Tech legal expert Eric Goldman wrote that a victory for the plaintiff could be considered “a dangerous ruling for the spy cam industry and for Amazon,” because “the court’s analysis could indicate that all surreptitious hook cameras are categorically illegal to sell.” That could prevent completely legal uses of cameras designed to look like clothes hooks, Goldman wrote, such as hypothetical in-home surveillance uses.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The plaintiff—a former Brazilian foreign exchange student then living in West Virginia—argued that Amazon had inspected the camera three times and its safety team had failed to prevent allegedly severe, foreseeable harms still affecting her today.
An amended complaint included a photo from Amazon’s product listing that showed bathroom towels hanging on hooks that disguised the hidden camera.
“These allegations raise a reasonable inference Amazon sold a camera knowing it would be used to record a third party in a bathroom without their consent,” Chambers wrote.
To the contrary, Chambers wrote that “if proven,” the plaintiff’s physical harms are considered “severe” because “emotional trauma inflicted during a child’s ‘tender years’ has an ‘indelible effect’ from which ‘they may never recover.’”
She has also alleged that Amazon “conspired” with the spycam seller to “market and distribute a defective product both knew was intended and used for illegal and criminal purposes.”
Tech legal expert Eric Goldman wrote that a victory for the plaintiff could be considered “a dangerous ruling for the spy cam industry and for Amazon,” because “the court’s analysis could indicate that all surreptitious hook cameras are categorically illegal to sell.”
The original article contains 804 words, the summary contains 191 words. Saved 76%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Amazon’s Product Safety Team specifically inspected the camera to “ensure” that Amazon wasn’t platforming a product being used to “infringe privacy,” “surreptitiously record others for sexual purposes,” or “create and store child sex abuse material.” That review allegedly did not prevent the spy cam from being used to do just that, the lawsuit alleged, putting consumers at risk of alleged harms suffered by the plaintiff
I didn’t know this was a service Amazon performed, but I guess they don’t really…
✓ It’s a camera.
✓ It’s hidden.
✓ It’s best hidden in places where people take off their clothes.Yep, no way anyone could use that for sexual abuse.
If someone is interested in legitimate home surveillance, they usually buy cameras that look like cameras, so people know there’s surveillance and don’t fuck around. Usually.
Amazon reps are morons for thinking they could claim innocence here.
There can be reasons why you might want more subtle cameras, but I struggle to think of legitimate reasons why one would want ones designed to only look hidden in closets and bathrooms.
Hence the standalone “usually.” Also there’s subtle and there’s straight up hidden, and I struggle to find a legit reason for hidden ones unless you’re conducting some kind of sting operation.
Exactly, probably why the lawsuit focused in on these types in particular.
