[dingojohnsons]

The distinction between could could and should? Or the distinction between private and public? Because all are debated on a regular basis, vary by jurisdiction/country, and are not black and white. Take the issues surrounding filming police officers in public is an example.

[CamperBob2]

Take the issues surrounding filming police officers in public is an example.

Right, and that's a good example of what I was talking about in my earlier reply, with regard to any attempt at "fixing" the Ring situation leaving us in a worse place than where we are now.

Currently, in the US, you have the right to put up a doorbell camera and record anything that happens on your property or in public areas adjacent to it. This is a GOOD thing. Rest assured, any restrictions on public/private recording will serve the police, and no one else.

[dingojohnsons]

The problem is that this is not your data alone. These devices are cloud hosted and subject to subpoena (at best). Indeed any restrictions on these recordings will serve the police.

[travisporter]

Recorded phone calls without consent in some states is still inadmissible as evidence in court. Surely at least that law would protect the person in the other end of the lens.

[CamperBob2]

Those laws are just further examples where the powerful have shielded themselves at our expense. Corrupt cops and public officials have more to hide than you and I do, so they have more to fear from being recorded.