[Apanatshka]

Is that legal in your country? In mine (Netherlands) there are way too many people with doorbell camera aimed right at the street even though it's illegal to record a public space like that. Most folks are ignorant about it though, or think that surely the internet-connected gadget sold by some anonymous corporation won't be abused....

[Cthulhu_]

On paper it's illegal to record the public street, but it seems to be given a pass for doorbell cameras, even going as far as the police asking people to sign up theirs into a database so they can request footage if needs be [0].

[0] https://www.politie.nl/onderwerpen/camera-in-beeld.html

[mavamaarten]

It's not legal where I live (Belgium), it can be legal if you have a driveway and only film your driveway, and if you declare that camera in some database. But since I don't have a driveway, it films the street, I am aware that this is not legal.

It's my personal decision and if I ever get fined for it, I will gladly pay the fine... with the money that my doorbell camera has already saved me. It helped me catch hit&runners that bumped into my parked car twice already, and the camera is now almost two years old.

It's not connected to the cloud, saves data locally, and only stores a couple of days of video. It's not very ethical to unknowingly film public spaces, I know. My lame excuse is that I personally think that catching people that damage my property with a camera is a lesser crime than damaging someone's property and running away. The sad truth is that living in a place where parents drop off and pick up their kids twice a day do not give two shits about others. Hit and runs happen every day here.

[onethought]

For private use you can film in public places in the Netherlands no?

[xorcist]

You are not allowed to put up unlicensed surveillance cameras in public places, no.

[onethought]

What is a licensed security camera?

By this logic, are you saying cameras on private property, that happen to capture public space in their frame are also illegal?

[xorcist]

Of course it is. Is this controversial anywhere? I would expect surveillance cameras to be regulated in most parts of the world, certainly around Europe. In the Netherlands I believe you need to register such cameras with the local police and you are responsible for following the relevant regulations and data protection laws.

[onethought]

What you are suggesting is basically unenforceable. How would you know what’s in a cameras frame?

What do the police do with that register? That sounds like it’s just helpful for them. If it’s only a registration and not an approval process?

I don’t think you are responsible for data protection laws… like if it’s a ring, that’s amazons problem.

I think this is controversial, because how’s it different from me taking a happy snap on my phone and accidently capturing you in the background.

[xorcist]

How are they similar? One is taking a picture, one is a permanent installation recording every movement in a public area.

What country allows citizens to mount private surveillance cameras in public places without a license?

[bornfreddy]

GDPR says no. Also, when you are using a cloud service it is no longer private use, you are sharing the surveillance video with Amazon (and almost certainly with the USA three-letter agencies) too.

[onethought]

GDPR just gives you the right to have it removed right? Curious to try that out, and request Amazon remove you from every ring recording .

[HenryBemis]

It is the "systemic/constant/permanent" recording, record-keeping. etc. a.k.a. "processing" (GDPR "processing" means "if it exists and you touch it, your are processing it").

Back in 2005 I remember working with some physical sec company that were setting up cameras in a factory, and they wanted the cameras to 'not record traffic, be activated on if THIS part of the screen has motion')(sidewalk vs sidewalk-right-on-our-doorbell vs road). Also, sudden changes in lighting would trigger it :)

Then you need to have retention period (good luck). Most people use those door-cams are violating GDPR. UNLESS when people complain and take you to court (very very very rare), you can prove that "I auto-delete records after 24h when there is no incident", "I have proximity scanner so it is only 0m-2m from my front door", etc.) (violating GDPR because "hey you pervert why do you record my kids EVERY DAY going in and out")

Privacy and Data protection is very very very difficult with GDPR (and thank you Facebook for messing up back in 2015ish!!!)

You can set up your cam but have the "AI" automatically pixelating all license-plates, and the video recording (if any) should be post-pixelating, and not the original feed. How about you put something with a speed-measuring-sensor (that is NOT a camera), so you only get 'anonymised' data, i.e. "20 moving items", and their speeds. But you will not be able to tell if the 300km/h was done by a bicycle or a Hayabusa ;)

[formerly_proven]

Video surveillance limited to your own private property is not actually subject to GDPR. See GDPR article 2 para 2 lit c. It's not my asswipe opinion, either, see this whitepaper from a state privacy commissioner: https://www.datenschutz.sachsen.de/download/Hinweisblatt_Vid...