• bleistift2@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s why a right to privacy is so important. You never know what innocuous things anyone is looking out for.

  • darth_helmet@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    1 year ago

    I had my policy canceled for having a 15 year old roof, no heads up or chance to remediate any actual issues. Insurance companies are just dicking Californians because they hate being regulated.

    • freewheel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      IANALAIANYL. In the days before the internet, I had a family member who worked for an insurance company. Buried deep in the contract was language that allowed agents of said insurance company to come on the property at any time. Her job basically was to go to people’s houses and walk around taking photos, usually at policy start or in the case of a claim - before and after. If anybody harassed her, they were at risk of having their home insurance dropped. This was Miami in the 1980s fwiw.

    • MrMonkey@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The same reason flying airplanes isn’t “criminal trespassing”. Satellite and aerial photography happen really high up.

      No insurance company used a small toy drone to fly 50’ over his property for pictures.

    • dan1101@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      You don’t own the airspace over your property. The only way someone might get in trouble for flying a drone over your house is if they were looking in windows or harassing people somehow. Most pics from a drone aren’t a lot different from satellite photography.

          • eth0p@iusearchlinux.fyi
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I’m not a lawyer, nor do I have the full context of the legislation you’re quoting, but my interpretation of that paragraph is that it only applies to aircrafts that are carrying passengers.

            . . . in the air space in possession of another, by a person who is traveling in an aircraft, is privileged . . .

            You’re the one who does this for a hobby, though. I’m sure that you know the laws more than I do :)

      • LexiconDexicon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The complaint is not for satellite or airplane photography, it’s for a drone

        Please read the article before commenting

        • MrMonkey@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          *“A customer says that someone on the phone said ‘a drone picture’ and the company denies it, saying they use other imaging.” * Customer could be mistaken, whoever was on the phone may not know that “drone” covers things from 737 Recon Drone to a $10 aliexpress quadcopter.

          I’ll bet $50 it was either a high altitude drone or a satellite image bought from an imaging company, as they’ve been doing for at least 20 years, and not some quadcopter flying just above his yard.

          Please think before commenting.

  • seasonone@opidea.xyzOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is clearly invasion of privacy. Just think about it. If insurance companies start collection you car data like at what speed you drive etc. They can cancel policy if we violate traffic laws. If they collect healthcare data they can cancel policy for abortion or drinking etc

    • Pietson@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      If health insurance gets access to our DNA they could even know if there’s a history of illness in your family, or how prone you are to drug/alcohol/cigarette addiction, and use that info to increase your rates. It’s just one of the reasons why volunteering that data away freely to companies like 23andme is a terrible idea.

    • GeneralBoop@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      They do collect that on an opt in basis with the promise of additional discounts if you’re a good driver. Some give you a device you plug into your OBDII port, others get the telemetry directly from your car. I drive a Hyundai and I have the option of toggling on sharing anonymized driving data as well as a toggle to share your actual data with insurance companies for special offers.

      • deadsenator@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        All cars now have “black boxes” that track the telemetry of the vehicle. It is no longer optional. In the event of an accident, this data is used to help determine cause.

        Edit: I did not make this up, the response calling it the ECU has no idea about this apparently, but it does not make it any less true. In the US all manufacturers have to install telemetry devices.

    • aname@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Satellite images, which give them the same information about your yard has been available for decades and I don’t hear people complaining about cool clear images of anyone’s yard invading their privacy.

      Satellite images can be bought by anyone with money.

  • veroxii@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    In Australia some local councils use aerial photos to check for structures and developments without a permit. Built a new deck without the right paperwork, put in a big shed without approval, expect a knock on the door soon.

      • Demdaru@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I…love the logic of “I broke the rules and they got to know? HOW DARE THEY”.

        Like…this is so stupidly silly I can’t. Like a child getting pissed off it was found out.

        • Boinketh@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Laws that prevent people from doing what they want on their own property when it doesn’t hurt anyone else are completely unjustifiable tools of oppression. Anything that helps the state enforce those laws is inherently bad.

          • Bill Stickers@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Why do you think the laws exist in the first place. Because there is some hurt to somebody else. You just can’t see it.

            • Boinketh@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Tell me more about how me building a shed for myself that nobody else ever even looks at causes harm to anyone.

              • BradleyUffner@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                An electrical fire that starts in your shed isn’t confined to your property by magic force fields. Your improperly installed wiring is a threat to the neighborhood.

                • Boinketh@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Improperly wiring something up on your property with the risk of causing a fire makes that action no longer confined to your property, even if before the fire, all of the wiring is on your side of the line. There’s simply no reasonable way for just a shed without the accidental pyrotechnics can bring enough risk of harm to your neighbors that it could be considered a violation of their rights.

              • Bill Stickers@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                If it’s not built to code to code it can pose all sorts of safety hazards to your neighbours or future owners of your property. If you don’t bother getting approval you didn’t bother building it properly either.

                At the slightly more silly end, your shed could lower the value of the neighbours property (because it looks like a meth lab, or just a general hillbilly grotto) and the law holds financial harm higher than physical harm most of the time.

                Edit: also it’s not just you, it’s any meth head who decides to build their own shed. Laws need to cater for the lowest common denominator.

                • Boinketh@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  If it’s not to code, just tear it down before selling the place. A not up to code shed on your own property isn’t a threat to your neighbors unless they’re trespassing on your property. Arguing that it shouldn’t be allowed because it looks bad is the real-estate equivalent of trying to pass a law to force women to smile at all times so that men have eye candy.

        • LexiconDexicon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nothing anyone loves more then not being able to do what they want on their own property they probably spent most of their lives working for

          But yes, freedom and liberty are quite clearly “childish” concepts in your underdeveloped brain

          • Demdaru@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, go on, insult me. Great argument ^^

            You know the rules that apply on the property. By breaking them, you are performing concious action, knowing what consequences may it yield. Do not be pissed when these consequences come. Sheesh.

            • TechnoBabble@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Where’s the limit on acceptable surveillance on your own property?

              Should the state be able to check for unlicensed structures by drone?

              What about sending investigators into your backyard? Into your house?

              Just because people break rules doesn’t give the state the right to inspect their citizens any way they please.

              • Demdaru@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                From what I recall, your property ends where airspace begins so…yes? Same as Mark, your neighbour. He, too, can get a drone and watch your backyard. Now inside of building is somewhat private ( IIRC windows this privacy legally ).

                And also - how else do you propose for state to be able to enforce their code and licenses? You agree to their terms when you get the property. How do they make sure you actually follow them?

    • jennwiththesea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Happens in the US, too. I know someone who got in trouble for building a shed that connected to their house by roof (covered walkway). Then the county came and inspected in person, and it turns out the shed was too large even on its own so they were dealing with that last I heard.

  • MrMonkey@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Insurance companies use ariel and satellite photos. So do municipalities to check for unpermited work.

    They’re not going to drive out to each customer with a toy drone. They’re essentially using google map satellite view.

    Can we stop the hysteria and take a few minutes to think things through?

    • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If they’re using Google or other public sources of satellite images, they wouldn’t have up to date pictures. Images of my own house from that are from almost 12 years ago, which makes this even worse because they could be basing decisions on things that no longer exist.

  • Ktheone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Fun fact: Twitter’s old logo was named that in honour of Larry birds legacy. As a long time fan of Larry, this gives me another reason to hate Elon.

    Edit:feel free to laugh at a dumb guy like me