[kelnos]

If I want to buy a camera to place in my own home without having it light up (and without having to mod it), that's my business.

I understand what you're getting at: you want to protect average people from predatory device manufacturers who would make an Internet-connected camera and then spy on their customers.

But requiring non-disableable lights by law has unintended consequences.

[vageli]

> If I want to buy a camera to place in my own home without having it light up (and without having to mod it), that's my business.

> I understand what you're getting at: you want to protect average people from predatory device manufacturers who would make an Internet-connected camera and then spy on their customers.

> But requiring non-disableable lights by law has unintended consequences.

Just wanted to mention, it's illegal to sell a phone with camera in Japan that does not make an audible shutter sound. Japanese people don't seem to be too bothered by it.

[Freak_NL]

Like the freedom to do with your possessions pretty much what you damn well please as long as you stay within the limits of the law.

Besides, in the best case we would get what we had with DVD-players almost twenty years ago. Each DVD-player sold could read only the DVD's released in its region. Until you entered some code with the remote control; then it could play every DVD you threw at it.

[TheSpiceIsLife]

This is one of those comments that, from my perspective, tries to sound smart by saying "Ah! Implementing you're idea will inconvenience me and have unintended consequences! GOTCHA!"

But seems to intentionally disregards that I did try to address your concerns in my previous comment.

I did write "With exceptions for some ... equipment, or the ability to physically cover the indicator light when ... recording ... for whatever reason."

Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html