Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Happy Holidays… and thanks for the responses.
grizcoach: Unfortunately, the BTVPOA’s (the HOA) CC&Rs expired for good earlier this year. The issue of security cameras has come up at a few Association meetings so I think there is a “concern” but no direction…yet. Would be interesting to see how other HOAs handle this.
DER8391: We do plan to plant trees to block, but that will have an expense plus 2 to 3 years to grow to block the cameras. We may erect a tarp fence until the trees grow to block. But that conflicts with the BTVPOA’s “Design and Use” Guidelines which prohibit such barriers because they impede the movement of wildlife and are unsightly.
What is offensive is not that someone can view our property and inside our house as if they’re standing out in their yard. It’s that they can do it 24/7 remotely (from the Bay Area) and that it can be videoed. And, there is the potential that others can view it. It’s a definite feel of loss of privacy and it greatly bothers.
As said, our 20 year relationship with our neighbor ended over these cameras. We requested that they be re-aimed so not to intrude. He became angry and wrote back, “ …we will do our best to not view your property, while keeping the integrity of our security cameras in place.” (Emphasis added.) Successive attempts on my part to calm the waters failed. …In addition, we also are having to deal with his outdoor light which shines all night across our property and into our home. Two letters from the Association were ignored. That issue is now with the county. I can’t speak to his intentions — I don’t trust him at all — but I do know he could care less what we or the Association thinks. Do I think that he will really do his best not to view our property?
michelle s: Thanks for the website and your discussion about photographers’ legal restrictions. As I understand from the neighbor, the cameras pan internally, i.e. the external body does not move. So the cam can pan “across” our yard and our home. As it crosses our home, it can look “inside” and video, as well as anywhere on our yard, including the deck area where our hot tub is. Connecting this to your photographer discussion, this would be illegal in areas where there is presumed privacy.
With respect to the “intrusion”, it IS very creepy. And not one person (of many) we have discussed this issue with, have thought what our neighbor is doing was okay.
And here is an irony: Our neighbor put these cameras up for his security, yet it potentially jeopardizes ours. When we’re loading our truck up for a long trip, our actions can be viewed by the cameras tipping off our soon-to-be-absence. Do we know how many other people can view this? This further makes us feel vulnerable.
I invite any other ideas you may have. There are good uses of these cameras. But the dark downside is that they can intrude on privacy, which is something most of us greatly value, especially up here in the mountains. In response to our concern about his cameras intruding, our neighbor sarcastically said, we’d better get used to it because the city was coming. Technology has it’s wonderments, but is that okay to sacrifice an important value such as privacy? Surely there exists some happy medium.
The girl had the audacity to grow a bit too much this past year and we could use a 120+ snowboard for the little shredder. Does anyone have one ready for a new home?
Yuck, I cannot imagine deliberately pointing cameras at someone else’s property, to the extent of seeing inside their house! That definitely seems wrong and creepy. If their goal is to protect and monitor their own property, they should not need to include yours in the field of view. For security purposes, it works better to image the points of entry to the home (eg., doors, windows, driveway), not looking out into the surrounding properties. Sorry you have to deal with that.
It would feel like a violation, whether or not there are any laws dealing with that yet. Incidentally, there are such laws for photographers. A quick search found this for example: “When photographers take photos of people, they must be careful to not invade their privacy. This happens when someone enters a person’s private domain in a manner that would be considered offensive to the average person. As a photographer, the act of going on someone’s land without permission would be trespassing and also may violate the person’s right of privacy. You don’t have to take a photo or publish an image photo for the action to be unlawful. Some courts have found that a photographer has violated privacy rights even when photographing someone in public. Instances would include cases where the photographers harass their subjects, use hidden cameras, or wait for a woman’s skirt to be blown at a fun house. It also is unlawful to view and photograph people inside of residences or other places where privacy is normally expected, even when the photographer is standing in public.”
(from http://blog.kenkaminesky.com/photography-copyright-and-the-law/)For Dorrington, I have a “One Rate Nationwide” long distance plan with AT&T that costs $1.00 per month and long distance calls are .20 per minute. Be forewarned though that surcharges and other fees drive the monthly rate to about $3.75 even if you don’t make one call.
I also negotiated a discount on our monthly measured rate service by calling and asking for “Customer Retention.” They know that Comcast is in the area and they are more empowered to provide discounts and promotional pricing. The discounts are usually for six to twelve months in duration, after which I call again and get an extension.
-Laura on Kenshaw Ct
California Law on surveillance camera’s has somewhat of a gray area when it comes to security cameras outside. Basically the Courts have said, you are allowed to install cameras covering any area that you can see “legally” from your property.
Audio recording’s are illegal in California unless both parties in question have signed a waiver saying they’re okay with the recording, but I highly doubt your neighbor would be able to hear your conversations.
If possible I would plant something to block the view of the camera’s if it’s bothering you. I highly doubt your neighbor has bad intentions otherwise he wouldn’t have told you.
vallecito check your CC&Rs to see if they offer you some relief. If the issues not addressed in the CC&Rs now, lobby your HOA to include it in the CC&Rs.
I understand security cameras have a value to “protect”, but what about “on the other side” when they invade privacy of neighbors? Our neighbor set up 4 cams, with 2 or 3 pointing across our property. That neighbor said he could see inside our house. His cams have night vision, audio and he can video, all from his home in the Bay Area. We asked him to re-aim the cameras, but he refused, ending a long time friendship. He’s only here one weekend a month, yet we’re “on” 24/7 with loss of the privacy we used to enjoy, given that privacy was one of the values that we assumed came with living here in Big Trees. What do you think?
OK, finally got around to calling ATT. And who doesn’t love examining all those complicated old bills? Apparently I was being incorrectly charged a service charge when there were no calls made that month. The service charge should only be assessed when there are long-distance calls made at $.42 per minute (which seems excessive to me, but…) So a refund is being processed for the months with zero calls. Even though I’m rarely there I’m opting to keep the long-distance plan in place…I’ll keep an eye on my billing to see if things revert to the old way.
I seem to remember that someone was looking for a source for good firewood. The last people we bought from were Ken & Bevery Zwart at (209)-874-2190. This was a few years ago so not sure if they are still doing it.
Very interesting….I just checked my bill. I’m rarely at my cabin and had THOUGHT that I had no long distance plan…I use a calling card if necessary. But, now looking at my bill, I’ve been paying $5.95 for ATT long distance, then based on the one call I made several months ago, $.42 per minute! Yikes! Thanks for your post, carlshome!! Time for a call to ATT!
K6OAK,
I started this thread. It is interesting that you are getting a different answer than I got from AT&T regarding their cost per minute for long distance without a plan on your land line. And I agree, that the price in Fremont should be the same for Dorrington. So which is right??? Anyone out there: if you have No long distance plan on your land line, what are you being charged per minute?
K6OAK: At my Bay Area home I installed Ooma as described by one of the other posts on this thread. It requires an internet connection, and you can keep your old land line phone number. Cost per month is under $5. It works great and I recommend it.
For my cabin in Dorrington I have no internet (I prefer to be away from everything). Plus the land line always works even when the power is out. Which in my location seems to happen a lot with several occasions being without power for 2-5 days at a time.
I just checked with ATT because I too would like to cut my landline bill down a bit. The guy told me that without the long distance plan it would be 42 cents/minute! I asked him to verify that and he did with his boss. Now that was in reference to our Fremont home, but I would think their rates would be the same throughout CA.
