Amazon Admits Giving Ring Camera Footage To Police Without a Warrant or Consent (theintercept.com) 70
An anonymous reader shares a report: Ring, Amazon's perennially controversial and police-friendly surveillance subsidiary, has long defended its cozy relationship with law enforcement by pointing out that cops can only get access to a camera owner's recordings with their express permission or a court order. But in response to recent questions from Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., the company stated that it has provided police with user footage 11 times this year alone without either. Last month, Markey wrote to Amazon asking it to both clarify Ring's ever-expanding relationship with American police, who've increasingly come to rely on the company's growing residential surveillance dragnet, and to commit to a raft of policy reforms. In a July 1 response from Brian Huseman, Amazon vice president of public policy, the company declined to permanently agree to any of them, including "Never accept financial contributions from policing agencies," "Never allow immigration enforcement agencies to request Ring recordings," and "Never participate in police sting operations."
Although Ring publicizes its policy of handing over camera footage only if the owner agrees -- or if judge signs a search warrant -- the company says it also reserves the right to supply police with footage in "emergencies," defined broadly as "cases involving imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to any person." Markey had also asked Amazon to clarify what exactly constitutes such an "emergency situation," and how many times audiovisual surveillance data has been provided under such circumstances.
Although Ring publicizes its policy of handing over camera footage only if the owner agrees -- or if judge signs a search warrant -- the company says it also reserves the right to supply police with footage in "emergencies," defined broadly as "cases involving imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to any person." Markey had also asked Amazon to clarify what exactly constitutes such an "emergency situation," and how many times audiovisual surveillance data has been provided under such circumstances.
surveillance capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:surveillance capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:surveillance capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Time to create and don Scramble Suit [youtube.com].
Geez, it's turning out that Philip K. Dick wasn't a drugged out, paranoid, delusional sci-fi writer.
He was a visionary of what the future actually was holding for us just a short time away.
Re:Black Lives Matter... (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think anyone is saying that.
At least I'm not.
I think the main point of conjecture is, that the police should NOT be getting any footage or other data from Amazon (or other companies) without a warrant and a paper trail to make sure their investigation is a narrowly targeted one and not just a dragnet to see whom they can sweep up, which is a rights violation.
I think secondarily, people in general, are a bit apprehensive having their whole lives tracked while outside the house.
Yes, it's pretty accepted that while in public you have no real exception of privacy, BUT...this is still in the mindset of the older days, when all that saw you were human eyes....not that you were being photographed from multiple angles and having your actions and movements stored in a searchable database somewhere.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Doesn't is strike you as hypocritical that you're hiding behind "anonymous coward" while making idiot statements against people who are voicing concern of the abuse of a system that strips the anonymity from society.
have some integrity, use your account name.
Re: (Score:1)
this encapsulates the idiot majority who think that enabling catastrophic BAD is ok if you stop a little bad in the process.
Re: (Score:2)
Relax. I've worked with cameras before. At any given time, about 80% of them are broken. If, and this is a big IF, they happen to be working, the footage is usually useless. Of all the incidents I had to drive to a location and try and get footage off of a DVR, I would imagine about 2% of those times produced something usable for law enforcement.
And note: When there is a failure, the solution is always more and better quality (more expensive) cameras. Funny how that works.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Are you sure? What if this surveillance is used to prosecute Trump-supporters [slashdot.org]? Or enforce vaccination-mandates [slashdot.org]?
No? Not even then? Or is it a "grey area" now? Or just flat out "that's different, you right-wing nut!!"?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We're talking about Amazon, not the local Credit Union or Co-op, which are actually socialist and likely incorporated. Amazon is about as far from Socialism as you can get
Emergency [Re:surveillance capitalism] (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Emergency [Re:surveillance capitalism] (Score:4, Insightful)
Getting a warrant from an officer of the court isn't a particularly high bar, nor does it have to be time consuming - even if the police like to claim it is.
In any case, Amazon shouldn't be the one making these decisions. If turn-around time is a concern, give the court a way to directly access the videos without Amazon's intervention so they can be released immediately when the court determines the request is valid.
Re:surveillance capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)
We're already there. Right now we're in the process of dropping the artifice of capitalism and "democracy" and giving up the pretense of being a non-fascist society. We've hit the point where the general population are either too complacent, too scared, or too tired to do anything about it, so the people in charge aren't having to put so much effort into covering up what's really going on.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, pretty much. As expected.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't tell if that's a general complaint or if you're implying that this Ring article is a sign of the validity of that complaint.
In reality, people are BUYING the cameras and SUBSCRIBING to the service and AGREEING to the Rings law enforcement data release policy. That's not a people being thrust into a surveillance society-- that's them begging for it to arrive sooner.
Re: (Score:2)
Privacy? (Score:4, Interesting)
We seem to have a weird notion of privacy her in North America. In some jurisdictions judges think you have an expectation of privacy as long as you are "near" your home. Lots of privacy advocate/activists think that you have some semblance of privacy when you are out and about in public, and somehow this can be managed or controlled and we can put in "legal frameworks" to ensure that we have "privacy".
Guess what: As soon as you leave your premises, you have zero privacy. Frankly anyone with a "smart home" or any IoT devices that communicate with servers on the Internet, or any smartphone/tablet should realize that their privacy is severely compromised even when they are in their own premises.
This is not a legal fact or any sort of controllable issue or anything that can be fixed by regulations or laws: It's a technological fact. ANYONE can point a camera at you or read your electronic signature over bluetooth, wifi or NFC. And they can do whatever they want with that information (And they do!). All of this data is being slurped up and sold to anyone who wants it. The cat is well and truly out of the bag.
You can do nothing about the use of this data by criminals, data brokers, advertisers, stalkers and anyone else who wants to exploit you. So why do you care if the cops can see it? At least if the cops can see the same data that everyone else can they may be able to do a better job than if they cannot see it.
So if you see your neighbour puts up a Ring camera or similar, just don't go outside holding a joint, gun or, Dog forbid, an exposed female nipple.
Re:Privacy? (Score:5, Funny)
So if you see your neighbour puts up a Ring camera or similar, just don't go outside holding a joint, gun or, Dog forbid, an exposed female nipple.
If I get a chance to hold an exposed female nipple I'm going to do it no matter where, surveillance be damned!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No one here would really give you much of a side glance in the neighborhood if you presented with any of those.
Re: (Score:2)
So you live in !(USA) where the gun would be legal in most cases and the others would not be in many jurisdictions.
Re:Privacy? (Score:5, Informative)
So if you see your neighbour puts up a Ring camera or similar,
Install something like one of these [amazon.com] and aim it right at it.
And a reminder for the "you never had any expectation privacy in public, blah blah blah" crowd - up until the last couple of decades, everybody didn't have the capability to 1) record everything and 2) search through the resultant mountain of data.
Re: (Score:2)
So if you see your neighbour puts up a Ring camera or similar,
Install something like one of these [amazon.com] and aim it right at it. And a reminder for the "you never had any expectation privacy in public, blah blah blah" crowd - up until the last couple of decades, everybody didn't have the capability to 1) record everything and 2) search through the resultant mountain of data.
Which someone would no doubt easily address with this: https://www.amazon.com/Maddog-... [amazon.com] Depending on where you are, such actions on both sides is likely not to end well.
Re: (Score:2)
IR lights might dazzle a camera at night but aren't going to do anything during the day. After all, there's already a much more powerful IR source shining in the sky.
Re:Privacy? (Score:4, Informative)
Where I lived if that camera points at public space, you need permission from the police. If you do not have that permission, they can remove it without due recourse, or fine you rather significant amounts of money.
Re:Privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)
So why do you care if the cops can see it?
Says the person who doesn't understand the job of cops. Often being to pick someone and nail them so that society feels safe and has a visible person suffering to discourage others. Sure, they do search for the murderer. If your data turns up first in that search and you look convenient then you likely will be the one that gets nailed.
The cat is well and truly out of the bag.
No matter how much is already being done, more is possible and it's possible to either encourage or discourage it. If companies get fined enough for data breaches and that depends sensibly on the data leaked then they will learn to keep only data they actually need. They'll also learn to stop others getting to it which means the effect on you will be much smaller.
In the end the message that "there's nothing you can do, they'll take the data anyway" just becomes propaganda to stop people acting. If Amazon was liable for compensation for any false convictions triggered by them voluntarily handing over data they would suddenly become much more careful about the way they worked with the Police.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nit pick - in cases where that's true, it's normally the property rights of the rich. Often overriding the property rights of the actual, otherwise poor, owners of things.
Still, I get where you are coming from.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perfect timing (Score:3)
Isn't it Prime Days now?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and their subsidized spyware is always first on the list. I know that there is probably no legal push back for most of this shit because "no expectation of privacy in public" but that was before 100% surveillance state.
I'd also love to know how that plays out when it's recording inside people's homes. I live in an apartment. This complex is absolutely riddled with these or some variation. Some of them are mounted on people's doors directly facing other people's doors less than 6 feet apart and are
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe people should respond like to red light cams (Score:2)
Maybe we need more of this, only aimed at Ring cameras.
https://www.baltimoresun.com/p... [baltimoresun.com]
Re: (Score:2)
This is all allowed by Agreement (Score:5, Insightful)
First, we all have to recognize that everyone storing any data can be served with a legal requirement (subpoena, court order) to release that data for use in an investigation. Ring stores videos on their servers and thus will get subpoenas. It's their data. It doesn't matter who owns the cameras, what matters is who stores the data. If you don't want your video accessed by law enforcement, obscure your cameras and store your video locally.
Second, everything about their releasing video to law enforcement is on their website and not at the bottom of of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard.” (Thanks, Doug.)
https://support.ring.com/hc/en... [ring.com]
Ring will not release user information to law enforcement except in response to a valid and binding legal request properly served on us. Ring objects to legal requests it determines to be overbroad or inappropriate. For example, Ring would object to a subpoena requesting a list of all Ring device locations in a city. Ring rejects requests that do not provide sufficient information to locate responsive records.
and
Emergencies. Ring reserves the right to respond immediately to urgent law enforcement requests for information in cases involving imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to any person. Emergency disclosure requests must be submitted to emergency-le-requests@ring.com. Such requests must include “EMERGENCY” in the subject line and be accompanied by a completed emergency request form.
Here's the emergency access request: https://support.ring.com/hc/en... [ring.com]
Lastly, given the amount of video, the prevalence of Ring doorbells/cameras, and the number of residential crimes happening daily, approving ELEVEN emergency requests for CY-to-date June 30, 2022 is not extraordinary or offensive. I'm stunned it's not more. In fact, my only questions are:
1. What was the rationale for the release without court order?
2. How many requests were denied in the same time period?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: This is all allowed by Agreement (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
that influential sites like slashdot will have the presence of those employed to be here and distract, distort and manipulate is no secret.
it's just spotting who it is.
usually the anonymous coward accounts because if they started using their name, it would be easier for us to identify accounts of sheisters. as it is, you can just spot them by their bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is all allowed by Agreement (Score:4, Insightful)
I didn't consent to anything when my neighbor installed a ring doorbell. Given the layout of our building, it's impossible for me to enter my home without being visible to their doorbell; we literally have problems with our doormats bumping into each other. They shouldn't be allowed to install something that invades the privacy of me and my guests.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a concern to take up with building management.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, now I know what email address I'll be entering whenever some stupid web form won't let me proceed without providing one.
TrUsT tHe ClOuD (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the open source firmware for the $25 Wyze cams:
https://github.com/openmiko/op... [github.com]
Small team, grab one and pitch iin.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No surprise. (Score:2)
This was predicted back when the Ring policy was first announced. It's a series of incremental steps.
Back then they told the cops who had cameras and let the police go "talk" to the person to try and "convince" them to "consent" to share the video.
Now it appears that they have cut out the middle man.
Soon enough they'll give over the video to any LEO that fills out the necessary form. And when people complain Ring / Amazon will put out a politely worded release along the lines of "Tough shit. We own the s
Yep, so store video locally .... but .... (Score:2)
This does bring up the other elephant in the room. The average homeowner interested in cameras for home security, or even convenience of seeing who is at the door when they're away, has very FEW reasonable options for storing the video footage easily themselves for review, saving or deletion.
I purchased the Eufy doorbell because I knew about all the limitations of a Ring (pretty much NO way to save its video locally at all, avoiding the cloud as a component). Eufy saves the video on its base station (the do
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Just because a camera can upload its content to an FTP server doesn't mean it provides a friendly solution for people to review their security video footage.
For starters, any of us with a tech background would have little trouble setting up an FTP server to collect the data, but your average consumer wouldn't even know what FTP was!
Assuming they got that far though? Now you're talking about a bunch of video files getting regularly dumped into a folder on the server. Hopefully they've got date/time stamped f
Re: (Score:2)
If you're Windows-based, supposedly the best software is Blue Iris [blueirissoftware.com].
re: security software (Score:2)
Good to know. I wasn't familiar with SecuritySpy, and I do use Macs at home along with my Windows PC . But my server is a TrueNAS so the ideal thing for me would be open-source, BSD or at least Linux compatible packages for this.
I've heard of Blue Iris but it's a commercial program and I don't really want to leave yet another PC running 24 hours/7 days a week at home just to use it. Also assuming a Windows virtual machine on my TrueNAS wouldn't provide great performance for it....
OK... 11 times in? (Score:2)
According to TFA, 11 times in 2022 as of July 1... Out of how may requests? How many cameras?
It's KIND of a fluff/puff article without that
Amazon Prime Day! (Score:4, Funny)
It's Amazon Prime day, so I ordered my Ring, Fire Tablet, Echo and Kindle in a special Bezos/Gates/Pichai subscription bundle. For some reason, they are practically GIVING them away!
Welp. (Score:2)
Scratch THAT off my list of things to try...
Deleting (Score:1)
i wonder if amazon deletes footage if the cops demand it
Point a Ring doorbell ... (Score:2)
Nazi's Wet Dream (Score:2)
The way new tech is being implemented in our society is the Nazi Party's wet dream.
Though I suppose that's no surprise. The US had a popular Nazi following before WWII made it publicly untenable.
Surprise! (Score:2)
Haha. Youse maybe thought sumpin' diffrent might 'appen?