By: Nicholas Tagg
Over the last two decades, the prevalence and ease of use of home video security systems have exploded. These security systems have allowed people to surveil their homes better and more cheaply than ever. As of 2024, about 72% of homes have at least one type of security device. In addition, when interviewed for a study, burglars revealed that if they see a security camera, it is the most significant deterrent to robbing a house. These systems have also changed how police can do their jobs, allowing them greater access to security footage, sometimes without the owner’s consent.
The first home video surveillance systems entered the market in 1969 and gained popularity by the 1980s. However, because these systems were hardwired, it was only in the early 2000s, with the proliferation of Wi-Fi, that the home security market was transformed. The cameras no longer needed hardwiring and could be monitored remotely. Soon, the systems started including sensors to detect motion and could be fully programmed with the owner’s smartphone. Given their ease of use and the feeling of safety these devices provide, it is no wonder that around 51 million homes now have video surveillance systems.
Purchasers of these cameras often get them for reasons beyond just general security; in many cases, security is only a secondary consideration. A frequently sighted reason for purchase by consumers is what the Ring Doorbell was initially invented for: the convenience of knowing if someone is at the door and being able to answer it remotely, whether you are away from home or in another part of the house. Another common reason people acquire these cameras is to be able to monitor their pets inside their homes when they are away, metaphorically opening the door even wider to what these cameras can see. Many purchasers also cite that they want the cameras to be able to watch their packages, monitoring for and hopefully deterring potential porch pirates.
Video surveillance may provide us with security for our properties, but privacy trade-offs exist. For starters, many of these at-home video surveillance systems, especially the ones with subscriptions, have an “emergency” clause that allows law enforcement to request video footage stored on the company’s cloud servers in high-stakes, life-or-death situations. Police can also obtain a warrant to access your camera footage stored on the cloud or locally. Many cities, mainly surrounding the California Bay Area, have also implemented programs that allow people to register their cameras with their municipality’s police department to help solve crimes. San Francisco took this one step further by giving the police the authority to request privately owned cameras to share their live footage directly when a suspect is being tracked down. Though this seems like a minimal invasion of privacy, the collusion between the government and technology companies should make us wary.
The program rolled out in San José, California, was implemented by the police department and is entirely voluntary. One of the points made by the San José Police Department in its Terms of Use is that no camera registered with the program should be placed in a location where people have a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” The Supreme Court explained in Katz v. United States what the “reasonable expectation of privacy” entails. Under the Fourth Amendment, a reasonable expectation of privacy exists when (1) one has a subjective expectation of privacy, and (2) society would recognize that this privacy is reasonable in that situation. For home security cameras, a reasonable expectation of privacy would include backyards and indoors. Though these cameras can already collect a lot of information, households that sign up for these programs must be diligent about protecting their own and their guests’ reasonable expectations of privacy.
The other concern is that many video surveillance systems have community features similar to social media feeds, like the “Ring Neighbors” app. Apps like these serve as digital neighborhood watch groups. When signing up for and using these apps, people think they are good neighbors by sharing their footage so everyone can see what is happening in the area. However, law enforcement can access these videos freely without permission when users post or share them publicly.
As we live in a continually interconnected world, the plethora of data collected by these cameras can be hundreds of gigabytes per month per camera. Though we primarily think of these cameras as monitoring front doors or driveways to protect against intruders, they surveil far more than that. These cameras can pick up private conversations, intimate moments, and children playing, far more data and content than their intended purpose. This data is then stored on the cloud, which is always at risk of hacking. Further, suppose a camera is on the cheaper side of the spectrum and is not adequately encrypted; it is vulnerable to hackers taking a live look at your property or inside your house, depending on how your system is set up. The average person may not be concerned about this, but the possibility of abuse in these regards is substantial.
A home video security system can have significant benefits, and ease of use has increased dramatically since its first introduction to the market. However, as with all new technology, substantial privacy risks can arise. Purchasers of these products should know that their footage could be hacked if stored in the cloud. Furthermore, they should be aware that law enforcement could gain access to it in an emergency and that some municipalities are providing law enforcement with more avenues to access these networks of cameras. Being attentive to the hazards associated with these products will help ensure that users can benefit most from them and experience fewer drawbacks.
Student Bio: Nicholas Tagg is a second-year law student at Suffolk University Law School. He is a staff writer for the Journal of High Technology Law. Nicholas received a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Economics from Boston College in 2020. Nicholas spent almost three years working in the Massachusetts State Legislature before attending law school.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog are the views of the author alone and do not represent the views of JHTL or Suffolk University Law School.
