Judge: Amazon "cannot claim shock" that bathroom spycams were used as advertised

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/amazon-faces-trial-after-selling-bathroom-spycam-used-to-abuse-minor/

by MBCook • 3 years ago

253 134 3 years ago

arstechnica.com

jacquesm2• 3 years ago

You wonder why they even have a review team if this passed.

ceejayoz• 3 years ago

To be able to tell press inquiries "we have a review team".

bluGill3• 3 years ago

Of course to the courts that means an effective review team, and so gets Amazon in more trouble for them not being effective. (note Amazon is not setup like ebay, and thus Ebay can get by without a review team in ways amazon cannot despite being similar)

belval2• 3 years ago

That part is confusing to me because it specifically calls out items that are for violating privacy. Any defense from "we are not responsible for how a product is used as long as it's legal" or "our safety team inspects products that could hurt people" (AC appliance without a properly grounded case) would have sounded much more reasonable to me.

The reality of it is probably that reviewers can only spend ~1 minute per item before flagging it or not, the reviewer was a bit on "autopilot" and didn't flag it because it doesn't look like a camera at all.

bluGill3• 3 years ago

You cannot possibly review this in one minute. You need a team of different experts and they need time to think. If you saw this for one minute before looking at this article you probably wouldn't think about this use case - even though it is obvious once someone points it out. So Amazon needs to show they gave the review team enough time to think about this type of thing.

Amazon might be able to get out of this if they can show the court a long enough checklist of things they did look for that this does pass. If that list is long enough (a term I specifically did not define!) they can argue they did due diligence, this is just different from everything they thought of and so it slipped threw the cracks. Of course the checklist better have a clear procedure for "something else not on this list" and a it needs to be clear anytime something not on the list is thought of that the process gets that new thing on the list. This is NOT easy or cheap.

metadat2• 3 years ago

Is there an archive snapshot of the Towel bar Cam product page as displayed by Amazon?

Kinda wondering what the product actually looks like, and how Amazon allowed it to be presented.

Edit: whoa, @navels how'd you do that?! Thank you, amazing: https://web.archive.org/web/20230527030738/https://www.amazo...

The product reviews are creepy.

Rest of my comment for posterity:

There's an image in TFA, though it's only a partial, limited view: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/MS-v-...

Another article from yesterday contains a zoomed in image but no description: https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2023/12/amazon-may-be-...

If we knew the product ID it could be checked for existence on archive.org.

Anyhow, the research link I used is: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22it+wont+attract+attention...

navels• 3 years ago

https://web.archive.org/web/20230527030738/https://www.amazo...

gnfargbl2• 3 years ago

That link doesn't mention anything about it being a "bathroom spy camera".

It was sold as a nanny cam which is really a legitimate, if slightly distasteful, function. There is an image of it shown with towels on the hook, but it isn't stated or implied that it should be used to spy on people as they use the bathroom.

I'm a big fan of holding tech companies to the same standards as other industries, but not a big fan of holding them to unreasonably high standards.

space_fountain3• 3 years ago

I mean I also have a morbid curiosity, but is there anything that could have been there that would have made it ok? This isn't lock picks were a lot of people buy them to mess around with and to get back into their own property

fckgw• 3 years ago

Maybe some dude who likes to watch themselves shit?

mamurphy• 3 years ago

Another commenter posted the archive page. No comment on whether this "made it ok," but some of the other photos show the hooks being used in a different context, more like a nanny cam.

This one (https://web.archive.org/web/20231204210803/https://m.media-a...) shows hooks in what looks like a mudroom catching an image of a person in black clothing in a ski-mask, indicating a use case of the hook would be to surreptitiously record a thief.

On the archive, it is advertised as a "Hidden Clothes Hook Camera, Mini Spy Camera HD 1080P, Nanny Cam with Motion Detection, Wireless Security Camera for Home/Office/Pet Monitor, Video Recorder No WiFi Needed, No Audio" with no mention of it being a "bathroom spycam."

huytersd2• 3 years ago

Absolutely. Making sure the help is not stealing. Spying on a spouse you suspect is cheating in your home. Filming contractors while they work in a room to make sure they’re not cutting corners etc.

tzs2• 3 years ago

The "Customers who bought this item also bought" for it is interesting...it seems to be all women's bathing suits.

tyingq2• 3 years ago

"It puts the lotion on its skin"

chias2• 3 years ago

Dear courts, do this one next https://www.amazon.com/Bathroom-Shower-Security-Cameras-Outd...

The product description is... wild.

metadat2• 3 years ago

Even while the lawsuit unfolds, Amazon still hasn't done a sweep.

Should I be shocked?

paulddraper3• 3 years ago

You don't have to worry about thieves or your child's babysitter any longer.

LMAO I hate it when thieves steal my hot water

nuancebydefault2• 3 years ago

That one is unsafe since it supports powerline ethernet. Powerlines should not be in a shower. Other than that, it is supposed to be looking after babies. It is unsafe to leave babies in a shower, water or not, camera or not. Also there is no clear usage description, how to mount, how to pair,... I can't believe it passed CE certification.

Someone1234• 3 years ago

I love technology, but some things we're able to build today cheaply and using mass-market parts concerns me. Hidden cameras can be so good now that it is impractical for someone to find them.

You may disagree with that assertion, but I'd put to you that maybe you just haven't seen some of the top-end products where the only clue is pin-hole sized, or even invisible like hidden behind the LCD screen of a set top box/clock/etc.

onionisafruit2• 3 years ago

Or maybe you have seen some top-end products without realizing it.

TeMPOraL• 3 years ago

Or, in this case, perhaps some of the top-end products saw you.

pixl97• 3 years ago

Hidden cameras, hidden microphones, hidden sensors, hidden wifi, etc.

Miniaturization has and will lead to these devices becoming more powerful and everywhere in our environment.

ChainOfFools• 3 years ago

Well one response could be that people develop a habit of using the bathroom or shower in the dark or near-dark whenever they're not entirely sure of the motives of whomever might maintain that bathroom. And a market for stupendously overpowered porrable infrared strobe lights that clip onto the back of your phone case will form alongside it.

Whatever does develop as a response, one thing is certain:the victims bear the cost for defending themselves once again. thanks to an often overweening, at best misguided, and to be blunt, possibly self-interested motivation to protect the special interests of aggressors, predators and assholes at the victim's expense.

See also: people whose response to someone pointing out that many aftermarket ( and increasingly, factory stock) headlamps are becoming bright enough to blind other drivers is to tell them, with a straight face, to wear sunglasses or get their windows tinted, or look away. At night. While driving.

autoexec2• 3 years ago

At lest in this case it was not a top-end product. The girl found out about it and interestingly she's even accusing amazon of "marketing and distributing a defective product"

kshacker• 3 years ago

So can I sell a camera with the following description?

SpyCam

Disclaimer: should not be used for spying

btilly• 3 years ago

There is historical precedent.

My favorite were winemaking kits sold during Prohibition that told you what you needed to avoid doing, because doing that would make wine.

https://grapecollective.com/articles/prohibitions-grape-bric...

unaindz• 3 years ago

That's really funny, thanks for sharing.

It's worth to point out that the article tells it was legal to make wine in your own home during the prohibition because of a loophole.

mtlmtlmtlmtl2• 3 years ago

It's a common trope in grey markets.

Not sure to what extent this is still the case, but when I was messing around with greyzone drugs about a decade ago, they tended to be sold on technically legal, UK, Swedish, Polish etc web stores. They'd have names similar to illegal drugs they were analogues of and like descriptions of the effects. But have the disclaimer "not for human consumption. Research purposes only".

Of course even the purportedly pure chemical products were unsuitable for actual research or standards use due to lack of attestation to purity(at least with most vendors) and so on.

It didn't affect the legality, probably just a weak attempt to avoid potential liability.

folmar• 3 years ago

This is the situation of cannabis seeds in at least large part of the EU. You can have/buy/sell the seeds but it's illegal to grow them.

bluGill3• 3 years ago

Maybe. Can you should legitimate uses that people actually buy this for? There are legal uses for a spyCam. Check with your local laws though as what is legal is different in different areas. For example you can use a spyCam to see who/what is knocking over your garbage can - anything you film would be legal. I'm sure there are a lot of other legal uses for a spyCam.

jjk1662• 3 years ago

Spycams are legal to sell without the disclaimer, so adding the disclaimer isn't going to make it less legal.

bdw5204• 3 years ago

A spy camera that looks like a towel hook seems like a product that should be illegal to sell. For what legitimate purpose would somebody want a towel hook camera? Don't most people put towel hooks in bathrooms?

It seems perfectly reasonable to hold Amazon legally responsible for selling this product even if it was a 3rd party seller (not clear from the article). A product whose intended use is to secretly record videos of people in settings where they will probably not be wearing clothes should be unlawful to sell just as it is (or should be) unlawful to knowingly record such videos without informed consent.

notatoad2• 3 years ago

"you can't sell a spy cam that looks like a towel hook" is sort of too broad and too specific to be a good law. what does "looks like a towel hook" actually mean? a law like this would end up having some unintended consequences, where bad actors use it for something like claiming all their competitors products look like towel hooks.

i think what's happening here is really the ideal solution: you can sell a camera that looks like anything, but if somebody uses the towel-hook spy cam that you sold for it's obvious intended purpose, you're liable for the damages.

SV_BubbleTime2• 3 years ago

I'm not sure I can agree with either of you.

I definitely don't agree with "thing I don't like should be illegal".

And I can't really agree with "People who sold something I don't like should be liable for it's use".

I think the "blame" for objects should lie in the people that misuse them. Now, obviously, it's a little hard to come up with legitimate reasons to have a towel hook camera. However... All you're asking for is smaller cameras.

To which we restart this whole thing with "These super small cameras should be illegal".

superjan• 3 years ago

The “ideal” is not yet reached: the judge rejected a motion to dismiss, there is no verdict yet. And then there’s appeal. Amazon has deep pockets.

paulddraper3• 3 years ago

AFAIK, "towel hook" = "coat hook" and is often placed in entryways.

thsksbd6• 3 years ago

Where Amazon gets nabbed is the listing specifically says towel hook.

bhelkey• 3 years ago

It's up to the legal system to decide whether this was advertised as a hidden bathroom camera.

I imagine that the advertising pictures of the camera holding a towel made this a rather easy decision.

Zigurd2• 3 years ago

Amazon doesn't need, or, rather, shouldn't need laws in order to do the right thing.

toolz• 3 years ago

and what is the "right" thing with regards to a coat hook camera?

I know someone who put a spy camera in their kitchen to catch a person drugging their beverages. Could've just as easily been a coat hook spy camera.

To go at it from another angle, how about those snake cameras that bomb detection units sometimes use. You can use that for illicit purposes and good purposes.

I'm not saying the wrong thing is to ban these things, all I'm saying is that it's not quite so black and white as some people are making this out to be.

bryanlarsen• 3 years ago

The standard answer is to prevent the crime that happens in bathrooms: drug use, rapes, bullying, et cetera.

But that's a BS answer IMO. If you actually want to prevent the crime, the criminals have to know the surveillance is there. Make the cameras visible, or take the doors off the bathroom stalls[1]. People will be outraged at that; but hidden surveillance is even worse.

1: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/some-water...

asveikau• 3 years ago

Looking at the photo of the product, it'd be substantially less sketchy to put it somewhere other than a bathroom for home security purposes. But I know a lot of people are sketched out by putting security cameras indoors, even in a living room or hallway. I've got lots of cameras on my perimeter but none inside the house.

chankstein38• 3 years ago

Yeah I thought the quote in the article claiming there were "legitimate and legal uses" was odd. They said "like in-home surveillance" but... why do you need to surveil your bathroom? What legal purpose does that serve? Maybe a way to film burglars while they don't know they're being filmed? But isn't part of the reason security surveillance works is visible cameras making people do the "right thing" or whatever. The quote was so weird. I don't see any legitimate use that doesn't have a pretty easy contradiction.

tiltowait• 3 years ago

We have coat hooks that look similar to this in our foyer. I can definitely see a legitimate use for a camera there, and having it be discreet would be great.

wavemode• 3 years ago

"should be illegal" isn't really a tenable criteria to require vendors to apply to their products. What does that even mean, broadly? A product is either legal to sell or it isn't.

tyingq2• 3 years ago

I guess you could argue nanny cam for when the kid is being bathed, but of course, that's not the only activity it would monitor.

randyrand• 3 years ago

It looks the same as a jacket hook too.

nomdep3• 3 years ago

“Should be illegal” is not “it is illegal”. So no, Amazon can’t be legally responsible for selling this legal product more than it is for selling kitchen knives

Sanzig3• 3 years ago

Good. Amazon has been happy to rake in commissions for years from dodgy products sold by third party sellers (uncertified electrical equipment, scam flash drives/SSDs, spycams, etc) and then turn around and blame the marketplace sellers when the inevitable happens.

Unlike eBay, Amazon goes to great lengths to sow confusion about what it sells versus its marketplace participants. The average user thinks that when they buy something off Amazon, they're buying something procured and vetted by Amazon, when it's really a marketplace seller using Amazon's logistics services.

Well, they can't have it both ways, either Amazon is a well vetted marketplace or the wild west. They can't project one image to their customers and claim another in court.

space_fountain3• 3 years ago

And I'm not convinced we need a wild west either, at least if it's also more or less impossible to trace responsibility back to the producer. It's pretty new for something like Amazon to exist with the ability to market (through product recommendations), handle payments, and handle shipping logistics for a product that they need never even see. It means it's easy for manufacturers like this to basically get away scot free because they have to invest literally nothing in the US that can get taken away in the event that they turn out to be doing something like this. Some of the lines on the product page are chilling.

【Motion Detection Mode】 When you turn on its motion detection mode, the camera will automatically start to record a video when motion is detected. You do not need to worry about missing any important moments, ensure the security of your home, garage or anywhere you want.

Every line they're sure to end like this is being used for home security, but idk that someone could read this and think that was true

Sanzig3• 3 years ago

eBay is a wild west, but it's at least honest about it. It's very clear when you buy something from eBay, it's coming from an independent seller, and eBay provides you all the history of seller feedback so you can try to vet the seller yourself. They also provide a dispute resolution system through PayPal that heavily favours the customer.

toast0• 3 years ago

And I'm not convinced we need a wild west either, at least if it's also more or less impossible to trace responsibility back to the producer.

I don't think it's wise to try to end the wild west. At the end of the day, we've been able to send money overseas and get things of questionable quality practically forever; some of the earliest writings are complaints about quality of foreign sellers. It's unreasonable to expect a courier to accept full responsibility for the packages it delivers, and it's usually not feasible to take effective action against a foreign seller.

It might be reasonable to require a registered agent for a seller who is realistically subject to the legal jurisdiction(s) where products are warehoused/shipping originates though. It's generally pretty easy and inexpensive to find registered agents for incorporation requirements, but I imagine if there were real consequences for registered agents of products being warehoused, costs would be real as well. If that drives people to Aliexpress, so be it?

Pxtl2• 3 years ago

Yes. I'm quite tired of hearing "it's not our fault that toys full of lead were sold on our storefront and stored, fulfilled, and shipped from our warehouse in boxes bearing our logo! When we said that we 'recommend' the product, we meant, like, algorithmically, not for realsies. We had nothing to do with these products! It's all XGZDoo, a company we kicked off the store. And now would you like to buy any products from XGZDee, our latest new seller?".

grobbyy• 3 years ago

I like having a Wild West, but it should be clearly advertised as such. AliExpress and eBay are clearly Wild West platforms and I appreciate them.

Getting scammed on Amazon is different. Amazon should be fully liable since very sophisticated customers can be confused by commingling, marketplace settlers, algorithmic recommendations, etc. all designed to look legitimate to the unwary while being completely unsafe.

I stopped buying food and medical products on Amazon because... scams.

isk5172• 3 years ago

I've had to explain to my father so many times that just because you've bought something off of Amazon does not mean that you bought it from Amazon. They really should have a separate store front for 3rd party sellers.

Sanzig3• 3 years ago

Honestly, given that it seems like tons of retailers are trying to follow Amazon's lead with a marketplace system, I think we need a consumer protection law to require companies to make it very clear to consumers when they are buying from third party sellers. The issue is rampant. Here in Canada, CBC did an investigation about Best Buy's marketplace listings on their online store [1]. It's greed, pure and simple: these large retailers are willing to mortgage their reputation for some risk-free sales commission and absolve themselves of any liability by blaming their marketplace sellers.

[1] https://youtu.be/Gdc9_uPETIE

legitster• 3 years ago

Amazon used to have a rule that all sellers had to have a US business address. So you at least had importers stateside who could deal with product liability questions.

They got rid of it to compete with Wish.com et al who had huge product selections. But the product quality on Amazon has been awful ever since then.

voytec• 3 years ago

Amazon has been happy to rake in commissions for years from dodgy products sold by third party sellers (...) and then turn around and blame the marketplace sellers when the inevitable happens.

They've also been happy with making it harder for the customer to choose a particular seller (especially one w/o Amazon Storefront site)

JohnFen3• 3 years ago

This is the main reason why I stopped buying things from Amazon. It became too difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff, in part because it became 90% chaff.

duxup• 3 years ago

I was helping my kids pick out Christmas gifts recently.

I searched "lego" on amazon. Numerous knock off non lego products all over the place, many with very similar boxes, even lego numbers and fonts and all.

It's just one ongoing scam site now.

redserk• 3 years ago

The wild thing is, Amazon’s first-party offerings generally stand out well by itself! They don’t need to trick people with Marketplace junk. They could completely drop the marketplace and still be, IMO, the most useful shopping subscription.

I can get my weekly groceries, soap, toilet paper, a TV, and socks with a handful of clicks. On my doorstep. The same day I click. No driving to a store, no walking around, just grab off my doorstep. This is the entire reason I find Amazon worth it (even a steal!). I don’t care for millions and millions of items, of which many are duplicitous clones.

This marketplace trend has been completely ridiculous and I hope Amazon (among others!) are found to be just as responsible for what’s sold. A lot of electronics I’ve seen are dodgy at best, but very clearly dangerous at their worst. If there’s a problem, just spin up a new nonsense “brand name” to mask the problems of the former one.

This marketplace trend has completely turned me off from other websites. Target and Walmart’s websites are immensely frustrating. I haven’t used Newegg in ages.

JohnFen3• 3 years ago

This marketplace trend has completely turned me off from other websites

If I can't find what I want in a local store, I order directly from manufacturer's websites instead of using any online marketplace (when possible -- which is the majority of the time).

ImPostingOnHN• 3 years ago

Amazon uses the marketplace and their intimate knowledge of the sellers' finances to algorithmically determine which products to knock off as one of their "first-party offerings", so eliminating their marketplace means eliminating a lot of their market research.

jjk1662• 3 years ago

I don't think the people buying spycams off Amazon are too surprised when a spycam arrives. If Amazon had put a big banner at the top of the page saying "this is a third party product, it seems skethy af" I doubt any of the purchasers would change their behavior. Certainly no one at Amazon duped someone into accidentally setting up a bathroom cam.

Spycams are legal to sell in the US, and it is the responsibility of owners of cameras to use them legally. I wouldn't expect a brick and mortar store to certify that the products they sell are impossible to be 'used to “infringe privacy,” “surreptitiously record others for sexual purposes,” or “create and store child sex abuse material”' and be held liable when one of their products is used as such. Perhaps the sale of such cameras should be more regulated, but it shouldn't be Amazon's place to decide that the law is insufficient and fix it.

JadeNB• 3 years ago

I wouldn't expect a brick and mortar store to certify that the products they sell are impossible to be 'used to “infringe privacy,” “surreptitiously record others for sexual purposes,” or “create and store child sex abuse material”' and be held liable when one of their products is used as such. Perhaps the sale of such cameras should be more regulated, but it shouldn't be Amazon's place to decide that the law is insufficient and fix it.

But the question here doesn't seem to be about whether Amazon should have certified that; according to the article, they did, obviously falsely:

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.”

wkat42425• 3 years ago

they're buying something procured and vetted by Amazon, when it's really a marketplace seller using Amazon's logistics services.

And Amazon often seems to label random products "Amazon recommended" including those from completely made-up Chinese brands.

nomdep3• 3 years ago

This has absolutely ANYTHING to do with the article. The customer is not complaining, the customer is the criminal here. But somehow, “Amazon bad”

richbell• 3 years ago

Amazon is bad because:

Amazon has been happy to rake in commissions for years from dodgy products sold by third party sellers (uncertified electrical equipment, scam flash drives/SSDs, spycams, etc)...

yieldcrv• 3 years ago

Its just denying a “motion to dismiss”

pretty low hanging

but it is federal district court, a bit more serious than a West Virginia state court

fun stakes

thsksbd6• 3 years ago

this is a trial you want dismissed. After that you try your darndest to settle.

After all, do you really want a jury of 6 men (ie dads of little girls), a 6 women (ie identifying with the victim) adjudicating this? When you're one of the most despised companies in America?

Settle Amazon. Settle quickly.

wkat42425• 3 years ago

A case like this shouldn't be allowed to settle. It should go in the criminal court and set a clear precedent that this is not ok.

binary1322• 3 years ago

I think it’s evil that they would even defend themselves tbh.

thsksbd6• 3 years ago

Bastards like this being able to defend themselves as best as possible is the corner stone of our rights.

What I think is evil is that the firing squad isn't on the table for the marketing department.

binary1322• 3 years ago

Ability to and ethicality of doing so are two different things.

neilv• 3 years ago

I'd expect Amazon product safety people to know what these are. Spycams have been widely advertised for decades, often overtly targeted specifically for use of spying on women.

For example, pretty early in Web history (before WiFi and then IoT were popular), "X10" cameras were advertised heavily: https://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~kuan/x10.html

mtlmtlmtlmtl2• 3 years ago

I mean it's a spy camera that only makes sense in a bathroom. There's even a showerhead one sold on Amazon.

I'm not even sure it's humanly possible to look at one of these and not realise the primary use case is criminal.

The only conclusion I'm left to draw from this is either that no actual review takes place, or that the review is merely there to ascertain "is this product literally illegal right now?"

autoexec2• 3 years ago

You can create convoluted excuses for the showercam too. For example, cases where you wanted to keep an eye on a babysitter while they bathed your child or a nurse or caretaker bathing an adult/elderly family member who was disabled.

isk5172• 3 years ago

Holy crap, that one that flat out says 'We are not responsible for what you do with this camera'. Usually that is something they slip into the fine print, not make the main point of the advertisement.

scrollbar• 3 years ago

The article links to an amazon search results page for "bathroom spy camera"

Here is the first result: "1080P Bathroom spy Shower Nozzle Hidden Spy Security Cameras Mini Camera DVR 32GB,Mini Nanny Cam Smart Home, Indoor Outdoor Baby Camera"

https://www.amazon.com/Bathroom-Shower-Security-Cameras-Outd...

Kind of incredible that this still continues. They at least give some kind of cover for the use case of a "baby camera" but honestly even that feels so flimsy. This is disturbing.

walrus01• 3 years ago

the "baby camera" part is just the vendor keyword-stuffing for search results so that their product will show to more people.

wkat42425• 3 years ago

"This is a 1080P mini Shower shelf spy camera that looks like an ordinary can of Shower shelf. The camera is so well hidden that no one will know that the Shower shelf actually contains a mini bathroom spy camera. Because it is so well hidden, you can put it anywhere, even in the bathroom, and no one will be suspicious. "

I don't know who buys their "Shower shelves" in cans but this whole blurb makes no sense. The picture shows a shower head, not a shelf or a can.

The malicious intent is clear at the end of the quoted paragraph though. Not to mention that I wouldn't know where else to use a shower head other than "even in the bathroom".

2OEH8eoCRo0• 3 years ago

Why can't the third party seller be held accountable? Why do we allow unaccountable third party sellers carte blanche access to US consumers?

The way that I see it if someone is harmed then they are due justice. If Amazon lets dodgy international third party sellers run hog wild and harm consumers then Amazon should be at fault here. Otherwise there is no incentive to police these things, there are victims, Amazon makes money, and sellers aren't held to account. It's ridiculous.

Phil_Latio• 3 years ago

spycam industry

I believe China banned them. There are still spycams from chinese vendors, but I think they only supply foreign customers. Anyone can confirm or has more insight?

hnburnsy• 3 years ago

Sort of related...

https://www.kxan.com/investigations/son-of-buc-ees-co-founde...

The son of a co-founder of the nationally renowned Buc-ee’s convenience store was arrested Tuesday in Travis County and faces 28 separate state jail felony charges of invasive visual recordings. A woman reported she and a few friends were visiting the lake house with Mitchell Wasek when one friend, who works cybersecurity for the Department of Defense, noticed a charging port with a hidden camera plugged into the wall of their bathroom, court records state. The group of friends left with the camera and on its micro-card found dozens of videos of themselves and other people in bathrooms and bedrooms at the lake house as well as at Mitchell Wasek’s Dallas apartment, according to court records.

Another story reports...

Amazon records linked purchases of a half-dozen spy cameras and hidden cameras to Mitchell Wasek, the affidavit says.

m4dc4pXXX• 3 years ago

Gross. You can do the search on amazon (“bathroom spy camera”) and there are tons of results. One is even a shower nozzle !

iJohnDoe• 3 years ago

Welcome to every AirBNB.

k12sosse• 3 years ago

How do you prove a previous tenant did not put the device in place,and forget it on their way out? OR, plan to rent again in the future with hopes of picking it up?

wkat42425• 3 years ago

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,"

TIL there is a whole "spy cam industry".

Well, good that they are being ruled against. There is no legit use case for this product.

fennecfoxy• 3 years ago

Yay, do guns next.

harambae• 3 years ago

It's not really the same as gun rights in America. There's no constitutional amendment ensuring the right to sell spycams on the internet without repercussions.

Judge: Amazon "cannot claim shock" that bathroom spycams were used as advertised

Related Stories