&gt; &quot;There is no Fourth Amendment violation, because Houston had no reasonable expectation of privacy in video footage recorded by a camera that was located on top of a public utility pole and that captured the same views enjoyed by passersby on public roads&quot;, Judge John Rogers wrote for the unanimous court [...]<p>There are two big differences between passersby and unobtrusive fixed cameras.<p>• Passersby are generally easily noticeable.<p>• Passersby pass by.<p>A level of care that would make one safe with a high probability against being seen by passersby might fail completely against unobtrusive fixed cameras, so I&#x27;m not sure that the passersby-could-see standard should be the one used for cameras.<p>For example at a house my family had when I was a kid we were out in the country in a flat valley. From the end of our driveway I could see far enough up and down the road to see any potential passersby a minute away and postpone anything sensitive I wanted to do in the front yard until they had passed by.<p>On the other hand, I suppose that even if we decide not to allow law enforcement to use unobtrusive fixed cameras in situations like this it won&#x27;t stop private parties from using them. Any private property that has a view into your private property could be a place where someone has decided to do some video voyeurism and is recoding.<p>Maybe the technological cat is out of the bag and we are just going to have to accept that if you don&#x27;t want something seen you need to do it somewhere where there is no visibility from anywhere outside your property.