My mom is in assisted living and I have a suspicion that the staff, or perhaps a resident, is taking her money. I need something that won’t look out of place and isn’t easily disabled, maybe it plays possum when unplugged but has battery backup. Anyone have any advice?

  • wuphysics87@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Assuming you live in the United States, you need to be aware of the laws in the state you live in. Many states are one party consent when it comes to recording. Which means if you and I are having a conversation, you can record it without telling me. One party has consented.

    If on the other hand, you install a camera without your mom’s knowledge, then you are not one of the two parties. This “evidence” could be thrown out of court as it is “illegally aquired”.

    Not to say you shouldn’t do it. Protect your mom’s property. I would just suggest looking into the local laws about it. I am also not a lawyer so you should look into your local laws or consult a lawyer.

    • Bertuccio@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      The problem isn’t just that it will be thrown out in court, it’s that it itself is illegal.

      Which doesn’t necessarily mean don’t do it but you’re limited in how you can reveal how you know things are being stolen etc.

      • wuphysics87@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Agreed. I’m not entirely (barely) versed in the law, but at the very least, if it’s a one party consent state, his mom would “have to set it up”.

        What’s less clear to me is why the drastic action? Start by leaving a 20 on the dresser and see if it stays there.

    • IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      IANAL, but I believe these laws cover audio recording only. OP shouldn’t have an issue if they use something that records video only.

      Think about it a second. I live in a two party consent state, but I see security & surveillance cameras everywhere. If two party consent was required for video then they wouldn’t be there.

      • evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        The doorbell cameras that everyone have all record audio, in blatant violation of law, and they hand it over to police. I’m surprised there hasn’t been a court case to really slap those companies on the wrist.

        • Bertuccio@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Outdoors are generally not protected by right to privacy, even if on private property.

          Someone standing in their own front lawn can be recorded with both video and audio without their consent.

          This is what makes it legal to record police.

          • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Hmm, interesting. A lot of things make more sense now.

            I think there should be protections a bit stronger than that, at least. You’re forced to go outside to basically live life. If you have a situation where you’re forced to pass through someone else’s property by geometry they lose their right to stop you, and something similar should apply here.