Marinas using cameras for rules enforcement

[KTP]

I wish our marina had a bit stronger regulation on pets actually. Awhile back I was using the bathroom and had someone's LARGE black dog come barking under the stall at me. You are in a very vulnerable position sitting there on a toilet.

People just constantly bring pets into the bathrooms at this marina.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by sailcub

You have no expectation of privacy in any public space or in someone's private property

We went over this already. This statement is demonstrably and legally false. You have no expectation of privacy regarding a very limited number of factors. For the VAST MAJORITY of issues, your personal privacy remains.

This idea that we must somehow give up our total privacy to participate in a public world is false, and dangerous.


Private property owners can certainly set their own rules regarding pets, or many other factors, although they still have to respect the laws of the land, so property rights are not unlimited. With regards to pets, my preference would be to restrict the offensive behaviour, not just apply a simplistic ban. But it is within the private property owner's right to do so.

As a boater, I would simply move my business elsewhere.

[parkstone bay]

Petty Rules? So, if the complainant's boat were damaged, I suggest the first thing he'd ask for is CCTV "footage". (These days, it isn't "footage", anyway, but that's a different issue).
The marina rules prohibit animals. The complainant had an animal. He broke the rules, to which he had signed up.
End of story.

[MSgt]

Though no longer boat owner [hope to be again soon] When I lived aboard at White Rocks Marina, Pasadena MD, I was given a list of rules. Having just finished 21 year in the Air Force, am used to following rues and regulations. Whether or not I liked any, immaterial, is they marina, there rules so followed the rule and never ha any problem with management there. I do remember one couple who were a problem and eventually they were ousted.
Liked them personally, but the deserved to be sent on their way. Too often in this ay and age, people feel that 'rules' do apply if they do not like them. My only thought if one is unhappy with their situation [i.e., the rules] there, as they live on a boat, they are more than welcome to relocate elsewhere voluntarily. I now this statement will piss off some, but it is basically the 'my house, my rules' concept. Whether or not cameras are used, or just observed by a dock master is also immaterial.

[sinnerman]

I don't understand your point.

Someone (probably) complained about the animal (which I can understand as one of my neighbors leaves his dog on deck barking all day at anything/anyone that passes by),

They looked at the camera footage, confirmed the complaint and addressed it.

Isn't this how it is supposed to work??

If something was stolen from your boat, wouldn't you want them to follow the same procedure??


My two cents

cheers

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by wholybee

The line for me really is public vs. private. A person or company can do what they want on their private property. They can choose (with some restrictions) who they do business with. They can set their own rules. I don't want to put restrictions on that. But I don't like a police state/big brother government that monitors our activity and where we go.

Interesting point of view. Probably says more about one's general view of government than anything about cameras. Some people just hate government.
Personally, I am more concerned about corporate surveillance - because I have essentially zero recourse against it when it is unfair. Would encourage you to read recent articles regarding GPS in private vehicles. Turns out that GM, for example, has buried deep in the OnStar "terms and conditions" that they can sell your GPS data to Lexis/Nexis, who in turn sell it to auto insurance companies. Numerous people have alleged that the dealers turn it on when they sell the car because they get a kickback from GM for this. Recent story in NYT about a guy who was denied a policy by 8 companies because of his data. Just wait 'til the marine insurers figure this one out...

[GreenWave]

Originally Posted by Jammer

Last summer a fellow boater was singled out by management for violating the marina's unusually strong blanket prohibition on pets. Management is rarely on site and only became aware of the violation by reviewing camera footage.

I find this to be a disturbing extension of a societal trend; many apartment and condo managers have started using cameras not for safety or for investigation of criminal acts but rather for enforcement of petty rules against their own residents, particularly residents that they find unprofitable or burdensome for reasons unrelated to the actual rules violation being enforced.


Every marina I've stayed at has a long list of rules that are not universally followed, among them restrictions on maintenance and repair, limits on guests, limits on parking, and in some cases curfew times after which access to and from the marina is closed whether by land or sea. In essence everyone who uses their boat regularly is in violation some of the time.


Wondering if others are encountering this brave new world.

Rules are rules so what’s the difference between using cameras and stationing people all over to monitor? I will tell you $ cost! !

[Amapola]

I have no problem with legally placed cameras.

[Fbfisher]

As a dog lover and cat owner, having stepped in enough dog feces and piss on the dock, and on the pathway between the slips, and the parking lot, I can certainly appreciate the rationale for banning pets. Unfortunately, there are some pet owners who don’t manage their animals in such a way as to maintain a hygienically appropriate area for the rest of us to live in.

[malbert73]

I'm really trying to share the outrage but honestly I don't really have a problem with a marina using cameras to enforce rules.

No pets rule: ok- a private marina made this decision. For me, as a pet lover, but not a dog owner, joining this marina could be a draw. Some dog owners seem to think their dog barking is cute or that public space is fair game to leave droppings. It's not cute- at sunrise, midday, sunset, or night. So, if I joined a marina which was no pets, and then people brought their dogs and I had to step in the mess or hear them waking me up- I'd want the marina to enforce this. And, if I had a boat pet, I'd join another marina. NBD.

Re cameras. I guess privacy is an issue? Far more concerning to me is the online invasion of privacy which is much more rampant and concerning. Since I don't do anything illegal, I guess I'm not too concerned what cameras are watching. It would be pretty boring film.

[Jammer]

I think some of the opinions expressed here are fascinating. It's interesting to me how the thread has evolved.

There are a number of points I would like to clarify. I had thought I had addressed these upthread. Perhaps not:

Originally Posted by Spindrift300

OP, have you considered that it might not be the owners who don’t like dogs but their insurance company who is tired of paying out large claims for people’s sweet, harmless fur babies who bite/attack?

I have it on good authority that the actual rationale is that the owners don't like dogs. Full stop. The owners (there are several) don't themselves have dogs. They don't like dogs. It has nothing to do with insurance. It has nothing to do with a past problems. It has nothing to do with market forces. It has nothing to do with a groundswell of desire for a dog-free marina from the tenants.

Originally Posted by parkstone bay

Petty Rules? So, if the complainant's boat were damaged, I suggest the first thing he'd ask for is CCTV "footage". (These days, it isn't "footage", anyway, but that's a different issue).
The marina rules prohibit animals. The complainant had an animal. He broke the rules, to which he had signed up.
End of story.

I don't have a dog. This isn't about me. The only animal I have is a geriatric cat that has never been on a boat.

If my boat were damaged, the first thing I would do is fix it, and the second thing I would do (if the damage were severe) is call my insurance company. Looking a surveillance video isn't going to put my boat back together.

[Bill_Giles]

Firstly, if you break the strict rule on no dogs then you can hardly complain when caught. Next, there may be berth holders who chose this marina because of the no dogs rule. Lastly, the marina owners may be fed up with cleaning up after dogs, dealing with those who complain about dogs and fed up with rule breakers.

I am a dog lover and would never take my dog where she was forbidden.

[Morris Wilson]

The last Marina I was in was overrun with raccoons but everyone seemed to like them. they were the "pets". Very interesting animal. I know I'm getting off track. I'm a retired Farmer and may look at animals differently.

[Morris Wilson]

No feeding the fish!

[Kettlewell]

I avoid fancy marinas like the plague and prefer the funky ones when I have to go in one. This type of surveillance is one reason I prefer to keep my boat on anchor or on a mooring.