[chickenpotpie]

The issue isn't of potential illegal use, it's an issue of explicit illegal use.

The camera description specifically describes how it can be used for illegal purposes.

There's a huge difference between selling "stump remover" and "spouse poison" even if they're the same chemical.

[graphe]

Semantics. Besides, spying isn't illegal. It could be used for porn.

They get rid of the word spy on the camera, amazon gets a fine and this will now this happen hidden under the surface. It's semantics. What's the real solution to hidden cameras that spy on victims undressing?

[chickenpotpie]

> Semantics

Semantics is half of what the legal system is. People spend years in court for what they meant in contract.

> They get rid of the word spy on the camera, amazon gets a fine and this will now this happen hidden under the surface. It's semantics. What's the real solution to hidden cameras that spy on victims undressing?

As I and others keep saying, it's much more than that. The issue wasn't that it said "spy" it's that the camera provides specific descriptions of how to use this camera illegally. I don't understand your need for "the real solution." There is no "real solution" to any human problem. We're never going to prevent this from happening at least once, but we can make iterative changes that make it harder and make it happen less frequently.

[mtlmtlmtlmtl]

If you were making legit, consensual porn, why would you use tiny hideable cameras?

[graphe]

I was thinking of voyeurs. It's the legit side of this. Spying also isn't illegal.