Mediaboss Marketing

Modern technology has many benefits, but one potential downside concerns its effect on individual privacy. A bill scheduled for a hearing this morning in the Massachusetts legislature seeks to protect one aspect of privacy the right to be free from being videotaped in our own backyards. Daniel Medwed, Northeastern University law professor and GBH News legal analyst, joined Aaron Schachter on GBH's Morning Edition to talk about the proposed backyard privacy bill.

Schachter: Lets start with the basics. Who proposed the bill and what is it about?

Medwed: Representative Joseph McKenna is the chief sponsor of the bill, and it is scheduled for a hearing later this morning in the judiciary committee. Heres what it would do, if enacted in its current form: Any owner or tenant of residential real property would have the right to sue anyone who sets up a camera on adjoining property for the purpose of taping or taking photos of activities in the backyard without their consent and with the intent to harass, annoy, alarm or threaten. And that lawsuit could result in the award of monetary damages. Those are the key features.

Schachter: Lots of questions here. What about security cameras? Many people have cameras for surveillance purposes and some of those devices presumably capture images in a neighbors backyard. Would that behavior fall under the bill?

Medwed: No, and heres why. The law is defined quite narrowly. First, the camera must be set up for the purpose of capturing images of backyard activities; A homeowner could claim that a security camera did not have that purpose, that its purpose was to safeguard the home. Second, the person must have the intent to harass, annoy, alarm or threaten those subject to the backyard images and that is a high bar to meet. So I think security cameras, for the most part, wouldnt fall under this potential law. Also, its important to keep in mind that this law would just set up whats called a private civil right of action a right to sue someone in court. It wouldnt create a new criminal offense.

WATCH: Daniel Medwed on "backyard privacy" bill and security cameras

Schachter: Daniel, what about law enforcement? I imagine the police sometimes use video technology to capture images of backyard activities. Would that be covered by this law?

Medwed: No, it wouldnt. The language of the law specifies that it shall not apply to any law enforcement personnel engaged in the conduct of their authorized duties. The key phrase there, I think, is authorized duties. Just because youre a law enforcement officer [it] wouldnt give you license to film your neighbors in violation of this law only if you are authorized to do so, that is, youve gone through the appropriate processes to make sure youre in compliance with the Fourth Amendment and internal policies.

Schachter: What about front yards? I find it curious that the law only addresses backyard activities. Any thoughts on that?

Medwed: Thats an interesting question. I often tell my students that legislation is like a piece of sausage we see it in its nice, tidy casing but dont really know whats inside and how it was exactly produced. My hunch is that the drafters here realized that including front yards would be a tough sell to the legislature and eventually perhaps the courts. To be sure, we have a privacy interest in our front yards and the comings and goings of our front doors but, unlike backyards, our front yards typically face a public street and we all have diminished expectations of privacy in public spaces.

Its possible, though, that front yards could be included in a future iteration or amendment of this bill. Last year our Supreme Judicial Court expressed concerns about the police using long-term pole cameras to track visitors to and from a private residence, so there is precedent for the idea that we have some expectation of privacy even in the front of our homes.

See the original post:
GBH Do You Have A Right To Privacy In Your Own Backyard? - wgbh.org