> It’s reasonable to push the burden of procuring that consent onto whoever controls entry to the space, with terms like this.

I don’t agree. I think if consent can’t be obtained, the only reasonable action here is to not collect the information.

The comparison to a zoom meeting is not 100% because if you’re walking past such a camera, you’re pretty likely to notice it and have the option to not step into view or obscure your face.

I think the legal argument would be that the owner of the recording device (in this case the TV) was informed and therefore responsible for informing others.

The question I think would centre on two things: is burying the information in a ToS acceptable for “informing” and is the amount of data collection proportionate for providing the service. I think the answers to both those is no.

Yes, that is probably their reasoning.

I agree with your framing of the two problems, but I’d add a third: It is a large mistake to assume that the person installing the TV (thus agreeing to the ToS) is going to be present whenever it is being used around new people. It just assumes too much about the way people organize their lives, homes, purchases.

False premise. Many (most?) smart TVs will work without first connecting them to the network.

That's not related to my premise at all.

You still need users to jump through all the hoops of installing the game data files, or you’d be on very shaky ground concerning copyright.

Intent matters in a court of law. A judge or a jury will consider:

- did you intend for the data to be destroyed in an eventual search?

- probably yes, because you went to the trouble to set up a duress password

- is it reasonably that you mixed up the two passwords? No, because only an idiot would make them similar and you're clearly no idiot, because you were able to set up a phone with a duress password.

- hence, you intentionally made the officer wipe your data, and you will be held liable.

It doesn't make any difference if the destroyed potential evidence is physical or digital.

The law as written is stupid, but that does not mean courts are stupid.

It is rather funny to look at how some programmers believe they can "trick" the law. It does not work like computer code!

Hence why travelers should simply not cross the border carrying sensitive data, ever. The Internet can take that data across the border for you.

What the point of this hypothetical?

In real life they would break the lock on your valise and return it to you bound together with tape.

and how if this similar to how a duress password work? say breaking the lock burn the contents somehow, to prevent documents falling into thief's hands for the sake of the comparison.

Folklore’s roots go deeper than a single species.

Swedish tradition has it that trolls would replace human babies with their own babies. It does not take a long leap of imagination to to see how this could be used as an excuse for the practice of putting unwanted/deformed babies out into the forest ”for the wolves”. (Disclaimer: I don’t know how common that practice might have been, since it would presumably stem from prehistoric times)

The question is could that possibly relate to Neanderthals or Denisovans co-exisiting with homo sapiens.

Not in Sweden, as far as science knows. It’s a more likely explanation than orangutans, but not by much.

Nobody lived in Sweden at that time.

Thanks for teaching me the word ”litotically”!

In real life, there is no maintenance hatch to punch out , because the elevator manufacturer doesn’t want to be liable for people falling down an elevator shaft or being crushed.

Social workers. Unemployment agency workers.