Description: Real estate agent says clients used audio, video surveillance to eavesdrop on potential buyers
Source: CBC.CA
Date: Jan 16, 2019
Homebuyers should watch what they say during home viewings, according to an Ontario real estate agent who says two of her clients recently used cameras and microphones to eavesdrop on potential buyers.
Juliana Webster says the rules should be changed to force sellers to say if homes are under surveillance.
“When you go into a private home you don’t naturally expect [surveillance],” said Webster, who works in Hamilton.
The wrong sort of comment, she warns, “could be used against the buyer, like, if they said, ‘Oh, we would totally pay much more for the house.'”
Webster said she was unaware of the surveillance until her clients mentioned it. One offered to help a potential buyer who had been observed trying to use an appliance in the home. The other heard something that assured them the sale would go through. READ REST OF STORY
Questions for discussion:
1) “When you go into a private home you don’t naturally expect [surveillance]”? is this true? why or why not?
2) Should there be a law to prevent surveillance in your own home during a home buying visit? Could this not be a problem with any transaction, sellers or buyerse are going to try get an unequal amount of information before making proposals?
Info Systems in Practice 
I can definitely see both rational arguments from opposing viewpoints on this topic and they are both right in their own different ways. Personally, whenever I am in an area or property that I don’t own or control, I always try to act as if I were on camera. Getting into the habit of thinking in this way has saved me a lot of trouble, specifically in situations like this.
While I am normally an advocate for privacy, I feel that it becomes a bit more of a grey area when you are talking about one persons expectation of privacy when they are inside another individuals home.
I feel like this issue will be coming up more and more frequently as technological advancements in camera technology have made it affordable for all kinds of different people to own surveillance camera systems inside their own homes. If I were to put myself in the shoes of the individual who is selling the property, I think I would absolutely be inclined to record the showing and viewings of my property. I wouldn’t set any cameras up specifically for the event, but being safety conscious myself, I already have a security camera system set up. I think by far the most logical answer here is to allow the owner to keep their cameras running, but make it known to the potential purchaser.
I believe that I would feel uncomfortable knowing people are going through my home while I am not their, and while I do understand that comes with the territory of buying and selling real estate, I would feel a lot better about having the ability to ensure nobody messed with my stuff. This world is becoming crazier and crazier by the day, you never know what someone will do to your property when nobody is looking.
I believe this is true as when I enter a friend or family’s home, I know they don’t have any security cameras inside their home, but I believe it’s completely reasonable to have security cameras on the outside of your home for security purposes. It seems more common than not for the typical home to obtain security cameras, as it can also be convenient for receiving packages at home or if someone drops by your home while you’re not there. Some cameras even have advanced features that allow you to speak the camera through your computer or mobile device, which can also be used as an extra security measure as well to scare off suspicious looking individuals. But as far as surveillance inside homes, I don’t believe it’s very common and not necessary.
I do believe there should be a law to prevent any type of surveillance in your own home during viewings while your house is for sale as this creates an unfair advantage for the homeowners and could reveal information that may be received by the wrong hands and may possibly cause manipulation of sales by the current homeowners. As this may not be technically illegal, I do believe it’s very unethical and not morally right for homeowners to eavesdrop on private conversations, even within their own home as this information could be used wrongfully. It’s not their place to intrude on people’s conversations and I do believe that it is a violation of their privacy as they are unknowingly being listened and possible watched by others without their consent.
1) Considering the fact that now days wifi surveillance cameras are easily accessible and also easy to install, everyone should be aware of that their might be surveillance cameras installed in the house. It would help buyers to know that potential buyers are not not touching or going in to part of their house that they are not supposed to touch. On the other side potential buyers will also behave. In a survey conducted by Harris Poll for Nerd Wallet this month, 15% of Americans who have ever sold a home said they’ve use surveillance cameras to monitor potential home buyers. And 67% say they would use such cameras if they were selling a home that already had them. Sellers “need to disclose it, put a sign up or turn it off,” says Lou Nimkoff, a broker at Brio Real Estate in Winter Park, Fla., and president of the Orlando Regional Realtors Association.
2) Video monitoring is generally prohibited in places where someone has “a reasonable expectation of privacy,” according to a summary of state laws compiled by the National Association of Realtors (NAR). Such privacy zones likely would not include other people’s homes. In many states, however, eavesdropping or recording audio requires the consent of at least one person being recorded, and some require the sign-off of all the parties.
In other words, audio recording likely would be legal in many states if the home seller is accompanying the buyer. But not in the more common scenario in which the only ones monitored are the house hunter and his or her broker, both unsuspecting.
1. I believe this is true because I don’t personally expect surveillance and nobody that I have ever been with when I rented a place through airbnb mentioned anything about it. Similar to open house viewings, it is just something that people do not expect. They may expect cameras outside because they are visible and common, but it is very uncommon to see security cameras in the house. If they are in the house l, they are typically hidden which is why most people wouldn’t expect it.
2. I believe there should be regulations put in place that would allow homeowners to have cameras in their house during viewings, as long it was disclosed to everyone in the house that they were being recorded. It is a touchy subject because it is their own home, but they could be potentially using the things people say to unethically convince someone to buy their or pay more money then they should. Homeowners should be allowed to record but I feel as if there should be some disclosure to potential buyers and agents in the home.
You do not expect to be under surveillance at all. A home is supposed to be a place of sanctuary, not somewhere where you need to watch everything you do. I do understand that surveillance has and is becoming more of a staple in the home, with companies such as Amazon, Google and Ring Doorbells have increased in popularity. But those are usually to enhance your life, not to spy on people that are coming to buy your house. I believe that they should be turned off during the home-selling and buying process. This question is quite hard because as I am typing this, I am asking ‘Alexa’ to remember things for me, and what if I was selling my condo, and I accidentally left my Alexa on the recording mode and heard what people were saying. Juliane Webster has some serious concerns about the home buying and selling experience, and I think it is worth listening to someone who has about forty years in the job and her perspectives.
I do not think there should be a law, it could take a while before it gets passed. I think it should just be common courtesy. If you do not want someone recording you, why would you want to record someone else? Buying or selling a house, is such a huge investment and deals with a large lump sum of money and being honest about that is the best way to go. I think this also comes with getting the right real estate agent—making sure you can connect your fears and questions to the person handling the transaction is important.
I feel surveillance in a private home that I’m seeing is a violation of my right. I wouldn’t expect to be recorded and gave no permission to be recorded. It is frightening that things like this happen as a means to business strategies. It is unfair and unethical. People are unaware of these things and as such fail to keep important discussions “private”. There should be serious measures taken into this. I feel that there should be major restrictions given into things like this.
1. If I went into a private home to check it out, I would not think I was being recorded, so yes I agree with the statement ” when you go into a private home you don’t naturally expect surveillance”. Obviously you’re going to the home to look at it and the last thing that would come to mind is that you’re being recorded. If I did find out the whole time I was being recorded I would likely be fairly upset as it raises some privacy issue flags. I likely personally wouldn’t get to upset about it, but I could see some people getting very upset. I also think if people knew they were going to be recorded they might not want to check that house specifically out and may try t avoid it as again it raises privacy issues.
2) I think they should make it a law for ethical standards and privacy issues. If they made the law so that home sellers had to disclose information on if they were being recorded or not and both parties agreed before hand if it was acceptable or not that that would work best. I do think for home sellers it is a tool, as they can make the stuff people hate and say they hate, seem better in an attempt to sell the home. But as a home buyer that means that you might be getting sweet talked by the seller after they know you’re true feelings about the house. So I do believe it would just overall eliminate problems and be ethical to make it a law.
When going into a private home I naturally don’t expect to be under surveillance; I think it is something we need to become more aware of as homes continue to incorporate smart devices. Due to the growing number of porch pirates I now expect that cameras and security devices are installed on the outside of the home, however I still expect a level of privacy when in a private residence. I think this also a commentary on the change in society where homeowners are constantly monitoring their homes on everything from the thermostat to their pets. The need for security in private homes has increased, even over my lifetime. I can still remember going to my grandparents’ home and the door always being unlocked whereas today the house is locked up even if someone is home.
I think there should be a law that prevents surveillance without the potential buyer’s knowledge. I believe signs or some form of notice that lets the potential buyer know there are being watched or recorded would be sufficient. I can understand why the seller would want surveillance on their home, to prevent theft or other potential crimes. I can also understand that the homeowner has the right to protect their property. However, I also think that the potential buyer has a right to privacy while making the decision on whether or not they are going to make an offer on the home. I think having a notice of the surveillance puts both the seller and the buyer back on a level playing field regarding the information they have available while negotiating the sale.
In todays time, I do believe that almost every middle class person has some sort of surveillance system on their private property for security purposes. It is not an uncommon thing to see doorbell cameras or garage, backyard and front yard cameras. I do not believe that this is an invasion of privacy, as the owners will most likely only look at the cameras if an event were to occur, like a break in or a hit and run or something right outside their house.
I do not believe that there should be a law against having a surveillance on private property. If this makes someone uncomfortable there is nothing stopping them from not entering the property. I do believe that a law allowing people to be warned about a surveillance system could be in place. This may almost be as affective as the surveillance system its self, in making sure people don’t do anything that would be bad to look back on.
1. When I go into a private home I am not naturally expecting to be on surveillance. I agree with this statement because I hope that we aren’t on the 1984 level yet. In this famous book by George Orwell people are always being watched by “Big Brother” which is run by the government. The book paints a bleak reality that leaves you feeling hopeless. I feel that being under surveillance I private homes is the beginning of something terrible for mankind. I believe that mankind needs and craves privacy so taking a step to being under surveillance is a step in the wrong direction. I understand home security surveillance but being constantly under surveillance is an idea that does not resonate very well with me.
2. I personally believe that there should be law to prevent surveillance in my home or any others homes for the matter of fact. As I mentioned above the idea of surveillance is something I personally disagree with as it takes way human integrity and our innate need for privacy. I believe that sellers and buyers would take advantage of this to get their home at a cheaper price by listening to their conversations made possible by surveillance. There is too much private information that is being shared that the possibilities for someone to be taken advantage of are astronomical. The problem is further deepened when people do not know they are being recorded, this is a blatant violation of privacy and should be condemned.
1. I do believe the statement is correct in saying that when entering a private home, I don’t naturally expect there to be surveillance unless stated. While it is safe to assume that with the increase in technology that society has faced in the last 30 years there is usually surveillance in public places such as businesses or schools, it is out of the ordinary for me to assume that every private home will have a security camera or microphones. However, in thinking about it now, it does make sense for homes to do so. If you think about why businesses have surveillance in place, a big factor that comes to mind is safety. Safety should not be limited to a public place and should be taken into account for private homes as well. If any of your belongings were to go missing, or if for an unspoken reason violence were to happen, it would be so beneficial to have surveillance in place for liability and safety reasons. While I don’t naturally expect their to be surveillance in a private home as of now, that is not to say that in the future it won’t become the new norm. While technology can advance to our advantage in many ways, there are also ways that it can work towards our disadvantage, such as an easier way to break into a house or to steal something. It is better to stay on top of it as best as you can, and surveillance is a prime example of a way to do so.
2. While I don’t believe that there should be a law preventing surveillance during a showing of your private home, I do believe that there should be a law indicating that the surveillance must be disclosed to anyone coming into the home. If the surveillance isn’t kept a secret, those entering the home can decide for themselves whether or not they wish to be recorded and either enter or not enter the house accordingly.
1. When I go into a private home, I do naturally expect surveillance because of developing technology. Nowadays, many people, especially sellers, are able to record their potential customers. It would be useful for sellers because this data will increase the quality of their jobs. Maybe potential customers will appreciate them if sellers do a good job. However, I feel that this is ethical behaviour. Each person needs his or her own privacy, and it should be protected. When people do not have any privacy, they will feel uncomfortable. So, I think that some security and privacy problems exist, and they should be solved before sellers do surveillance. In addition, sellers need to consider these issues because once their potential customers feel uncomfortable with this situation, they will not visit their place.
2. I think that there should be a law to prevent surveillance in my own home during a home buying visit. Like I mentioned above, I feel that I am very uncomfortable if sellers do surveillance. So, sellers should inform their potential customers when they conduct surveillance because their potential customers may not expect surveillance. I think that it is important to build a relationship between sellers and their potential customers. I believe that this could be a problem with any transaction, sellers or buyers are going to try to get an unequal amount of information making proposals because most people may not expect surveillance in any situation. I feel that privacy and security issues are solved before people do surveillance.
1) I believe that the statement is true. When you go into a house and its not stated that there is surveillance than it wouldn’t cross your mind. You’re going to view a house the last thing you would expect is to be under surveillance, but then if I had random people walking around my house I would want to make sure they aren’t taking anything. There is multiple sides to this, but I do think that if the seller was going to have the viewers under surveillance there should be a sign for privacy issues. Most people would never even think that they are being recorded when walking into a home and that isn’t right to be recording people without them knowing.
2) I think that there should be a law that you aren’t able to have surveillance in your home when you’re selling this. What if buyers were talking about private information that the seller doesn’t need to know. Also the seller could use this to their advantage if the buyer says I would pay more for this house than in negotiations the seller can increase the price because they know the buyers will pay it. I just think that it is unfair to the buyers. The seller has an advantage listening inside whereas the buyer is still on level playing grounds. An example that came into mind is when there is photo radar on a road they have to post that its there. Same should go with homeowners, if they are going to record the buyers walking around the house than they should have a sign that says it.
1. I believe this is true, as I have never once thought about whether or not I was being recorded in someone else’s house. At the same time, I’ve never had cameras up around my home to record people coming over, even when we were selling our house. I think its interesting, as almost everywhere in public is under constant surveillance, but in someone’s home, we assume safety and privacy. I think this also comes from the fact that businesses and governments that continuously film people are these large groups where we assume that these recordings are taken for our safety. At the same time, being filmed without my knowledge in someone else’s home would be very concerning, even if they were just there to ensure safety for the person who’s home you were visiting. I would feel as though my privacy had been severely breached, something I do not feel when going into a store.
2) I think so yes, or at least there should be a requirement to disclose if you are filming during a home buying visit. I think if people knew, there could be a disadvantage for the seller, with potential buyers giving false information, but if this is not disclosed, there could be an advantage for the seller, with potential buyers disadvantaged. Even if the intention of the filming was not to garner an unfair advantage, the temptation to use information gained to manipulate negotiations would be too strong for anyone to resist, in my opinion. Even if the sellers accidentally heard something they could use, I do not think they would be able to resist using that information.
1. If I were going into a private home, my first instinct would not be that I was under surveillance but it would definitely be on my mind. Home security systems are just increasing in popularity as they become more readily available and cheaper for homeowners. These systems are still decently new so most people I would assume, do not think they would have cameras on them but personally, I would assume just in case. As the article mentions, it is important not to gush over anything but to stay decently neutral and talk at your own home or the real estate agent’s office for more details on the house, just in case. This article definitely makes you think more because it is something that I am sure many people have experienced and just have not known when purchasing a home.
2. I do not think it is plausible to create a law restricting homeowners from using a security system in their own home. As the article mentions, there could be a courtesy sign provided just to let viewers know that there are cameras. Or the homeowner should just retrain themselves from checking the cameras. Many homes with these systems have signs posted outside the house, if the real estate agent showing the home sees this, they should inform the potential buyers that there may be cameras inside the house (which may be a selling point) and that they should just limit discussions on price or anything around that topic to a different time.
I think this is true. Because inside someones private house you would not expect to be under any sort of surveillance. Although people are now getting into the habit of having cameras installed into their doorbells I wouldn’t expect them to have any cameras within the actual house. This dosent necessarily mean its a bad thing these surveillance are there to protect and alert you if there are any suspicious activity going on in your home. I also think that people should be more aware of there surroundings, and have the knowledge that they may or may not be recorded. If you are choosing to buy a home you should be aware or assume that surveillances are present.
I personally do not think that there should be a law that prohibits surveillance during showing of homes. The surveillance can help you detect any home invasion. Somepople will not like the idea of being under surveillance, this can make them feel extremely uncomfortable when touring around the home. Every individual has a right to their privacy and if surveillance are going to be installed in order to gather information the individuals have the right to know.
1.That is true, when entering a house I don’t expect to be under surveillance especially in a private home. If i were under surveillance I would expect to be warned just like house owners with vicious dogs warn sales people with a sign stating “be ware of dog”. They don’t have to but they do it anyways. With house surveillance I would like to know so I am aware of my video to be out in the open. Grocery stores warn thief’s of the surveillance to prevent robberies and this same storyline applies in home buying as clients can be aware of what they disclose in the house.
2. I don’t think it is necessary for a law to be involved in this. What happens during house buying is out of my control wether the real estate would like to set up surveillance or not, I would just advice them to let buyers know. That being said, anything discussed out in the open is fair game for the realtor wether they warned and used surveillance or overheard.
1. When going into someone’s home I would not expect to be under surveillance. Regardless of whether the purpose of entry is for commercial purposes or not, I would expect the owners to either not record me or to give me warning upon entering their property that they use video surveillance. Even if in court it could be seen as legal in some cases to use video surveillance in your house without notifying entrants, I believe that it is unethical to do so. I think it is perfectly normal to have surveillance and security cameras for the outside of your house like front and back yards to monitor potential break-ins but internal should be made known. In any case, I believe that homeowners should notify all entrants if they have indoor surveillance out of respect for their privacy. At least this way, people are aware that their actions or words are being recorded and can either act accordingly or choose to leave.
2. While I do believe that it is unethical to record people without their knowledge or without the expectation of being under surveillance, I do not think there should be a law entirely preventing it from happening. If people wish to install surveillance in their home during home buying visits, then they should be allowed to given that they disclose it to entrants. I feel that as long as entrants know what is going on that it is fine to record them because they can make the decision on how they wish to act or what they wish to say after being informed.
I would expect there to be no video surveillance in a private home, however it makes sense that there is video recording. When potential buyers walk into a home without the homeowners then I understand the need for cameras for if something happened in the home. This way the seller would be able to review and make sure that nothing in the home will be broken. I do wish that if I was viewing a private home I would be able to talk about the way you feel about the aspects of the home. However I do feel like there should be a notice that you are under surveillance just to insure that the use of the video recordings is being used for safety reasons and not to charge more for the house. If people know they are being recorded then they would be as open with what they say about the house meaning that what they say won’t be used against them.
I do not think there should be a law against video recording, however, there should be rules against audio recordings. The use of cameras should be to ensure that the potential buyers respect the home not to use the things they say against them. If a sign is used to make sure that the potential buyers are being recorded then there should not be much of an issue.
1. I would think that inside someone’s private home you would not expect to be under surveillance. While it has become common to have a camera outside your house, often attached to the doorbell I would not expect there to be one inside the house. If I went on a private home tour I would expect to be able say anything I wished without thinking that the homeowners may be listening. However, considering the rise of technology and the availability of affordable home security I suppose that this may no longer be a realistic thought.
2. I am unsure on my stance on this issue. On one hand if you own the home it seems reasonable that you should be able to install any security measures that you wish, it is your property after all. From the other perspective I would not feel comfortable as a perspective home buyer that the homeowner may be listening to my conversations. I think that it would also cause an issue in negotiations if one party had information that could affect the outcome of the purchase. Ethical issues are raised when one party has unequal information compared to the other party, it seems like it’s not fair. It is hard to say if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy when viewing someone’s home, but I am inclined to believe that there is, it’s a home after all, not the public. I think that while a law to prevent surveillance on your own property may be a bit extreme, property owners should have to notify perspective buyers if they are being recorded.
3.. In a sense without someone knowing what is being recorded it could be an invasion of privacy. I would expect no surveillance of I walked into a home. The issue, I agree , lies in the fact whether it is a commercial activity or a common law situation. I’m not sure which side I am on. I think a warning sign of video surveillance on the premises would be a good idea if surveillance was used. Most businesses have surveillance, and in some ways showing a home is like a business. I’ m not sure what the pros and con are to each side, but there should be an ethics consideration when decision whether to implement surveillance. I’m also not clear where the grey areas are.
I’m sure there are regulations to using video surveillance and laws governing surveillance. Whether not informing someone of surveillance would be a breach privacy could be debated. I hope the surveillance after the fact would not be misused for bargaining purposes. IN the sense I feel like the surveillance information could be unfair. Even putting someone in that position is a bit of an ethical dilemma.
I think it is true that when you go into a private home you typically don’t expect surveillance because in the majority of homes that I have been to, video surveillance is not something that homeowners have implemented. I feel as though security systems are widely used and surveillance on the outside of the home is becoming more common but in terms of actually having video or audio surveillance in the home, this idea hasn’t been implemented in the majority of households. I do however; think that in areas where higher income individuals live, the likelihood that video or audio surveillance will be in the home could potentially be greater. This could be due to the fact that those systems are quite pricey and to the average homeowner would most likely be deemed as not necessary to put in the home.
I do agree that there should be a law against putting video or audio surveillance in the home unless specified by the seller. I agree with what was written in the article that once you open your home up to the public to view for selling, it does become like a public place similar to a store that you go to. Stores need to specify that there is surveillance while you are shopping so why wouldn’t it be any different for those that are shopping for a new home? Although this is a grey area, I feel as though for a fair transaction, either the seller should disconnect their surveillance when home buyers are viewing their homes or at least make the home buyer aware of the surveillance. If you think about it, the seller was a home buyer previously so they should be able to relate to the home buyer and understand why collecting this information without consent of the viewer is not fair.
1. When ever I visit a first time, I never they expect they have any surveillance. However if I visit a commercial building one thing I always keep in my mind I might be under surveillance. It’s right have any surveillance stuff in commercial building, one reasons is for security and also could provide evidence to police if anything happened. But in the home, specially during house selling, I think it’s not ethics to do.
2. I believe there should be a law to prevent surveillance in your own home during a home buying visit. It is Privacy violations to surveillance someone without permission. It’s also unfair to buyer. Buyer will pay way more higher price.
“When you go into a private home you don’t naturally expect [surveillance]”? is this true? why or why not?
Yeah I think so. I mean, when you’re walking down the street you do not expect to be under surveillance either though… Being under surveillance is a new thing to our society and its implications are evolving every day. The sanctity of your privacy is an interesting problem present though because in this situation you are on somebody else’s property. Keeping this in mind, I think it should be within the home owners right to use surveillance and to monitor it. Because the implications for security issues is just too high. If a home buyer does not want to give away pertinent information, simply meet outside the house. However, Being warned of the possible surveillance should be a must. As this is already required with signs when using video cameras for security. You have to let people know they are being surveyed. So I almost feel like this is a non issue. More of an issue of the home owner putting up signs saying that they will be under surveillance.
2) Should there be a law to prevent surveillance in your own home during a home buying visit? Could this not be a problem with any transaction, sellers or buyers are going to try get an unequal amount of information before making proposals?
No not at all. This is a non issue. There should be a law that in ANY situation where you will be recording people, whether or not you access this footage you must disclose it. I do not think this is an issue at all. It is an upsettingly obvious solution. Simply walk through the house with a note pad, jot notes, and meet off site to talk with your realtor about the home. Use pictures taken as a reference as well. If it is an open home, it will be public and photos should be allowed. If not, an arrangement could be made. I do not feel like the buyer should relinquish their right to survey their home. This has too many implication towards security concerns. What if you invite a guest over and they get upset and smash your stuff but you were not allowed to record it because you invited them into the home? This is a silly idea.
I do not fully agree with the first statement. I do think a lot of houses have surveillance these days especially where the doors are. It may be for security purposes especially if the house is expensive or in a neighbourhood where extra security may be necessary. Either way most houses usually have a sign that states it is recording you and same goes for other stores that have video surveillance. Many stores have quirky sayings such as “smile you are on camera!” This lets the customer know that they are being watched. I think it is fine to have video or audio surveillance in the house as long as the people are being informed because otherwise, I do think it is a breach of privacy. Topics like this are hard to fight over legally because it is more of a discussion based on what is ethical and what is not. If I was a house relator, I would not want to use this tool to eavesdrop on my customers as I would not want the same happening to me. However, it could be tempting to which is why I would inform them before hand of the situation. Lastly if it is a security issue, I think only video surveillance is necessary and not audio. The audio is defiantly to eavesdrop on the potential customer, but the video could be used for security reasons and can be justified even if there is no notice about it.
1) I do naturally expect surveillance in homes and always believe that there are camera’s and microphones in houses that I enter. This is not necessarily a bad thing it is there to help protect you and keep you safe in your home. If you are entering someone else’s home they have the complete right to surveillance and microphones. People should be more aware of their surroundings and know that they may be watched in spaces that they are entering and think about their conversations before they speak. If you want to take about pertinent information it should be done in a private space like your car after viewing the house. But there is a fine line. I believe people have every right to indoor and outdoor camera’s but one thing I dont agree with is when it is surveilling other peoples properties and if it is not then I see no problem with it at all.
2) No, I dont think there needs to be laws in place to prevent surveillance in homes whilst buyers are inside. What if they were to steal something? It is your home and you can do what you please. There is no reason that any information should be passed while inside a house that could make such a drastic change in transactions. Be a little smarter than that. It would be fine if there were signs that said there is surveillance but dont think it is mandatory. It is better to have a mindset of “someone” is always watching to make people more aware of their surrounding and the information they talk about in spaces.
1. I think it may be true in some cases, however with the rise of smart technology, like Ring doorbells or Alexa smart hubs, it is expected that there is some level of surveillance in private homes. Pet and babysitter monitors are also more common than ever in homes with pets or young children. As a home buyer, you should assume that these surveillance systems are present, and that they are being used.
2. I don’t think there should be a law to prevent surveillance during a home buying visit. It can protect your home in case anyone tries to steal or breaks something. It can also be used to gain an advantage over the buyers by gathering more information. While it is unethical, it is not illegal and divulging sensitive information is the fault of the home buyer, not the seller. However, a sign that specifies the property is under surveillance would not be a bad idea. A sign could eliminate any unethical issues, as well as legal issues under the Criminal Code. It also avoids privacy concerns.
When did this turn into a business law course? You could analyze this situation in so many ways. I don’t think it is expected that you would be under surveillance while viewing a home, and even if you were told to expect it, I wouldn’t expect that audio would be included. It feels like a spy movie where now home buyers will view the home and then rendezvous in the bathroom and turn on all the taps before discussing what they think of the house.
I do not think there should be a law prohibiting surveillance systems in your home. However, it’s clear that within the now commercial context of selling that home there is a new etiquette that emerges. Because the sellers are no longer allowed in their home during a viewing, the same logic should be applied to surveillance technology.
Because the real estate agent is the commercial representative in this transaction, and the buyer and seller are really just clients, I think it should be the real-estate agents’ responsibility to do the due diligence and ask about any forms of surveillance. The seller would not have a duty to disclose unless asked by the real estate agent, and they would be required to share that information with the buyer. That way the buyer is aware of the situation can decline viewing the house if they are concerned about privacy, or request that the surveillance system be deactivated during the time of the home viewing. It doesn’t seem all that complicated.
1. When I go into a private home, I honestly don’t expect surveillance to be inside. Normally people have an Alert System inside and surveillance on the outside. But I am assuming if we are selling homes and are having an open house it would be wise to have set as precautions. This would help assure the homeowner that their house will be safe, and any potential customers will be identified. The only problem I see with this is the breach of confidentiality. Of course, the homeowner will need to disclose this information and inform any viewers about the surveillance and what their intentions are for.
2. It depends on how it is used, as long as it is disclosed in a manner where both parties understand the need for surveillance and that they are being watched by cameras. There is so many possibilities that this could lead or be a potential problem for buyers and sellers. Some will not be too fond of being under surveillance, this can make them feel very uncomfortable when roaming around the home. Everyone has the right to their privacy and if surveillance will be used in order to obtain information, we would need to develop a law that protects house buyers and punish house sellers that abuse the power of having surveillance.
1. When I go into a private home, I usually wouldn’t expect surveillance inside the house. A lot of houses nowadays, including my own have cameras outside of the house though. However, I have been to houses of people with bigger gated homes, and houses like that I would expect there to be cameras. In the article it was mentioned that house sellers would use the information they heard off of recordings to manipulate the situation when it comes to selling a house, but I don’t know why people would be surprised by this. Every show home I have been to had cameras in almost every room, so if you wanted to have a private discussion regarding something like the price you would want to offer, you should have it in private. If I was a home seller, I would use that to my advantage because I don’t think many people realize there is surveillance. At the same time, I think they should be a sign saying, “Under Surveillance”, just to remind buyers and to remain fair.
2. Like I said above, I think to remain fair that there should be a sign reminding buyers and visitors that they are under surveillance. I don’t think there needs to be laws about it, but I do believe this could led to further problems like the problem already mentioned in the article of sellers using budgets stated in the surveillance to their advantage. It is also lowkey unethical for sellers to use this advantage to their benefit but money rules the world.
1. I would not think that would be the thing you would expect when you first go into a home. But you can fully take it out of the conversation when you go into a home. We always in the back of our minds have the some sort of fear of being view or listened. But when we go to place like that we totally disregard the smart technology that is available on the market. Some examples of this include Google Home, Amazon Alexa and ring doorbells which all have the smart feature to watch or listen to you but get totally disregarded. Some security measure i think people mostly think of when it comes to homes are security alarm system that trigger when someone enters the house.
2. I believe that when having your house become a show home people coming through should have some sense in the back of their mind that they very well could be filmed for selling ore safety and reason pertaining damage. I do believe that it is somewhat unethical that this could be used for a upper hand in a business transaction with out permission. So what I believe that there should be a type or version of a informed media consent form that a potential buyer should have to sign off on in order to be filmed. Like when you go online many websites ask if they can collect cookies or when websites make you go thought a multi paged document that pertains to terms and conditions that lets be honest no one ever reads and just scrolls to the bottom to check the box
I think that would make most people uncomfortable; entering a private home that has video along with audio surveillance inside the home would certainly make me uncomfortable. It is simply something that I would not expect. I understand the need for audio and video surveillance within a business because that is where money is exchanging hands and there is a higher potential for there to be a crime take place. I know that if my friend had video and or audio surveillance in their house, I would be inviting that friend over to my house a lot more than I would be going there. With that being said, I don’t think there should be a law against it. It should be up to the individual home owner to decide if they want that extra level of security within their own homes as well as when going to see a model home for that matter. At the end of the day it is a business transaction, or at least the beginning of one, and is the seller wants that extra piece of mind I think they should be allowed to have it. I think a model home would be far more susceptible to thieves due to the fact that the thieves would know that there would not be anyone sleeping in the home at night. I think that this information would have to be given to the buyers before entering the home. I don’t believe that home buyers would feel uncomfortable about the surveillance if they were informed ahead of time that way they would have any financial discussions unknowingly while they were being recorded.
1. Yes, that is true because when I go into a private home I do not think there is surveillance in the home. However, I would expect surveillance to be outside a home because many people now have doorbells with cameras on them or cameras around their house or property. These cameras are to help prevent people from stealing for their property. Having surveillance in a home does not seem like the right thing to do because it really invades your privacy, and would you feel like you are being watched with every move you make. Cameras in a home make me very uncomfortable. When you are selling a home, you may feel the need to set up a camera because you do not know the people who are viewing the house and do not trust them. I understand where it becomes tempting, but you have to put yourself in their position and ask yourself if you were viewing a home would you want to be watched?
2. Yes, I strongly believe there should be a law against putting surveillance in your home during viewings. You want to make the viewers feel as if they were at home and comfortable, feeling as if it was already their home. If they were to see a camera it may turn them away from buying the home because now they feel as if you are watching them. This could cause a problem if the seller is trying to an unequal amount of information because they can watch you and even listen to conversations you may be having with your spouse about the home. If they heard you were really interested they may try selling you the home at a higher price than before.
1. When I go into a home, I do not automatically think expect surveillance, because I have no reason to suspect it. Although many people do not have surveillance measure inside their home, it is a rising concern and more and more people are tapping into it. With increases in theft, B&E’s, etc., it is not a surprise that people are partaking in such security measures. However, it is a different story when talking about the outside of the home. I do think of surveillance outside of the home, such as doorbell cameras, motion detectors, window detectors etc.
2. I think there should be a law that requires home owners to disclose all security measures inside the home. I do think its tough to make laws regarding when they can and cannot be used, for example, when showing a home. I think this is sort of a grey area because where do you draw the line. It comes down to the use of security measure only for the purpose of security measure rather than for the purpose of gaining the upper hand on someone.
I usually wouldn’t expect surveillance but at the same time I would be more careful and choose my words wisely because cameras are becoming used more nowadays so you never know or audio surveillance for that matter. But this is ethical because there is no privacy whatsoever and what if I needed to know something then that would be used against me.
I think there should be a law preventing surveillance during a home buyer visit because it is not like they are afraid people will steal, etc. So why treat your potential customers as people to not be trusted. Also in the buyer’s position it’s unfair because you never know if anything can be used against you. Also if you’re selling your house you know you are opening it to the public and when people come to open houses there is always a real estate agent so I wouldn’t have the fear of someone stealing. Also i believe the excuse of surveillance is just to take advantage of information against the buyer.
1) When I go into a private home, I do not naturally expect any sort of surveillance inside the home, but I do expect it outside the home. For instance the famous doorbell camera, or an actual camera aimed at the door and the driveway of the home. The fact that these things are happening sounds very creepy as this means no one is safe even in their own home. The adding of surveillance inside the house could be due to a security reason but it also means that the homeowners every move is recorded and there is no privacy. This especially relates to all the hacking that is going on these days. If your surveillance system is connected to your smart phone or the internet, a hacker can easily get into your system and have live footage of your every move and can use this data in various “creative” ways.
2) I strongly believe that there should be some sort of law or procedure in place for having surveillance put in indoors during a home buying visit. The buyers, sellers, and real estate managers should be informed about this situation. As the article suggests when there is a home buying session, the public is invited in the house to look at it and it becomes just like a normal public space example an amusement park. However, even in amusement parks there are signs put up stating that this area is under surveillance. Having a similar law and signs in showing houses alerts the parties involved in the whole process and they will be aware that if they are making any comments on offers that they are thinking to drop, it will be heard by anyone who is observing the surveillance footage and can be used if the person thinks it is ethically right.
As a person who grew up with almost no technologies back home, even to see cameras in the public places freaks me out. Knowing that I am being surveilled all the time is quite ridiculous. But I also understand that the purpose behind it is the safety and security of the people. So naturally, I do not expect surveillance in the private houses but I do not question them if they have one. I expect that the real estate agents find out the information prior to showing the houses and notifies their customers. As long as I am cautioned about the devices in the house, I do not have a problem.
I think there should be a law to disclose about the devices that are installed in the house. To use the surveillance devices for security purposes is justifiable but to use it against your potential buyers is not. It would be a violation and potentially a big question mark on our values and humanity.
When I go into a private home, I don’t naturally expect surveillance because buying a home is something personal that only you or someone you’re sharing the home with should have access to. I find it very unethical that any real estate agent is listening in on a conversation and using that against us into buying the home. I understand that I can be tempting but at the same time you wouldn’t want someone to be doing that to you when you’re buying a home. When my parents were buying their first home in Canada, we never expected any real estate agent to have any audio or video surveillance. It would be an invasion of privacy and at the same time we would not feel comfortable buying a home from that real estate agent if we happen to find out about the surveillance. If and when I buy home, I would want all the information that I share with whomever remain private and confidential and not be shared or used against me.
I definitely think that they should be a lot prevent surveillance in a home because as mentioned before it is an invasion of privacy and whatever information is shared or exchanged should remain confidential. If something is to be known by the real estate agent, then whoever is buying the home can go and share that information with that person, however, I don’t believe that it is very ethical to be surveilling homebuyers in their potential homes and that is the reason why I believe that there should be a law against audio and video surveillance in homes. If for whatever reason the homebuyers suspect or see that they are being watched or listened to, it could create a great conflict which could result in potential lawsuits and probably fines as well.
This is true. I have never had the thought that my actions are being recorded during a home purchase process. It is not even natural to expect that you are being recorded during the process and part of it is due to the fact that home surveillance was not popular some years ago and so home buyers never had an idea about it. Another reason why a home buyer may not expect to be recorded is that it is unethical and perhaps to an extent illegal too. So they trust the process.
It may difficult to implement a law, especially because home buyers may not know that they are being video and audio recorded. This can however, be a problem with any transaction, such as a negotiating a business deal. Sellers can gain an unethical advantage when unaware buyers “talk in private,” They may potentially discuss how much they are willing to pay for the house, what they think about seller, certain features they like or dislike which can help the seller persuade the buyer, and unknowingly discuss other such sensitive information. The seller can clearly see the body language of the seller and hear sensitive information which they can use to ensure the deal goes through. On the other hand, buyers who know that they are being recorded can intentionally convey information that can put them at an advantage and the seller at a disadvantage. Therefore, while it is unethical to record buyers, it can be difficult implement laws as buyers may have no clue that they are being recorded.
1. When you go into a private house, I highly doubt there is anyone who thinks a individual is potentially listening or watching your actions. It’s very different than public buildings where the norm has become to expect surveillance and there is always signs stating there is surveillance. It’s also not hidden in most cases and very easy to spot. If I went into a private house and it wasn’t someone I was friends with, I’d definitely feel my privacy was invaded and would leave the situation.
2. There should not be a law against using private surveillance in your own home. But similar to the laws that apply to private businesses their should be a acknowledgement that surveillance is being used. It’s definitely extremely unethical to use surveillance when the other party does not know it’s being used or don’t have a choice to opt out of it. Using surveillance without their approval from the party is not different than hacking into someone’s webcam and spying on them. While using surveillance in the real estate market would be extremely helpful as stated in the article, but it crosses the line of ethical practices and anyone who does unapproved surveillance might as well be breaking privacy laws. Punishments should be in place for these types of unethical practices.
1. If we are just talking about private homes and not private home showings: no, I would not expect to see surveillance. When I go to visit my friends or families house, I do not walk into their place and expect to see cameras set up. Here in Canada, it is rare to see cameras set up inside peoples homes. Sometimes people will set up cameras in places that hold expensive things or equipment, for safety precautions. The police also set up cameras on streetlights to uphold driving laws. Nowadays though, consent is needed if someone is going to be on camera.
2. If customers are going to be recorded on camera during a home buying visit, they should know about it. I do not think there has to be a law prohibiting surveillance, but there should be a law that requires home owners to let their customers know that they will be on camera. If the home owners feel they need to put cameras in their house, then that should be their right to do so. But if they are going to be recording people in their home, they need to get those peoples consent.
If I was a homebuyer checking out a new home, I would definitely NOT expect that my every action and word was being recorded and viewed by the seller that could then be used to their advantage. I think this is something that is going “over the line” in the sense that the buyer should be able to express themselves and not have the added worry (on top of investing in a house) that what they are saying is being analyzed to help increase the overall gain for the seller. This article uses the example of a having buyer saying “oh we would totally pay much more for the house” would be very tempting to use for the seller’s advantage. This is also a topic that is influenced by people’s opinion on privacy and their expectations associated with having either a private house viewing or not. As the article points out, when buyers were viewing the house with the seller their actions were much different than that of when they thought they were “alone”. This shows that the use of surveillance (the act of being watched) is something that is influences buyers’ actions, therefore; when buyers are unable to tell that they are being recorded is when it becomes an issue. I believe that there SHOULD be a law to prevent surveillance in your own home during a home buying visit. After reading this article I am now more aware that people are more mindful and conservative in what they say when viewing the house when they are being watched or recorded. This is because when buying a house, you should not have to be worrying about if what you are saying is being heard by the seller. Therefore, for the reasons listed above I think the best choice would be to implement a law that allows buyers to know that they either are or are not being recorded by surveillance by preventing these miscommunications by just NOT allowing for surveillance systems to be used when selling a home.
It is true for some but not for others. Personally, at the age that I am, when I enter a home the last thing that consider is the fact that I may be under surveillance. However, if I enter a commercial building, I assume that there are cameras around the facility. With that being said, when simply walking through neighbourhoods I tend to see the majority of homes have some form of home security such as Vivint or ADT which I would assume involves some form of interior surveillance. Therefor, when in someone’s home I naturally assume that I am not being recorded due to my life experiences.
I don’t believe that there should be a law in place as it may violate some privacy and rights laws to the homeowner. With that being said, I believe that it should be mandatory for all real estate agents to inform the potential buyers in knowing that there may be video surveillance just as the agent did in the article. By doing this, there aren’t any conflicts that could arise by inputting this law. It is more of an issue in regard to ethics rather than the law in my opinion. It would also be beneficial for the real estate agent to have the buyers sign a paper which proves that they have been notified. If, however, the buyers forget and begin to speak about how they’d pay more for the home they are viewing I believe that the seller may use that information however they wish.
1. When I walk into a private home, unless I see a form of surveillance in or outside of the door of the home, I don’t naturally expect there to be surveillance. However, this being said, if I was walking through a potential home I was going to buy, I would expect there to be some sort of surveillance. The reason for this being that if I was selling my home, I would want to know who is walking through and if they were seriously considering purchasing my home. While it could be used to take advantage of potential buyer, I think there is nothing mysterious or bad of having surveillance.
2. There shouldn’t be a law to prevent surveillance in your own home during a home buying visit. There should be strict rules stating that home sellers need to provide information on if their home is under surveillance. If both parties are aware and comfortable with this there is no need for a law to be put in place. On the contrary, if one party isn’t comfortable with the surveillance, I think the home seller should turn off the surveillance. This could be a problem with transactions, sellers or buyers trying to get an unequal amount of information. The reason for this being that if the seller has surveillance, they have the opportunity to increase the price if they overhear the buyers saying they would pay more for it. While either way will benefit the seller, the buyer could potentially suffer from being recorded, either audio or visual, before having the option to place a proposal.
Q1: Anytime I walk into a house and I see an Amazon Alexa or a Google Home a RING doorbell. You kind of just have to know and assume that in someway to a certain extent you are being listen to. I think it’s definitely not normal to be in the household especially your own the place where you feel safest but also sometimes feel like you’re being watched seems like an oxymoron.
Q2: I believe that a person’s ethics is the only thing that should come into play here yeah if someone wants to eavesdrop on the conversation they have to deal with that at the end of the day it seems to me like it would be very hard to enforce a law that has so many white lines. I agree it’s not fair to have insider information but these are the risks that we run when living in the time that we do.
I don’t expect to have surveillance when I go into a private home. I feel like its an invasion into my privacy and the owner didn’t get my permission to record me.
There’s already law about privacy protection and I think this falls under the jurisdiction of that law. This is a problem as the market is not fair anymore.
1. Usually when I go into someone else’s home I don’t think they wouldn’t have video surveillance if that makes sense. The thought will always cross my mind, especially when I babysit or house-sit for sure. It’s their own home, and I am willingly going into it so they should be able to, within reasonable ground. If such equipment was located in a bathroom or bedroom, that would be inappropriate, for obvious reasons, but in places like front yards, living rooms, kitchens, dens, that’s perfectly acceptable.
2. I don’t this its necessary for a law to be in place. I think that if people are smart when looking for houses they discuss things like prices/ issues with the house in private (like in the car) after the visit, especially if the real estate agent is present at the showing. My reason for this is because the real estate gets commission, so they don’t want you paying a lower price if possible. If people are admitting faults about the house or if they are willing to pay a higher price, then its their own faults.