410
submitted 11 months ago by DevCat@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

After a spy camera designed to look like a towel hook was purchased on Amazon and illegally used for months to capture photos of a minor in her private bathroom, Amazon was sued.

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.

Amazon hoped the court would dismiss the suit, arguing that the platform wasn't responsible for the alleged criminal conduct harming the minor. But after nearly eight months deliberating, a judge recently largely denied the tech giant's motion to dismiss.

Amazon's biggest problem persuading the judge was seemingly the product descriptions that the platform approved. An amended complaint included a photo from Amazon's product listing that showed bathroom towels hanging on hooks that disguised the hidden camera. Text on that product image promoted the spycams, boasting that they "won't attract attention" because each hook appears to be "a very ordinary hook."

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] girlfreddy@sh.itjust.works 83 points 11 months ago

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.

In what reality is there any need for a door-hook camera except to spy on someone who has not given consent???

Jayzuz. That was some poor mind gymnastics right there.

[-] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 46 points 11 months ago

Watching the babysitter if you think she's abusing your kids.

Monitoring your office if you're a politician afraid of poisoning.

Making an OnlyFans of Grandma pooping.

Lots of legitimate uses if you're creative enough.

[-] girlfreddy@sh.itjust.works 19 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Watching the babysitter if you think she's abusing your kids. In the bathroom? Cause that's where towel hooks are.

Monitoring your office if you're a politician afraid of poisoning. See above

[-] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 24 points 11 months ago

My jokes aside, I absolutely have towel hooks in non bathrooms. It's turns out there also capable of holding jackets and other things, despite the name.

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 8 points 11 months ago

And also, the bathroom seems like a prime location for a child abuser to corner a victim.

Huh. I'm actually swinging very slightly back toward Amazon's side on this. Only very slightly, though. This is a tricky case.

[-] MaximumPower@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

If you think the baby sitter is abusing your kid, your a moron, why even hire him/her.

And now you are also recording the babysitter going to the bathroom.

[-] Gamoc@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

Yeah but what am I going to do with all my coat hooks? Hang towels on them!?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

Couldn’t that as easily be a coat hanger or something to hang your keys or bag on? A hook is a hook.

[-] girlfreddy@sh.itjust.works 10 points 11 months ago

And why could that hallway not be covered by a regular security cam instead?

[-] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Valid point

[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago

but once you advertise it as a surreptitious towel hook and show pictures of it being used as a surreptitious towel hook, it becomes not just any kind of hook. one of the use cases proposed by the manufacturer has become manufacturing illegal pornography by setting up a hidden cam in the bathroom.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Kyatto@leminal.space 3 points 11 months ago

Deterrence is always preferable. Clear monitoring may stop crimes in addition to capturing wanton disregard. A disguised bathroom cam is clearly designed to capture illegal footage. It isn't a deterrent to crime, it's a tool to commit it. Spy cams in general are sleazy and disgusting.

Even a nanny cam, despite the clearly just intentions, allow a crime to happen more so than clear security cameras and can be used for less lawful things due to their design.

[-] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-08-15/irvine-man-hidden-camera-wife-drano-allegations

Deterrence stops people from doing bad things in front of the camera. Useful if you have physical choke points that funnel people to the camera itself of course. But if you put up an obvious nanny cam in one room, all you guarantee is that the abuse happens in another.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] dirtypirate@kbin.social 23 points 11 months ago

In what reality is there any need for a door-hook camera

maybe for when the police illegally raid, eat your lemon pound cake, steal your money and fuck up your visible cameras?

just because YOU can't think of any use other than creepy doesn't mean the rest of us are so afflicted.

[-] ComicalMayhem@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago

For anyone not in the know, Afroman, famous for the songs Crazy Rap (Colt 45) and Because I got High had his house raided by police. He got most of the raid on film and made the video into a music video.

[-] EpeeGnome@lemmy.fmhy.net 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

None of the police actually ate Afroman's lemon pound cake, just one stared longingly at it for an awkwardly long amount of time, lol. Let's not muddy the waters by accusing those police of something they didn't do, and focus on the blatantly provable (lack of real probable cause, intentionally sabotaging his cameras) and the alleged but highly plausible ("miscounting" some of his cash into their own pockets).

[-] Poggervania@kbin.social 10 points 11 months ago

He could’ve used literally any other example, but of course he chose the creepy one. Could’ve stood on the stance that businesses would need them for shoplifting ffs.

[-] You999@sh.itjust.works 17 points 11 months ago

Except any place where it would make sense to place one within a business would be illegal. You are not allowed to place cameras hidden or not in places where one could have an expectation of privacy.

[-] Omgpwnies@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Not only that, anywhere that a business is allowed to use cameras, they would want to have big, obvious cameras to try to prevent shoplifting.

[-] kitedemon@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 11 months ago

I feel like this quote was intended to be sarcastic, but idk, Poe’s law after all.

[-] kool_newt@lemm.ee 4 points 11 months ago
[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

For what little it’s worth… consent is not needed if there’s no expectation of privacy… if your visiting somebody else’s house... Bathrooms- yes, bedrooms (where you’re sleeping,) yes...

But a hidden camera in, say, the hallway outside, is perfectly legal. Now if the person is a resident (or, like Airbnb,) they have much higher expectations of privacy.

Also… I would suggest that cameras inside residences generally serve no real purpose at all- and are almost universally employed by creeps. (Exception being apartment entryways… if peephole cameras on the apartment door are not allowed.)

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[-] Furedadmins@lemmy.world 50 points 11 months ago

"No one actually expects any of this cheap Chinese shit that we shove down everyone's throats to work your honor"

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 12 points 11 months ago

This would probably have been a better defense then "omg! This thing being advertised as a towel hook that no one will notice, was being used as a towel hook to spy on someone?"

[-] EmpathicVagrant@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

Ah, going with the Fox News defense i see.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 31 points 11 months ago

Not so much about this particular case, but I think the real question here is, "Should we expect every online retailer to be responsible for everything sold on their platform?" Why or why not?

The US has already decided that platforms are not responsible for the speech that occurs there. Why or why not?

Are we for or against prohibitions? Radical conservative and liberal takes both fail in certain circumstances.

It's a strange new world, and these are the conversations we have to have.

[-] aesthelete@lemmy.world 18 points 11 months ago

“Should we expect every online retailer to be responsible for everything sold on their platform?”

The fact that the answer to this question is up in the air shows just how bent over to business this country is. Of course they should be held responsible for the things they sell.

Imagine for a moment if someone listed heroin on Amazon. Do you think Amazon should be held responsible for selling that?

Why would US policy be structured to allow industry to create online marketplaces that openly sell and advertise items for illegal purposes? Should we allow it because it's easier for one store to sell every type of instant garbage under the sun without oversight? Why is that something we should encourage or accommodate?

Products aren't speech. Just because it's slightly inconvenient for Amazon to have a person look through new product listings before they're approved because maybe there's millions of them doesn't mean we owe them that savings.

[-] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 16 points 11 months ago

"Should we expect every online retailer to be responsible for everything sold on their platform?"

Let's change a couple of words and see whether your opinion changes

"Should we expect every retailer to be responsible for everything sold in their store.

If it's reasonable to expect physical retailers to take some responsibility for the legality and safety of items in their stores, then what's different about it being a virtual store?

[-] TechyDad@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

If the product has some danger that the retailer wouldn't know about, then they shouldn't be held responsible.

For example, suppose a store sold toasters and some had faulty wiring that caused fires. We wouldn't expect stores to personally inspect every toaster. This issue would be on the manufacturer.

However, if a product was obviously unsafe/illegal based on the description and intended usage, then the store should be held responsible. If a store stocked "Electric Bathtub Toasters - use in your bathtub - Now with exposed wiring!", then they absolutely should be held responsible for injuries caused from use of the product.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Theharpyeagle@lemmy.world 16 points 11 months ago

I feel like there's a difference between user posts and physical products. Surely Walmart couldn't sell "2in1 Baby Formula Rat Poison" and say "well we didn't know the supplier was going to put rat poison in it!" These are items that they are selling and directly making a profit from, don't they have some responsibility to do their own QC?

[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 14 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Physical goods aren't protected speech. You're comparing laws regarding apples with laws regarding oranges. If you insist on doing that, I have to point out that speech that can cause direct harm is also not protected speech, but that's if we assume the invalid comparison to be valid.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Blackmist@feddit.uk 13 points 11 months ago

I think that if you're taking 8-45% of the selling price of the things people move through your platform, you should be held more accountable than somewhere that people can post hate speech for free.

Amazon is full of fakes and blatant fraud, and they absolutely should be policing that under the threat of enormous fines that they would actually notice and far exceed the cost of doing their job.

But is what they sold here illegal to buy in that territory? And should it be? In Japan for example, most camera phones make a noise when you take a photo. Is it time for lawmakers to actually pay attention to what is being sold?

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 7 points 11 months ago

“Should we expect every online retailer to be responsible for everything sold on their platform?”

I don't really see the drawback of them being required to reasonably vet everything they are selling. I don't know where to draw the line, exactly, but I'm not suggesting they need to product test everything to make sure it's okay, but in this case where it's clearly being created and advertised in such a manner they should assume some responsibility. Many times they are actually the seller in these, if not at least a broker. They are very much involved directly in the transaction. I don't see much of drawback from this, but I could be missing something.

As for moderation, as far as I can tell, the whole idea of an "online message system" completely falls apart if platforms are responsible for everything said on the platform. It would require every post to be moderated, and that is (or was, at least) just infeasible. Well, maybe no with AI. . .but is that any better?

[-] Pika@sh.itjust.works 3 points 11 months ago

The first question is one of the easiest questions out there in my eyes, yes any company should be responsible for all content on their site. No exceptions. What I mean by this is if a company is aware (i.e someone reported it or it came across the safety system) and the company willfully (either by automated systems ignoring or a person deciding no action is needed) then the company should be held liable for it.

[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 20 points 11 months ago

we didn't expect anyone to use the CSAM machine to actually manufacture CSAM, even though it was listed as "CSAM machine" and described as "perfect for making CSAM"

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ArugulaZ@kbin.social 13 points 11 months ago

"I can't believe someone bought our 'Watch a Fourteen Year Old Pee Cam' to watch a fourteen year old pee!"

[-] restingboredface@sh.itjust.works 6 points 11 months ago

Currently, Amazon advertises several "clothes hook hidden camera" products when users search for "bathroom spy camera," an Ars search found, but it's unclear if the spy cam at the center of this lawsuit is still available on Amazon.

Despite the lawsuit, they are still selling this crap.

[-] jopepa@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

Judging from the thumbnail, if I walked into that red rum tiled bathroom I’d hold it.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2023
410 points (98.3% liked)

News

23259 readers
2891 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS