Our vacation rental had surveillance cameras. The landlord used them a lot(sfgate.com)
sfgate.com
Our vacation rental had surveillance cameras. The landlord used them a lot
https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/California-vacation-rental-surveillance-camera-law-16346246.php
126 comments
Wait.... These are only EXTERIOR cameras? What a click baity title - he seems to imply that you need to "hide stuffed toys" or check the light bulbs for cameras, but sounds like there were no cameras inside. So what's the problem?
Cameras & surveillance are a necessity for vacation rentals. People complain about privacy but how would the property manager know that the garbage are placed properly for pickup? Many counties now have automated garbage trucks that won't pickup garbage if the angle or placement is not correct
Same for swimming pool or lawn maintenance. The person renting would be the first to demand a refund if the swimming pool has a strange color/odor or if the garbage is overflowing. The property manager can do a daily video check and ask for pool maintenance person to do a check if the water doesn't look good.
Finally, many vacation homes have their own dedicated water systems. Its perfectly possible that the water source can only cater to 6 adult, or that the septic system can dispose for only a max number of people. If the renter comes with a big group, then there will be no water, or the septic system will overflow and clog. Again, in those cases, the group renting will be the first to complain and ask for refunds. So it is important to check via a camera the number of guests coming and making sure it is below the max number of people that the property can accomodate.
Same for swimming pool or lawn maintenance. The person renting would be the first to demand a refund if the swimming pool has a strange color/odor or if the garbage is overflowing. The property manager can do a daily video check and ask for pool maintenance person to do a check if the water doesn't look good.
Finally, many vacation homes have their own dedicated water systems. Its perfectly possible that the water source can only cater to 6 adult, or that the septic system can dispose for only a max number of people. If the renter comes with a big group, then there will be no water, or the septic system will overflow and clog. Again, in those cases, the group renting will be the first to complain and ask for refunds. So it is important to check via a camera the number of guests coming and making sure it is below the max number of people that the property can accomodate.
None of this requires a surveillance system. The landlord could visit the property before and after the guests stay, or pay someone else to do this.
Cameras achieve a similar result at a low cost to the landlord, but at the cost of the privacy of the people renting the home – I certainly wouldn't want cameras pointed at the swimming pool!
Cameras achieve a similar result at a low cost to the landlord, but at the cost of the privacy of the people renting the home – I certainly wouldn't want cameras pointed at the swimming pool!
A few commenters pointed out that the guest was in the wrong, for having a pet over, not the renter for having security cameras.
The first thing to point out is these are not mutually exclusive, I think both parties have broken some moral boundaries.
More importantly though, if we accept that this guest´s bad behaviour justifies the use of a camera to detect it, does it also justify the owner (presumably) spying on every guest? Even those who don´t break any rule at all? Do we consider that okay - the ends justify the means, the owner has the right to monitor for house rule violations? If so, where´s the difference between this and being spied on by Facebook or other communication platform? You rent your "online presence" from them, pay them by having ads shown, a contract like any other. Why then shouldn´t they spy on you to monitor for breaking any arbitrary rules?
The first thing to point out is these are not mutually exclusive, I think both parties have broken some moral boundaries.
More importantly though, if we accept that this guest´s bad behaviour justifies the use of a camera to detect it, does it also justify the owner (presumably) spying on every guest? Even those who don´t break any rule at all? Do we consider that okay - the ends justify the means, the owner has the right to monitor for house rule violations? If so, where´s the difference between this and being spied on by Facebook or other communication platform? You rent your "online presence" from them, pay them by having ads shown, a contract like any other. Why then shouldn´t they spy on you to monitor for breaking any arbitrary rules?
Unfortunately, you do need to read all the disclosures the property has. Airbnb requires them to disclose all the security cameras in the house. Failing to do so will get them dinged and maybe delisted.
You also need to check for cameras yourself, and there are articles on how to do that. You should also ask the landlord point-blank "Are there any cameras in here?" in case he just "remembers" some that he "forgot" to put in the disclosure. Human nature: many people are less willing to lie to you directly.
You also need to check for cameras yourself, and there are articles on how to do that. You should also ask the landlord point-blank "Are there any cameras in here?" in case he just "remembers" some that he "forgot" to put in the disclosure. Human nature: many people are less willing to lie to you directly.
We need a Constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy in this country. I know that's way easier said than done but I think it's time we at least move towards such a thing through debate and consideration for what it means.
Americas do have some rights to privacy, such as discussed in Roe v Wade. A Constitutional amendment wouldn't cover AirBnB and private residences though.
I believe having one of those anti-spy cam devices is now a travel necessity if you're staying in any modern Airbnb. There's too much to gain and too little to lose for any landlord. And spy cams are so cheap!
Do you have one that you recommend?
Super interested here. Is there something you recommend?
Do they actually work?
Video cameras are continually getting better, cheaper, and smaller, and therefore will be installed everywhere.[a] In coming years, if you're in a building or house that is not yours, odds are there will be one or more cameras taking candid videos/photos of you as you go about your daily life.
[a] Take a look at the size of the lens on the back of your mobile phone. That's how small high-quality cameras already are today.
[a] Take a look at the size of the lens on the back of your mobile phone. That's how small high-quality cameras already are today.
There's devices and ways to detect hidden cameras. There's a risk to being caught putting hidden cameras. I doubt they'll be everywhere but it is a problem.
None of which are universally effective. Some rely upon RF detection, others the presence of IR illumination, and yet others the reflection of the CMOS chip.
But, a hardwired camera with no active illumination, behind an opaque sheet of IR transparent plastic (basically the kind of plastic on many modern electronics) would be incredibly hard to detect (without tearing everything apart).
But, a hardwired camera with no active illumination, behind an opaque sheet of IR transparent plastic (basically the kind of plastic on many modern electronics) would be incredibly hard to detect (without tearing everything apart).
Yeah, I think those are based on retroreflection.
There are certainly people that sell useless tools that purport to be able to detect cameras.
There are certainly devices that can detect localised electric fields, wireless transmissions or make it relatively easy to spot shiny surfaces (such as camera lenses).
…but, and I say this with absolute confidence; there is no device that exists that can detect if you are being observed or not.
So, to some degree, it may be possible to find common wireless cameras, and if you’re some DIY house owner installing their SPY PRO secret camera from Amazon for $50, you can probably find it.
…but, the point the parent comment is making is that there are, and, increasingly will be, cameras you won’t be able to detect.
You’re best off to operate under the assumption you are being filmed when you hire a house, and, increasingly, just when you go around your daily life.
There are certainly devices that can detect localised electric fields, wireless transmissions or make it relatively easy to spot shiny surfaces (such as camera lenses).
…but, and I say this with absolute confidence; there is no device that exists that can detect if you are being observed or not.
So, to some degree, it may be possible to find common wireless cameras, and if you’re some DIY house owner installing their SPY PRO secret camera from Amazon for $50, you can probably find it.
…but, the point the parent comment is making is that there are, and, increasingly will be, cameras you won’t be able to detect.
You’re best off to operate under the assumption you are being filmed when you hire a house, and, increasingly, just when you go around your daily life.
New upsell checkbox at AirBnB: rent a SCIF for your stay.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitive_compartmented_inform...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitive_compartmented_inform...
I don't think that I'll find any cameras, hidden or otherwise in a hotel room, which I rented anytime soon.
Depends what city you’re in
In a hotel room?
Can you give me just about one example besides some creep who spied on his guests?
I don't think that cameras in hotel rooms are in any way city dependent.
Can you give me just about one example besides some creep who spied on his guests?
I don't think that cameras in hotel rooms are in any way city dependent.
Here's an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggYIsnUgUdU
I don't see the relevance of this video. It refers to illegally installed cameras.
I specifically excluded the creepy owner or manager who spies on guests.
I specifically excluded the creepy owner or manager who spies on guests.
[deleted]
“So we broke the rules a bit and had pets, so what?” I get that this is a bit dystopian, but not hard to see why the man has installed these cameras
Having someone's dog be on a porch for a few hours really doesn't seem like much of a violation. Wild animals do the same all the time.
This is what the article author states. But how certain are you that the dog didn't actually poop on the property or entered indoors?
The author stated before that there were no dogs on the property but was forced to admit that there was indeed a dog. It is therefore plausible he is also taking liberties at his other statements
The author stated before that there were no dogs on the property but was forced to admit that there was indeed a dog. It is therefore plausible he is also taking liberties at his other statements
> But how certain are you that the dog didn't actually poop on the property or entered indoors?
If the renter had video cameras in the house, and the only image he could find of the dog was sitting on the porch, it probably wasn't because the owner didn't bother looking.
> The author stated before that there were no dogs on the property but was forced to admit that there was indeed a dog.
The author didn't have a dog. Someone brought a dog, and they stayed on the porch. The owner believes they caught the renter in a gotcha, but they didn't.
If the renter had video cameras in the house, and the only image he could find of the dog was sitting on the porch, it probably wasn't because the owner didn't bother looking.
> The author stated before that there were no dogs on the property but was forced to admit that there was indeed a dog.
The author didn't have a dog. Someone brought a dog, and they stayed on the porch. The owner believes they caught the renter in a gotcha, but they didn't.
What if the proprietor has a really bad allergy to animal dander?
Then they must not rent the property (on Airbnb or VRBO). Regardless of pet rules, Airbnb policy is to allow service animals in all units (only exception is shared units where the other occupants have health problems).
https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/1869/assistance-animals
https://help.vrbo.com/articles/What-is-HomeAway-s-service-an...
https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/1869/assistance-animals
https://help.vrbo.com/articles/What-is-HomeAway-s-service-an...
They could state as much if it is a genuine safety concern. Or not risk renting their home to complete strangers.
They stated "no pets". That's pretty black and white. Why did they need to say "No, really, no pets!"
I am utterly infuriated by the attitude that breaking rules is okay. It's all the more galling that our society rewards some rule breakers. When I'm feeling particularly petulant I can sort of understand how one would feel an attraction toward authoritarianism and totalitarianism.
From a realpolitik perspective renting your house to strangers is dumb simply because a significant quantity of strangers are rule-ignoring dicks.
Edit: I am aware service animals cannot be prohibited. Service animals are not pets.
I am utterly infuriated by the attitude that breaking rules is okay. It's all the more galling that our society rewards some rule breakers. When I'm feeling particularly petulant I can sort of understand how one would feel an attraction toward authoritarianism and totalitarianism.
From a realpolitik perspective renting your house to strangers is dumb simply because a significant quantity of strangers are rule-ignoring dicks.
Edit: I am aware service animals cannot be prohibited. Service animals are not pets.
People will break fewer rules the fewer rules you have - and people will also use their common sense to interpret the rules. “No pets” doesn’t seem like it precludes “friend drops by with a pet and we stay on the porch”, in the same way that “no parties” doesn’t seem like it precludes “four friends come for dinner one night”.
If you’re renting a house people will expect to use it like one, no matter how many rules are trying to make it into some more restricted experience.
If you’re renting a house people will expect to use it like one, no matter how many rules are trying to make it into some more restricted experience.
> They stated "no pets". That's pretty black and white. Why did they need to say "No, really, no pets!"
Because "No pets" means "do not bring a pet". If you want it to mean something else, you need to be more clear.
> When I'm feeling particularly petulant I can sort of understand how one would feel an attraction toward authoritarianism and totalitarianism.
Huh.
Because "No pets" means "do not bring a pet". If you want it to mean something else, you need to be more clear.
> When I'm feeling particularly petulant I can sort of understand how one would feel an attraction toward authoritarianism and totalitarianism.
Huh.
Service dogs exist and are required to be allowed (by Airbnb and VRBO policy, possibly by law depending on location). It is also forbidden to ask about them, require proof that they are trained/certified, or anything else like that.
If you have a severe allergy to animals, you shouldn't be renting your home to random strangers.
If you have a severe allergy to animals, you shouldn't be renting your home to random strangers.
I dropped on an edit. I don't consider service animals pets.
Having worked with the public in a variety of retail and volunteer capacities over the years I would agree, and expand, to say that short term rentals of your home to strangers is always a bad idea. People are, for the most part, poor stewards of anything that doesn't belong to them, and terrible at following rules.
Having worked with the public in a variety of retail and volunteer capacities over the years I would agree, and expand, to say that short term rentals of your home to strangers is always a bad idea. People are, for the most part, poor stewards of anything that doesn't belong to them, and terrible at following rules.
Agreed - service animals are not pets. Just want to make sure others know the distinction. And that service animals are generally allowed anywhere a person is allowed (often by law).
My parents had a beach home rental for years. It was a gigantic pain in the butt. Tenants would break furniture, steal things, and generally treat the house poorly (with zero recourse, as the the house was 5 hours from primary residence and "managed" by a rental agency). Only "upside" was this was priced into the fees. I don't think I would ever do short-term rentals to a remote house - too much risk, too much work.
My parents had a beach home rental for years. It was a gigantic pain in the butt. Tenants would break furniture, steal things, and generally treat the house poorly (with zero recourse, as the the house was 5 hours from primary residence and "managed" by a rental agency). Only "upside" was this was priced into the fees. I don't think I would ever do short-term rentals to a remote house - too much risk, too much work.
Sometimes things just happen. Maybe a friend comes by to say hi and brings their little doggy, unaware of your host's policy. Now, if I had read "no pets, we are very allergic and it can cause serious health problems" I will tell me friend to get the hell off the porch immediately! If it's simply a standard "no pets, no parties, blah blah" it probably wouldn't even occur to me that a dog on the porch could possibly be an issue.
Things are not black and white and wishing for a world where they are black and white does no one any good. We're all better off accepting the complicated nuances of the world and acting accordingly.
Things are not black and white and wishing for a world where they are black and white does no one any good. We're all better off accepting the complicated nuances of the world and acting accordingly.
I become frustrated with people find or create "nuance" rather than when things just happen. There's a certain kind of person who seems to instinctively look for ways to edge just beyond breaking rules. It's usually for their convenience, and sometimes to get an unfair advantage. It's galling.
Sounds like your the type of person who most definitely shouldn't be renting any property to people.
The simple fact is...when you start accepting money to allow others to use your stuff, things out of your control are going to happen. Of course, I'm not excusing these "certain type of people" you are discussing (I think most of us call those people "assholes"), but as they say...shit happens.
The simple fact is...when you start accepting money to allow others to use your stuff, things out of your control are going to happen. Of course, I'm not excusing these "certain type of people" you are discussing (I think most of us call those people "assholes"), but as they say...shit happens.
Yes. I've said as much in other comments.
I worked with the public in a variety of retail and volunteer capacities over the years. I watched my family's property get destroyed as part of our small business and just accepted it as a cost of doing business. Americans, at least, mostly treat their own property poorly and are really awful to others' property. They also, by and large, can't follow basic instructions or simple rules-- especially if the rules present an inconvenience to them.
I worked with the public in a variety of retail and volunteer capacities over the years. I watched my family's property get destroyed as part of our small business and just accepted it as a cost of doing business. Americans, at least, mostly treat their own property poorly and are really awful to others' property. They also, by and large, can't follow basic instructions or simple rules-- especially if the rules present an inconvenience to them.
I become frustrated with people who don't appreciate nuance and assume the worst in people who don't view the world exactly as they do.
Working with the American public for any length of time shows one their worst assumptions probably aren't bad enough.
Some countries have mandatory military service. I wish the United States had mandatory labor in a public-facing position-- retail, hospitality, etc. I think it would go a long way to making people feel less entitled to break rules or conjure nuance where very little exists.
Some countries have mandatory military service. I wish the United States had mandatory labor in a public-facing position-- retail, hospitality, etc. I think it would go a long way to making people feel less entitled to break rules or conjure nuance where very little exists.
[deleted]
Measure the pet dander concentration before and after a rental rather than cameras?
I take your point, but that’s not really the authors prerogative to decide what does/does not comply.
[deleted]
Well this sounds very creepy, but imagine for a moment that the landlord might only be checking if there's child pornography going on at his house, then I guess it would be ok. Also he pinky sweared not to share those images with anyone else. Now imagine the landlord is not a person but instead a fluffy cloud...
We got this amazing Airbnb in Tahoe last year, and it had an electric anti-bear fence around it and a lot of cameras.
The instructions for getting settled in the house were first how to disable the electric fence then how to unplug the surveillance system during the stay, and obviously how to reenable them all on checkout.
This is how it should be done.
The instructions for getting settled in the house were first how to disable the electric fence then how to unplug the surveillance system during the stay, and obviously how to reenable them all on checkout.
This is how it should be done.
Then again the cameras might just remain active, having comforted you into believing all the cameras pointed at you are disabled.
Or checking that their house isn't be destroyed...
Meta
Now imagine it's not a rental but a house you bought and the builder installed the surveillance and you have no ability to remove them.
>and you have no ability to remove them
I'm having trouble imaging why you wouldn't be able to. Worst case scenario you need to head to home depot and get a ladder/drill or whatever, but that's about it.
I'm having trouble imaging why you wouldn't be able to. Worst case scenario you need to head to home depot and get a ladder/drill or whatever, but that's about it.
And then imagine that the landlord checks for other vague “things” in order to “keep you and the neighborhood safe”.
“Sorry, I have no control over it” he says, “it’s required by law”
“Sorry, I have no control over it” he says, “it’s required by law”
hmm, seems like the landlord was justified. the client literally lied about having a pet.
A visitor bringing a pet onto the porch, and not into the residence, hardly seems like a violation of the no pet policy.
If I say no pets on my property what suddenly allows a small violation to be acceptable? Go find another place.
Mostly common sense. A stranger could walk their pet onto the property without permission. Is it the renter's job to run them off? If not, where is the line. There's clearly a grey area. The renter not allowing the visitor into the building (because the renter doesn't want pets) is reasonable. Preventing outside visitors? Grey area, and open to interpretation. I would consider it reasonable, and would push back if the landlord complained.
If you can't handle small violations, do not rent your home to a series of random strangers on the internet.
Certainly, but that doesn't justify spying on guests.
Eh, if you only know someone had a pet because you spied on them I tend to think you're just being nosy.
Obviously it doesn't apply here specifically, but there's a reason evidence obtained illegally can't be used to prosecute criminals. If we accept that two wrongs make a right then everyone is just worse off.
Obviously it doesn't apply here specifically, but there's a reason evidence obtained illegally can't be used to prosecute criminals. If we accept that two wrongs make a right then everyone is just worse off.
"Evidence obtained illegally" applies to criminal trials. These people were not facing even a civil trial -- they were facing being blacklisted and/or not getting their deposit back.
That's why I prefaced the statement with
>Obviously it doesn't apply here specifically
>Obviously it doesn't apply here specifically
Politicians lie. What surveillance are they subjected to in order to prevent and correct their behaviour?
Lol this seems like a terrible example, because i _do_ want surveillance/oversight on politicians.
Like the Airbnb host, politicians aren’t going to surveil themselves.
Although the NSA could be monitoring and blackmailing the American political leadership…
Although the NSA could be monitoring and blackmailing the American political leadership…
Clients lying should not be a good motivation for a landlord to break the law. I'm not saying this landlord did, but am challenging your reasoning here.
There's Irish/EU guidance on domestic CCTV [1], which allows it so long as it doesn't cover any public areas (i.e. the street).
I wonder if that domestic exemption still applies once the property is rented out to someone? I hope not.
And as will all laws, if a landlord feels they can't comply with the laws on data privacy, CCTV and so on – then they should close their business.
[1] https://www.dataprotection.ie/en/dpc-guidance/blogs/domestic...
I wonder if that domestic exemption still applies once the property is rented out to someone? I hope not.
And as will all laws, if a landlord feels they can't comply with the laws on data privacy, CCTV and so on – then they should close their business.
[1] https://www.dataprotection.ie/en/dpc-guidance/blogs/domestic...
there's a trick to find hidden cameras in airbnbs: join their wifi network and use nmap to scan for all network devices in your subnet. then cross reference the mac addresses/try to reach the webinterface of the devices. this should catch most webcams.
If their router is like mine, a guest joins a separate network, and is not able to join the one I use. So they would not find all the devices.
Do laws prevent 'regular' hotels from doing this?
Why would a hotel do that?
Cameras in the lobby, the hallways and the elevators, sure. But in a hotel room?
That's a great way to kill your business in no time.
Cameras in the lobby, the hallways and the elevators, sure. But in a hotel room?
That's a great way to kill your business in no time.
Yes, that's my point in asking. AirBnb's have never been appealing to me, neither as a host nor as a guest, for just these kinds of reasons (i.e. lack of regulation like a regular hotel is under). I'm sure it's great for many, but I know of no towns or neighborhoods that express anything positive about the impact and effect AirBnbs have had on them -- _generally_, it's the opposite.
https://www.alternativetravelers.com/airbnb-effect/
https://www.epi.org/publication/the-economic-costs-and-benef...
https://www.alternativetravelers.com/airbnb-effect/
https://www.epi.org/publication/the-economic-costs-and-benef...
Same here. I don't do AirBnb for a number of reasons. Cameras being a key one.
I think if they do it, at least in Europe, the need clear signage that the room is under CCTV surveillance and I do think that this is a legal requirement in most European countries and even the extremely camera happy UK.
I think I'd bolt might fast if I find such signage in my room. If they put up cameras without indicating it that would be sure as hell illegal.
I think if they do it, at least in Europe, the need clear signage that the room is under CCTV surveillance and I do think that this is a legal requirement in most European countries and even the extremely camera happy UK.
I think I'd bolt might fast if I find such signage in my room. If they put up cameras without indicating it that would be sure as hell illegal.
Me neither. That's the premise of a horror movie now. You don't know anything about the place and neither Airbnb.
But there were no mentions of cameras indoors. Instead they sounded like they were all outdoor cameras. I think that's fair game.
I think like a hotel - these cameras were at the lobby, the hallway, the elevators, and the outdoors. Nothing was viewing the personal space.
I think like a hotel - these cameras were at the lobby, the hallway, the elevators, and the outdoors. Nothing was viewing the personal space.
If cell phone signal is good enough for decent internet coverage at your rental, just unplug the router so you don't have to worry about being watched all the time. One of the benefits of everything going cloud-based is that most of these stupid devices don't work without wifi/internet.
If a guest were to try this at my Airbnb, I have in my house rules that guests may not disable security devices and an onsite inspection will be performed if they do. And that's exactly the type of guest I would immediately terminate their stay.
This is exactly why Airbnb should be banned everywhere.
Do you think hotels don't have cameras? I'm confused.
Hidden surveillance cameras inside hotel rooms are exceedingly rare. There have been a few isolated incidents where perverted creepy employees installed hidden cameras in rooms but it's not legal or tolerated in the legitimate hotel industry.
There are certainly cameras in hotel public areas where no one has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
There are certainly cameras in hotel public areas where no one has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
And also hotel employees and third party security companies are accountable to the hotels they work for/contract with and often have a handful of cameras watching dozens or hundreds of guests from reasonable distances. Many AirBnBs have 5+ exterior cameras for the single family staying there and who knows who's watching the videos or what they're doing with them. Not to "think of the children" this too much, but there's no way I would take my family to an AirBnB with a pool if there were any cameras pointed in its general direction.
> There are certainly cameras in hotel public areas where no one has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Right and the article clearly states that all the cameras they had trouble with were outside in public areas. I don't think I've ever been in an airbnb that had cameras inside the house.
Right and the article clearly states that all the cameras they had trouble with were outside in public areas. I don't think I've ever been in an airbnb that had cameras inside the house.
[deleted]
I did this and the landlord contacted me saying the internet needed to stay on because he had a front doorbell camera. I’m not sure what Airbnb’s policy is here so I plugged it back in.
Small amount of googling: https://julianoliver.com/output/log_2015-12-18_14-39
Next time I'm in an airbnb I'm definitely nmap'ing and trying this out. ;)
Next time I'm in an airbnb I'm definitely nmap'ing and trying this out. ;)
I wonder if there's a way to put them onto a loop instead of taking them down, so the owner doesn't suspect anything?
That's actually an excellent idea!
Ignoring this author for breaking the house rules and thinking he is in the right. The reality is Airbnb's are slowly being regulated away due to both the poor behavior of guests and bad hosts that have allowed guests to remain unchecked. All it takes is one bad stay for your reputation with your neighbors to be ruined. I am on good terms with mine, but realize that, if I hosted a stay that brought too many guests or had a party, I'd lose that good faith instantly.
It takes one bad guest for your neighbors to be against you.
I have exterior cameras (3, recording all exterior entry points) - and noise detection devices. I quickly check the cameras at check-in and then once or twice during each day of stay. Goal is to make sure the number of people matches the reserved guest count and no parties are occurring. I don't allow guests to bring any outside visitors. I have a very strict limit on 6 people max. My house rules can't be any more clear on this - and I've still encountered a few guests that have broken the rules. They risked their stay being terminated without refund.
I charge $725/night for 6 guests - I haven't had any complaints about the cameras. 60+ reviews, 5.0 stars, been doing this for a little over a year. I am super upfront about cameras in the house rules and house manual. If I did not have the cameras, and some of the rule violations I've had, I'm not sure I'd be able to keep hosting (my county requires a special exception). It's tough out there for Airbnb hosts to be good neighbors.
Also, fun fact, Airbnb does NOT protect you from damage causes by pets.
It takes one bad guest for your neighbors to be against you.
I have exterior cameras (3, recording all exterior entry points) - and noise detection devices. I quickly check the cameras at check-in and then once or twice during each day of stay. Goal is to make sure the number of people matches the reserved guest count and no parties are occurring. I don't allow guests to bring any outside visitors. I have a very strict limit on 6 people max. My house rules can't be any more clear on this - and I've still encountered a few guests that have broken the rules. They risked their stay being terminated without refund.
I charge $725/night for 6 guests - I haven't had any complaints about the cameras. 60+ reviews, 5.0 stars, been doing this for a little over a year. I am super upfront about cameras in the house rules and house manual. If I did not have the cameras, and some of the rule violations I've had, I'm not sure I'd be able to keep hosting (my county requires a special exception). It's tough out there for Airbnb hosts to be good neighbors.
Also, fun fact, Airbnb does NOT protect you from damage causes by pets.
Your paranoia about what bad guests can do doesn't excuse the landlord in the article for being a petty douche. Bringing a friend over who has a pet is not a reasonable thing to prohibit, nor is complaining about his daughter coming "a night early". These are the behaviors of a creepy asshole, not a human being.
It's not paranoia. Illegal parties and large gatherings are a huge problem with Airbnb's. Keep in mind - this article is from the guest perspective, we don't have the hosts perspective. But we have an author who admits to being busted for breaking the rules? Personally, yes, I'd "let it slide" and would not have even broughht it up with the guest. I agree it sounds petty on the host if the author is factual. But my comment is mainly to explain why I have exterior cameras - it's a sad reality that, to be a responsible host, and a good neighbor, I have to have them.
> we have an author who admits to being busted for breaking the rules?
No. If you think the author "admitted" breaking the rules, then we don't agree on how to be a reasonable person while renting someone your property. I don't think anything was in "let it slide" territory. It was in "give benefit of the doubt" territory. It seems pretty clear to me that if what the article said is true, then the author did not in fact break any rules, as others have said to you.
No. If you think the author "admitted" breaking the rules, then we don't agree on how to be a reasonable person while renting someone your property. I don't think anything was in "let it slide" territory. It was in "give benefit of the doubt" territory. It seems pretty clear to me that if what the article said is true, then the author did not in fact break any rules, as others have said to you.
I don't think that, the author states it. Their words - "busted". A reasonable person would not bring a dog to a property where it was already established that dogs are not welcome. What about "no pets" says you can bring a dog, but just for a small amount of time? It's a built-in rule to Airbnb - hosts choose between allowing pets or not. Guests are shown the rules before booking. A reasonable person would message the host first to ask for permission. I don't bring my dog over to a friends house without first asking for permission. You certainly can bring your dog, but you might not be welcome again.
> A reasonable person would not bring a dog to a property where it was already established that dogs are not welcome.
I disagree both that the author "brought a dog to the property" and that a reasonable person wouldn't invite a guest with a dog for a few hours.
> What about "no pets" says you can bring a dog, but just for a small amount of time?
Human reasonableness. Just like like listing says a place can house a specific number of people, it doesn't mean you can't invite more than that number temporarily. The people/animals staying for the night is completely different than guests. That's why.
I disagree both that the author "brought a dog to the property" and that a reasonable person wouldn't invite a guest with a dog for a few hours.
> What about "no pets" says you can bring a dog, but just for a small amount of time?
Human reasonableness. Just like like listing says a place can house a specific number of people, it doesn't mean you can't invite more than that number temporarily. The people/animals staying for the night is completely different than guests. That's why.
> it doesn't mean you can't invite more than that number temporarily
We just have a fundamental difference of opinion here :) My own rules explicitly state that I do not allow visitors onto my property (exceptions for service professionals). I also send a reminder to guests within the 48 hour cancellation window on the "no additional guests / no visitors" rule. Insurance doesn't cover them (neither Airbnb nor my STR policy). I have no issues keeping my place booked, and 99% of the guests follow the rules.
We just have a fundamental difference of opinion here :) My own rules explicitly state that I do not allow visitors onto my property (exceptions for service professionals). I also send a reminder to guests within the 48 hour cancellation window on the "no additional guests / no visitors" rule. Insurance doesn't cover them (neither Airbnb nor my STR policy). I have no issues keeping my place booked, and 99% of the guests follow the rules.
So if you meet a friend in town, you cannot bring them over to your property for drinks? (the number of guests remains well under 6)
Sounds extremely restrictive compared to hotels or short term rentals.
Sounds extremely restrictive compared to hotels or short term rentals.
Number of guests below six, I'm really not worried about it. But the number of guests on the reservation should be truthful. It's the situations where a guest brings more than six I am trying to prevent. As a host, being a good neighbor is more important than any single guest reservation. I'll end the stay if there are too many people - because it's such a basic rule and emphasized heavily in my listing. If four cars show up, and two people hop out of each car or you bring a dog? Yeah, we're having a conversation and your stay is likely being ended. At that point, I don't know what else you're going to not follow or damage you might cause. It's not worth keeping a bad guest in a nice place that can't follow clear and concise rules.
Honestly, that's absolutely absurd and no one should ever rent from you. Also, reminding someone a couple days before their arrival is no excuse to have confusing and absurd policies like that. Unless your listing makes it really clear "NO GUESTS WHATSOEVER ARE ALLOWED" and make it clear to the renter that that's the kind of person you are, people will assume some level of reasonable leeway. I'd be pretty pissed off if some airbnb listing hid "no guests" somewhere in the listing and then "reminded me" a couple days before I showed up if I was planning on getting together with friends. Uncommon restrictions like that need to have uncommon pains to make clear, otherwise the tentant shouldn't be expected to adhere to your rules.
> no one should ever rent from you
That's harsh. Reality is, I have no issues keeping my place booked. I've maintained a perfect 5.0 / Superhost status so far on Airbnb - and I generally have no issues with guests following house rules.
> reminding someone a couple days before their arrival
I said I remind them within their free, 48-hour cancellation window. They get a reminder right after they book - allowing them to cancel without penalty if they disagree.
>e pretty pissed off if some airbnb listing hid "no guests"
Uh, yeah, I'd be pissed too. It's a good thing I don't hide it. Where did I say I hide it? I said it is in my house rules - which Airbnb presents to the guest before booking. I then send an automated reply, immediate after booking, so that there is no ambiguity.
That's harsh. Reality is, I have no issues keeping my place booked. I've maintained a perfect 5.0 / Superhost status so far on Airbnb - and I generally have no issues with guests following house rules.
> reminding someone a couple days before their arrival
I said I remind them within their free, 48-hour cancellation window. They get a reminder right after they book - allowing them to cancel without penalty if they disagree.
>e pretty pissed off if some airbnb listing hid "no guests"
Uh, yeah, I'd be pissed too. It's a good thing I don't hide it. Where did I say I hide it? I said it is in my house rules - which Airbnb presents to the guest before booking. I then send an automated reply, immediate after booking, so that there is no ambiguity.
Part of the appeal of staying in an AirBnB is to have more flexibility and independence than staying in hotel. But as hosts become more surveillant, at a certain point the roles are reversed and hotels once again become the better place for enhanced privacy and autonomy.
It's a sad reality. I agree with you though. As an Airbnb host though, it really does take one bad guest to change the dynamics of hosting.
I can relate, as a neighbor frustrated by rogue airbnb guests next door. That being said, as an airbnb customer, I could not imagine a split second renting a place with cameras checking on me. I haven't seen any so far. I may be too 2019, though.
I am missing something: which house rules did the author break?
Dog on porch. Some people consider that a breach of the rules. Personally, I wouldn't think it was - the dog didn't enter the house and was only there temporarily. No different than a neighbor walking the dog up for a chat, or a cat/bear/deer/squirrel entering the property.
Why should the landlord believe the renter's claim that the dog stayed on the porch 100% of the time, when he just admitted to lying about the dog being on the property?
> Then he started going on about there being a poop on his property
Really irks me how the author dismisses the landlord's complaint about the dog shitting on his property in this sentence. The landlord has a no pets policy, why should he have to clean up after your friends dog?
> Then he started going on about there being a poop on his property
Really irks me how the author dismisses the landlord's complaint about the dog shitting on his property in this sentence. The landlord has a no pets policy, why should he have to clean up after your friends dog?
Why assume it was the renter's/friend's dog and not some random loose animal? Also, to many people "at the house" means "in the house" - certainly, that's how I interpret it. I wouldn't think twice about a friend stopping by with a dog that remained outside.
The last Airbnb I rented had a "mystery pooper" - gigantic dog poops in the yard every morning. Turns out a neighbor's hound had the run of the area and liked to poop there. I only know it because I heard it outside one night and got the exterior light flipped on just in time. I sure wasn't picking them up - not my dog, not mine to clean up.
The last Airbnb I rented had a "mystery pooper" - gigantic dog poops in the yard every morning. Turns out a neighbor's hound had the run of the area and liked to poop there. I only know it because I heard it outside one night and got the exterior light flipped on just in time. I sure wasn't picking them up - not my dog, not mine to clean up.
Different perspectives, I guess. I'm on 5+ acres, if a guest brought a pet to my property (not just inside the home) - I'd be annoyed about it because it's clear I do not allow pets (service animals being the exception).
Op is probably talking about the additional guest (daughter) a night early and the dog on the property. IMO calling this breaking the rules is a bit of a stretch?
" It's tough out there for Airbnb hosts to be good neighbors."
It's possible that it might be a priori impossible.
It's possible that it might be a priori impossible.
You speak about walking a tightrope with your neighbors and needing a special exception and yet blame for any souring of that relationship falls on guests that you invite to your property.
I had to provide letters of support from my neighbors to the county. I have several house rules - mostly on not exceeding the number of guests in the reservation, providing the names of the guests, acknowledging no visitors, and no loud noise at night. So yes, I'd blame the guest if they brought an excessive number of people to my property, were loud, obnoxious, and otherwise annoyed my neighbors.
Couldn’t you just not rent out your property
I don't have to rent it out, but it is a second/vacation home for me. It's highly profitable and it stays booked. So yeah, I'd prefer to keep renting it (and earning money on it) - the rules/protections I've put in place are to let me keep doing that. My track record so far has kept me on the good side of both my neighbors and guests.
[deleted]
Good on you, I guess.
There are a ton of properties where I live doing short term rentals.
It prevents folks who want to live here full time from buying and it drives up longer-term rental rates.
I guess you got yours so good for you.
A lot of us have no sympathy when yall have problems, though.
There are a ton of properties where I live doing short term rentals.
It prevents folks who want to live here full time from buying and it drives up longer-term rental rates.
I guess you got yours so good for you.
A lot of us have no sympathy when yall have problems, though.
Well yeah, my neighbors appreciated I restored the house that was otherwise not in good condition. It sat empty for years. It was originally designed as a vacation/second home - and was never a primary residence or fully owner occupied home. It's in the mountain on over 5 acres. I'm not fully dismissing your concerns - but reality is, vacation homes are a thing. And they were a thing before Airbnb came around. Yes, I took a risk on renovating a dilapidated property. I worked within the framework the county has for allowing STRs. And I'll protect that investment by putting in restrictions and protections by not letting a bad guest ruin it for me.
I wonder if this has any correlation with something I have noticed -- I have yet to do a vacation rental, but when I go shopping online for them and look at the photos, lack of curtains (or the gauziest excuse for them) is almost uniform out in rural Missouri. Everyone wants a peek.