Tech legal expert Eric Goldman wrote that a victory for the plaintiff could be considered “a dangerous ruling for the spy cam industry and for Amazon,” because “the court’s analysis could indicate that all surreptitious hook cameras are categorically illegal to sell.” That could prevent completely legal uses of cameras designed to look like clothes hooks, Goldman wrote, such as hypothetical in-home surveillance uses.
Yeah, I think we’ve got a “water pipe” vs. “bong” situation here, and Amazon was letting people say bong.
A camera is a camera. Calling it a bathroom camera betrays it’s potentially illegal use too much. There is nothing inherently illegal about having a camera in the bathroom. Film yourself and other consenting adults all day.
Much like how calling to a bong made it contraband, but calling it a water pipe is okay, I believe Amazon will have to mandate that these be referred to as “interior waterproof cameras” going forward.