Security Installers will be arrested for installing nannycam

[scorpion 0]

The Surreptitious Video Surveillance Act of 2010 Arlen Spector

http://www.eff.org/files/HEN10303%20FINAL.pdf

 

HEN10303 S.L.C.

 

If enacted, this new law would make it a felony to record or view video from cameras in residences.

 

It also seems to criminalize a homeowner using his own hidden camera to surreptitiously watch his babysitter with his kids, his

wife/girlfriend/kids/housesitters/etc while he's away, etc.

 

Seems problematic for CCTV security practitioners. Security contractors could be exposed to criminal and civil liability for selling and/or installing covert cameras that are later used illegally.

 

Like all federal laws about electronic surveillance, this new proposed law contains broad exemptions for agents of local, state, and federal law-enforcement and intelligence agencies (under existing U.S.C. Title 18, Chapter 119 provisions.)

 

We need to band together and lobby against this law.

If they only wanted to add written notification, or signage then this would be fair.

 

As it stands only LE (Law Enforcement), and goverment agencies would be allowed to perform surveillance.

 

This may hit the Private Investigator field as well!

[rory 0]

Thats ridiculous .. they cant tell a homeowner what they can record in their own home. I guess sometimes it pays to live in a lawless country like me hey, just passing that law would be too much work for our politicians and if not someone better be gettin paid

[CCTV_Suppliers 0]

This is interesting.... I am going to get the entire bill to find out where this will lead.. Looks like the attached file contains only the portion of the entire bill...

 

Funny how it reads "Surreptitious Video Surveillance Act of 2010" - interpreting to Unauthorized video surveillance act... wow...

 

I am sure there is more to this than just these few pages... but I will find out more...

 

Scorpion, great job man...

[Sawbones 0]

That's moronic. I'll record whatever I want in my own home, thankyouverymuch.

[scorpion 0]

I am betting on the Insurance companies (and other related businsess with liabilities) to fight it to the death.

[Sawbones 0]

I'm just now reading that link, here's how I interpret it.

 

It seems to say that you cannot take video inside a residence, in an area where privacy would normally be expected, without the consent of the person being filmed, OR a resident of that home.

 

I'm not sure how that's very different from what we have now... would that really outlaw nanny-cams if they were installed with the permission of the person who lives there?

 

‘‘(1) the individual is in an area of a temporary

11 or permanent residence that is not readily observable

12 from a public location;

13 ‘‘(2) the individual has a reasonable expectation

14 of privacy in the area; and

15 ‘‘(3) the visual image or images—

16 ‘‘(A) are made without the consent of—

17 ‘‘(i) an individual present in the area;

18 or

19 ‘‘(ii) a resident of the temporary or

20 permanent residence; and

21 ‘‘(B) are—

22 ‘‘(i) produced using a device, appa23

ratus, or other item that was mailed,

24 shipped, or transported in or affecting

25 interstate or foreign commerce by any

26 means; or

3

HEN10303 S.L.C.

1 ‘‘(ii) transported or transmitted, in or

2 affecting, or using any means or facility of,

3 interstate or foreign commerce, including

4 by computer.

[scorpion 0]

I think that is the intent of the bill. I think it is over drafted and they have a bargaining position to whittle down to where they actually intend to be.

 

Who knows! It could be a political tool to shake down the insurance companies. Support these individuals in the election and we will make this bill go away.

 

So hard to see what is going on behind the scenes.

 

I remember back in the day when all drugs stores had to put stroble lights near the cameras. I thought that was crazy! Maybe that was the lead up to this bill.