💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

EllieD (Vermont)
Posts: 446
Posted:
FYI - something for Condominium Boards to think about - keeping up with technology. Unless I missed it, I did not see this topic on the Daily News front page here.

Since the article is from a "News Letter" I believe it is OK to post the link, as it only presents a topic for discussion.

http://www.meeb.com/should-condominiums-ban-google-glass-and-smart-glasses-in-common-areas/

Here are a few excerpts:

“Just when you were getting used to your iPhones, it is time to get ready for the next wave. Smart phones may soon be replaced with smart glasses."

“Google Glass like most smart phones also allows the user to take and share photographs and video recordings. However, unlike most smart phones, the user taking the video or photographs will not be obvious.

“Instead of pointing and clicking, Google Glass users can take photographs and video surreptiously, James Bond style.”

“This begs the question: should condominiums follow suit and ban Google glass or smart glasses from common areas?”

“Do all residents want themselves or their children being secretly photographed or videotaped in the common areas; say for example the gym or the pool?”

“Do Board Members or Property Managers want their board meetings secretly taped or photographed? Its one thing if permission is given or its obvious. Secret recordings are another matter entirely.”

“If condominiums want to ban Google Glass or Smart Glasses from the common areas, condominium boards should be able to do so by enacting a simple rule under their rule making authority. Such a rule would likely withstand scrutiny as it is done to protect legitimate privacy and safety interests of unit owners." (The author's opinion, from the article).
CarolR11 (Colorado)
Posts: 2,563
Posted:
Well, there has been a lot of talk in mass media these past few months about Google Glass & "privacy." We have a couple of cameras in our pool area that security monitors so there is no expectation of privacy there or in our lobbies. Children are not allowed in our gym.

Google Glass wearers are actually pretty obvious and not "secret," so I think we'd notice them at a Board meeting and just ask the homeowner to remove them.

Maybe I need to know more, but the article excerpts seem a bit on the paranoid side to me???
LarryB13 (Arizona)
Posts: 4,099
Posted:
When you go out into a public area or common area, you have no expectation of privacy. The average person is taped or photographed about 30 times a day and mostly without knowing it.

Board members at an open meeting also have no expectation of privacy. If they are afraid that a video of them will lead to being held up for ridicule, the solution is do not act ridiculous.

JanetB2 (Colorado)
Posts: 4,219
Posted:
Yep ... I'm with Larry ... unless you are inside your personal home where peeping toms are not allowed ... then you really cannot expect privacy. In most states the captioning or video taping of HOA meetings is allowed. I actually like this fact in that it tends to keep down the underhanded activity which happens in some HOA's. Or, those stupid enough to engage in illegal or unethical activity on camera get to pay the price for said stupidity.
KevinK7 (Florida)
Posts: 1,343
Posted:
I think it would be very dangerous for condos/HOAs to ban smart glasses. I have personally found the use of recorders to be very helpful in my situations. Problems arose and you had two versions of the story. The HOA would consistently act contrary to their actual words. For instance, when we were experiencing issues we talked with a lot of our neighbors. Some were in disbelief and others were angered. Those that were angry had gone to the HOA and wanted answers and the HOA sugar coated their responses and placated the angry homeowner. With recordings things were different.

Granted, the laws in my state allowed me to make such recordings AND I made it obvious (although I sat towards the back keeping to myself as to not make a disturbance), there were things that were said in the meetings that contradicted everything they said for months, or that completely ignored judicial statements. Had I not gotten actual recordings I would have been out of luck. The HOA and supporters would have denied it all and continued to go after it's opponents.
TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,059
Posted:
I agree with Larry.

Additionally, to ban Smart Glasses, the Association would likely need to ban all video/still recording equipment (cell phones, tablets, laptops, video cameras, etc.). I don't think any Association wants to open that can of worms.

Ellie, Whats your opinion?
SteveM9 (Massachusetts)
Posts: 3,699
Posted:
Unenforceable.

Everyone carries a smartphone and they also have cameras. They even sell 1080p cameras hidden in keychains, pens and shirt buttons.

Although you may not like being on camera, it makes no sense to create rules that cannot be enforced.
TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,059
Posted:
Actually, in reading the article, it sounds more like an attorney (or law firm) wants to test such a rule and are encouraging their clients (as it says, the represent 4,000 Condo Associations) to adopt such a rule. Notice that the article never said such a rule would be enforceable or legal.

The case the article refers to deals with being photographed in public (admittingly by a sleazeball). As many who commented on this thread pointed out, there is no expectation of privacy when in public. The article references a corporations concerns about documents being compromised and that is certainly a valid concern. However, the article doesn't say that those who were concerned adopted any rules or what those rules were.

As for the concerns of the courts about jury tampering, the last time I went into a court house I had to surrender my phone because it had a camera on it (it was returned when I left). They have already addressed their concerns by banning all photographic equipment. This is why I said for the Association to have such a ban, it would have to be generic and cover all video/photographic equipment (like the courts did).

Again, I think the article's sole purpose if to stir up controversy and gain income from Boards seeking a legal opinion or for an Association to adopt such a rule and have it challenged by a member through the courts.

JanetB2 (Colorado)
Posts: 4,219
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By TimB4 on 03/15/2014 9:01 AM
Actually, in reading the article, it sounds more like an attorney (or law firm) wants to test such a rule and are encouraging their clients (as it says, the represent 4,000 Condo Associations) to adopt such a rule. Notice that the article never said such a rule would be enforceable or legal.

Sound like they are stirring up trouble so they can line their pockets with legal fees, after all who gets to pay for their testing ... their clients?

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:

  • ✓ Ask follow-up questions
  • ✓ Share your experience
  • ✓ Get expert advice
  • ✓ Access 350,000 discussions
Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here