The plaintiff—a former Brazilian foreign exchange student then living in West Virginia—argued that Amazon had inspected the camera three times and its safety team had failed to prevent allegedly severe, foreseeable harms still affecting her today.
An amended complaint included a photo from Amazon’s product listing that showed bathroom towels hanging on hooks that disguised the hidden camera.
“These allegations raise a reasonable inference Amazon sold a camera knowing it would be used to record a third party in a bathroom without their consent,” Chambers wrote.
To the contrary, Chambers wrote that “if proven,” the plaintiff’s physical harms are considered “severe” because “emotional trauma inflicted during a child’s ‘tender years’ has an ‘indelible effect’ from which ‘they may never recover.’”
She has also alleged that Amazon “conspired” with the spycam seller to “market and distribute a defective product both knew was intended and used for illegal and criminal purposes.”
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.”
The original article contains 804 words, the summary contains 191 words. Saved 76%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
So here’s a question, can you locate these kinds of cameras using your phone or one of those camera locating devices?
Eric Goldman doesn’t seem like he’s making a good faith argument. It looks like a nonsense argument.
