But He’s Right Though....

[Whither]

Broader discussion, but while Dano harps on about 'reasonable people' I chuckle and think, what a perverted and surreal world where it's reasonable to be under surveillance at all times.

 

[59 Dano]

Broader discussion, but while Dano harps on about 'reasonable people' I chuckle and think, what a perverted and surreal world where it's reasonable to be under surveillance at all times.

I'm not harping, it's a fundamental legal concept that serves as a basis for much of our legal system, which would explain why the usual suspects here seem so perplexed by it. As for the surveillance, eh. People want to protect their property, even if it means committing a felony because Cletus was talking on your phone in front of a guy's Ring.

 

[bacha29]

I'm not harping, it's a fundamental legal concept that serves as a basis for much of our legal system, which would explain why the usual suspects here seem so perplexed by it. As for the surveillance, eh. People want to protect their property, even if it means committing a felony because Cletus was talking on your phone in front of a guy's Ring.

In that case you file a complaint with the police. You do that before you go running to the media who in turn immediately broadcast it on the airwaves in a desperate attempt to gain local tv ratings.

 

[bacha29]

Since you're presenting ridiculous legal arguments that no one else takes seriously...

A person could walk up and down the street, talking loudly on his phone, and trigger each home's Ring/Arlo/whatever and then demand that the homeowners be prosecuted for illegally recording the phone call.

That's what you're proposing.

In reality, it looks like:

You file a police report . That is the first step to protecting the interest of you and the public at large it it were actually endangered. You keep trying to make a criminal case out of it when the issue is whether the individuals civil rights were violated by the woman's decision to go running to the media instead of first notifying law enforcement.

 

[Fred's Myth]

You file a police report . That is the first step to protecting the interest of you and the public at large it it were actually endangered. You keep trying to make a criminal case out of it when the issue is whether the individuals civil rights were violated by the woman's decision to go running to the media instead of first notifying law enforcement.

Hell, he could even claim he was being blackmailed for an apology.

Prison time!

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Since you're presenting ridiculous legal arguments that no one else takes seriously...

A person could walk up and down the street, talking loudly on his phone, and trigger each home's Ring/Arlo/whatever and then demand that the homeowners be prosecuted for illegally recording the phone call.

That's what you're proposing.

I think you have ridiculous and reasonable confused.

And, no, you're making an argumentum ad absurdum strawman. I have no problem with people making recordings on their own property. But if you are going to install something like that, it's not unreasonable to make the effort to comply with the law and set the gain on the microphone so that it doesn't pick up audio from off of your property.

I'm not harping, it's a fundamental legal concept that serves as a basis for much of our legal system, which would explain why the usual suspects here seem so perplexed by it. As for the surveillance, eh. People want to protect their property, even if it means committing a felony because Cletus was talking on your phone in front of a guy's Ring.

The problem with the "reasonable person" standard is that it is subjective, open to interpretation and argument. It is unreasonable to play judge and jury in this situation by stating the outcome of any such legal proceedings would be certain one way or another, whereas I only suggested a possibility.

Does the homeowner have signage posted warning invited guests on their property that what they say might be recorded? I doubt it. Remember, they asked the shipper to send someone to pick up the damaged package. The driver was acting as an agent in fulfilling the request of the homeowner. As such, the driver was invited onto the property, and had every right to be there. I am also pretty sure that the homeowner did not take the extra step in informing the driver that they should not have any expectation of privacy on their property.

A reasonable person, as @Whither pointed out, should be able to expect that their phone conversation is not being recorded in most places. Doesn't matter if you are in public. Again, I am not certain a judge would agree with my take on the situation, but I do believe there is enough of a case to be made to at least ask the question.

 

[Whither]

As for the surveillance, eh. People want to protect their property, even if it means committing a felony because Cletus was talking on your phone in front of a guy's Ring.

It's creepy. You don't detect the slightest problem that popular insecurity is being exploited/manufactured so that our every movement or utterance can be analyzed to hawk more products and/or invite the government into every nook and cranny of our lives?

Gotta hand it to the 'evil genius' of capitalism for normalizing and making a good buck off constant, pervasive spying. Stalin would be envious.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...r-accessed-it-harassed-her-year-old-daughter/

 

[59 Dano]

In that case you file a complaint with the police. You do that before you go running to the media who in turn immediately broadcast it on the airwaves in a desperate attempt to gain local tv ratings.

No one needs your permission to do what the law grants them the freedom to do.

 

[59 Dano]

Hell, he could even claim he was being blackmailed for an apology.

Prison time!

Better yet, "I'll walk by your Ring doorbell while talking on my phone EVERY DAY. How many counts of unlawful recording do you want, pal?"

 

[59 Dano]

I think you have ridiculous and reasonable confused.

And, no, you're making an argumentum ad absurdum strawman. I have no problem with people making recordings on their own property. But if you are going to install something like that, it's not unreasonable to make the effort to comply with the law and set the gain on the microphone so that it doesn't pick up audio from off of your property.

What the human ear can hear and what the microphone will pick up are virtually indistinguishable. My own Ring camera has no gain setting.

The problem with the "reasonable person" standard is that it is subjective, open to interpretation and argument. It is unreasonable to play judge and jury in this situation by stating the outcome of any such legal proceedings would be certain one way or another, whereas I only suggested a possibility.

If you're splitting hairs on how subjective the "reasonable person" standard is, then you have no concept of it.

Does the homeowner have signage posted warning invited guests on their property that what they say might be recorded? I doubt it. Remember, they asked the shipper to send someone to pick up the damaged package. The driver was acting as an agent in fulfilling the request of the homeowner. As such, the driver was invited onto the property, and had every right to be there. I am also pretty sure that the homeowner did not take the extra step in informing the driver that they should not have any expectation of privacy on their property.

Oh boy, we're entering the sovereign citizen lawyering zone. Homeowner is under no obligation to inform anyone of anything in regards to her doorbell.

A reasonable person, as @Whither pointed out, should be able to expect that their phone conversation is not being recorded in most places. Doesn't matter if you are in public. Again, I am not certain a judge would agree with my take on the situation, but I do believe there is enough of a case to be made to at least ask the question.

"I'm talking on the phone within range of a Ring doorbell. Are my rights being violated?"

"No."

 

[59 Dano]

It's creepy. You don't detect the slightest problem that popular insecurity is being exploited/manufactured so that our every movement or utterance can be analyzed to hawk more products and/or invite the government into every nook and cranny of our lives?

Gotta hand it to the 'evil genius' of capitalism for normalizing and making a good buck off constant, pervasive spying. Stalin would be envious.

Don't know why you're upset about people protecting their own property.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

What the human ear can hear and what the microphone will pick up are virtually indistinguishable. My own Ring camera has no gain setting.

You tested that? And the expectation of privacy isn't determined by the fact that if you are in a place where people could overhear you. It is determined by the circumstances.

If you're splitting hairs on how subjective the "reasonable person" standard is, then you have no concept of it.

This statement shows that your understanding of the reasonable person test comes from a two second scanning of the Google results you got while looking it up.

Oh boy, we're entering the sovereign citizen lawyering zone. Homeowner is under no obligation to inform anyone of anything in regards to her doorbell.

Translation: people only have the rights you think they should have.

"I'm talking on the phone within range of a Ring doorbell. Are my rights being violated?"

"No."

If your conversation is recorded without your consent and the recording is used to defame you, then possibly.

 

[59 Dano]

You tested that? And the expectation of privacy isn't determined by the fact that if you are in a place where people could overhear you. It is determined by the circumstances.

And there is no reasonable expectation of privacy when you're standing out in the street and yelling about Justin and heavy furniture. We can go back and forth on this as many times as you want, but you're as wrong as wrong can be.

This statement shows that your understanding of the reasonable person test comes from a two second scanning of the Google results you got while looking it up.

Which would be two seconds more than your understanding, if you had one.

Translation: people only have the rights you think they should have.

Translation: Homeowners aren't required to inform others when they have those fancy doorbells.

If your conversation is recorded without your consent and the recording is used to defame you, then possibly.

We're back to the expectation of privacy when ranting out in the middle of a street. Aaaaand... there was no defamation.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

And there is no reasonable expectation of privacy when you're standing out in the street and yelling about Justin and heavy furniture. We can go back and forth on this as many times as you want, but you're as wrong as wrong can be.

That's your opinion, and it's far less informed than mine.

Which would be two seconds more than your understanding, if you had one.

Wrong. But at least you admit to your level of understanding, so that's progress.

Translation: Homeowners aren't required to inform others when they have those fancy doorbells.

Wrong, if they expect to use those recordings in any court setting.

We're back to the expectation of privacy when ranting out in the middle of a street. Aaaaand... there was no defamation.

That's your opinion, and it is very poorly informed. But I see it's a waste of time trying to inform you, so I'm done.

 

[bacha29]

No one needs your permission to do what the law grants them the freedom to do.

And what might that be in this case? There was no reason for her not to turn the recording over to the police who in turn could if they chose to do so turn the matter over to the DA or the local municipal court judge for further action. But oh no, in this "hey look at me world" where everybody is out to get something on somebody she set out to get her 2 minutes of fame. For all intents and purposes what this woman did was to take the law into her own hands.

If i was that driver I would be out looking for a good civil rights attorney and contact OSHA and ask it to look at the tape for workplace health and safety violations. He's that contractor's employee and that contractor is just as compliance liable when it comes to workplace heath and safety laws as Fedex itself is. And I think they might a few. If so then it's "hello fine"

But that's why they invented route contractors. If X's case you control and discipline the contractor's employees in the same manner as you do your own employees but the risk, liability and variable costs you dump all of those onto the contractor.

 

[vantexan]

This is where I snarkily reply to Bacha who then bitterly retorts, causing heart palpitations in Operational Needs' chest. Carry on!

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

The bottom line is here is that you should all be under the impression that you are being watched every moment while on road; that being said, the homeowner's only goal in releasing this video to the media was to try to make the driver look bad and to paint all delivery drivers with the same broad brush.

Someone above mentioned that she should have gone to the police with the video. The cops have way more important things to do than to deal with a hothead who was not breaking any laws.

What she should have done is call FedEx and forwarded the video to them so that it could be handled accordingly internally. End of story.

 

[Fred's Myth]

The bottom line is here is that you should all be under the impression that you are being watched every moment while on road; that being said, the homeowner's only goal in releasing this video to the media was to try to make the driver look bad and to paint all delivery drivers with the same broad brush.

Someone above mentioned that she should have gone to the police with the video. The cops have way more important things to do than to deal with a hothead who was not breaking any laws.

What she should have done is call FedEx and forwarded the video to them so that it could be handled accordingly internally. End of story.

Then she would lose her standing as Bitc#-Of-Year.

 

[bacha29]

The bottom line is here is that you should all be under the impression that you are being watched every moment while on road; that being said, the homeowner's only goal in releasing this video to the media was to try to make the driver look bad and to paint all delivery drivers with the same broad brush.

Someone above mentioned that she should have gone to the police with the video. The cops have way more important things to do than to deal with a hothead who was not breaking any laws.

What she should have done is call FedEx and forwarded the video to them so that it could be handled accordingly internally. End of story.

Take the matter to the police who would ask her this simple question: "Do you want to press charges?" If that question were asked of this woman I guarantee you her answer would have been .."no"....then she would have run back in her house and bawl her fool head off because she didn't get the attention she so desperately wanted.