Are Amazon's 'Ring' Doorbells Creating A Massive Police Surveillance Network? (cnet.com) 196
"Police departments are piggybacking on Ring's network to build out their surveillance networks..." reports CNET, adding that Ring "helps police avoid roadblocks for surveillance technology, whether a lack of funding or the public's concerns about privacy."
While residential neighborhoods aren't usually lined with security cameras, the smart doorbell's popularity has essentially created private surveillance networks powered by Amazon and promoted by police departments. Police departments across the country, from major cities like Houston to towns with fewer than 30,000 people, have offered free or discounted Ring doorbells to citizens, sometimes using taxpayer funds to pay for Amazon's products.
While Ring owners are supposed to have a choice on providing police footage, in some giveaways, police require recipients to turn over footage when requested. Ring said Tuesday that it would start cracking down on those strings attached...
While more surveillance footage in neighborhoods could help police investigate crimes, the sheer number of cameras run by Amazon's Ring business raises questions about privacy involving both law enforcement and tech giants... More than 50 local police departments across the US have partnered with Ring over the last two years, lauding how the Amazon-owned product allows them to access security footage in areas that typically don't have cameras -- on suburban doorsteps. But privacy advocates argue this partnership gives law enforcement an unprecedented amount of surveillance. "What we have here is a perfect marriage between law enforcement and one of the world's biggest companies creating conditions for a society that few people would want to be a part of," said Mohammad Tajsar, staff attorney at the ACLU of Southern California...
Despite its benefits, the relationship between police departments and Ring raises concerns about surveillance and privacy, as Amazon is working with law enforcement to blanket communities with cameras.... "Essentially, we're creating a culture where everybody is the nosy neighbor looking out the window with their binoculars," said Dave Maass, a senior investigative researcher at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "It is creating this giant pool of data that allows the government to analyze our every move, whether or not a crime is being committed." On a heat map of Bloomfield, there are hardly any spots in the New Jersey township out of sight of a Ring camera.
Tajsar says in some scenarios "they're basically commandeering people's homes as surveillance outposts for law enforcement," and the articles notes that when police departments partner with Ring, "they have access to a law enforcement dashboard, where they can geofence areas and request footage filmed at specific times."
While law enforcement "can only get footage from the app if residents choose to send it," if the residents refuse, police can still try to obtain the footage with a subpoena to Amazon's Ring.
While Ring owners are supposed to have a choice on providing police footage, in some giveaways, police require recipients to turn over footage when requested. Ring said Tuesday that it would start cracking down on those strings attached...
While more surveillance footage in neighborhoods could help police investigate crimes, the sheer number of cameras run by Amazon's Ring business raises questions about privacy involving both law enforcement and tech giants... More than 50 local police departments across the US have partnered with Ring over the last two years, lauding how the Amazon-owned product allows them to access security footage in areas that typically don't have cameras -- on suburban doorsteps. But privacy advocates argue this partnership gives law enforcement an unprecedented amount of surveillance. "What we have here is a perfect marriage between law enforcement and one of the world's biggest companies creating conditions for a society that few people would want to be a part of," said Mohammad Tajsar, staff attorney at the ACLU of Southern California...
Despite its benefits, the relationship between police departments and Ring raises concerns about surveillance and privacy, as Amazon is working with law enforcement to blanket communities with cameras.... "Essentially, we're creating a culture where everybody is the nosy neighbor looking out the window with their binoculars," said Dave Maass, a senior investigative researcher at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "It is creating this giant pool of data that allows the government to analyze our every move, whether or not a crime is being committed." On a heat map of Bloomfield, there are hardly any spots in the New Jersey township out of sight of a Ring camera.
Tajsar says in some scenarios "they're basically commandeering people's homes as surveillance outposts for law enforcement," and the articles notes that when police departments partner with Ring, "they have access to a law enforcement dashboard, where they can geofence areas and request footage filmed at specific times."
While law enforcement "can only get footage from the app if residents choose to send it," if the residents refuse, police can still try to obtain the footage with a subpoena to Amazon's Ring.
Why do people buy these things? (Score:2, Insightful)
They pay for police protection in their taxes, and on top of that, pay for a camera, installation, bandwidth out of their own pocket for the privilege of promoting a fascist-style corporate/state that tracks them and their neighbors.
The mind boggles...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Anonymity promotes chaos. Just like a well armed society is a polite society, a neighborhood with a good number of security cameras is a safe neighborhood. People know to be on their best behavior when they think you are armed, or when they think they might be caught on camera.
You should have nothing to fear from my Ring doorbell. If you do have something to fear from my camera, I'd prefer you stay away from my house and my family, mmm-k. And if you don't and you cross that line, well, the 2nd amendment mig
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
After all, what and where would we be without entropy?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Iraq is a well-armed society. Gee, see how polite they are to each other?
America's gangs are well-armed societies on their turf. And yet, turf battles continue. Now why would that be?
Blowing away the neighbor's kid because he did something stupid, as many teenagers do, isn't something to be proud of...except in your twisted notion of society.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Iraq is a well-armed society. Gee, see how polite they are to each other?
They are these days.
So is Switzerland where everyone has a gun...
So is America generally if you stay out of very specific parts - mostly the parts with very strict gun control...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Worldwide Americans are known for being impolite. I guess if someone isn't pointing a gun or likely to, Americans act like their true selves.
What does it say about a society when people only act civilized due to the threat of being shot?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes but no ammo...You kids really need to research your own stuff instead of repeating talking points. ... Automatic weapons are banned. Swiss militiamen may keep their issued personal weapon in their home.
Also the Swiss Weapons Act requires an acquisition license for handguns and a carrying license for the carrying of any permitted firearm for defensive purposes.
Source: https://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/switzerland.php
Anyways, when the brothers become too visible with their illegal irons just m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So is America generally if you stay out of very specific parts - mostly the parts with very strict gun control...
I love this opinion americans have that getting rid of guns somehow makes it more likely to be shot.
Re: (Score:2)
So is America generally if you stay out of very specific parts - mostly the parts with very strict gun control...
I love this opinion americans have that disarming law-abiding citizens somehow makes it more likely to be shot.
FTFY.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 09, 2019
Anonymity promotes chaos.
Yes, yes it does. But the opposite of chaos is control, not freedom. The arguments for an all-seeing, all-knowing semi-deity is compelling, justice will be served in the end. But even if it's okay at first some weasel or weirdo or wacko will manage to usurp power and suddenly crazy is the new sane. While nobody's made it quite that explicit it's obvious some countries are searching for der Führer, it doesn't have to be the same scapegoats but it is the same logic. And I'll admit I'm torn between the id
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
99%+ of the time, you're spying on yourself. You can't legally shoot anyone on your doorstep unless in immanent danger of the same; they must cross the threshold of your door and enter your home with intent to harm. Shoot someone unarmed on your property, but not in your home, your Ring doorbell indicts you for murder. And if anyone gets in, the first thing they'll steal is your precious mig, that will far more likely injure or kill you or someone you love by your own hands far sooner than you'll ever be ab
My precious MIG (Score:2)
And if anyone gets in, the first thing they'll steal is your precious mig
Crime is getting a lot worse than I thought if even street criminals know how to fly... or maybe they can all just think in Russian [youtube.com] now?
Re: (Score:2)
In 2016, 270 people were killed by rifles. (Including suicides)
312 people were killed by toasters in that same year.
Can you please give us your impassioned screed on toaster safety first next time, with it being a greater threat?
What is a toaster for? Heating bread. It uses electricity which can be dangerous if not handled properly (do you have a citation for this by the way?)
What is a rifle for? Shooting things. It uses bullets which are specifically designed to damage, injure or kill whatever is being shot.
One of these things is not like the other.
One of the biggest killers is heart disease but no one is suggesting get rid of hearts because that is fucking stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is cute coming from an AC.
Re: Why do people buy these things? (Score:2, Insightful)
Only gun violence or do you want to include all violent crimes. Because you are cherry picking and those other countries are more violent than you realize.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet America has the most people in prison and the most former prisoners by a long shot, which suggests that there are either a lot of criminals in America or a lot of political crimes to be imprisoned for.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet America has the most people in prison and the most former prisoners by a long shot, which suggests that there are either a lot of criminals in America or a lot of political crimes to be imprisoned for.
It also suggests the US prison system is mostly for profit and it benefits those with power to have the prisons as full as possible all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but IRRC, the massive prison population predates the privatization of prisons.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We found the American in the crowd!
Believe it or not, AC, there are plenty of polite societies across the globe that are that way without the threat of those around them being armed. In fact, given the level of gun violence in the US, I'd suggest that a well-armed society is a violent society.
Ah, and a proud follower of Orwell, too. Bad news, Bucky: 1984 was meant as a warning, not a goal.
Someone in fear of being shot isn't a polite person. A polite society doesn't rest on the potential of large bun battles and murders if the pretense of politeness is lifted. That's what I would call a terrified society. Scared shitless of everything and hiding behind guns and macho lines about amendments.
Re:Why do people buy these things? (Score:4, Interesting)
That's all fine and dandy as long as your camera isn't filming the street
The street is a public space, where you have no expectation of privacy.
And then in turn your camera might have something to feat from me
That is called vandalism, and you (1) will be on camera doing it, and (2) suffer the legal consequences. You may not damage the property of others who are engaged in legal activities.
If you are in public, people can see you. Get over it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why do people buy these things? (Score:4, Informative)
So it's alright if people track the police, and have a public database showing their current location? Even in a public place people have some expectation of privacy.
Um, yes. I've listened to police scanners since my granddad had one in the 60s. What about Waze...it's saved my ass from tickets numerous times by warning me of cops ahead.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Police don't make the law and Waze is very much still legal.
Re: (Score:2)
Who gives a shit? The horse is out of the barn. The only thing this is preventing is them collecting revenue from speed traps, which should have been outlawed ages ago. Waze is already being built into some new vehicles and available in Apple CarPlay. Years before, people used CB radios. It's just like police not liking being videoed during an arrest...too bad. Do your job correctly, and you have nothing to be concerned about.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Why is it so hard to understand that it's not going to happen, and even if it did, it would be like prohibition. People are going to share the info one way or another.
I'm a law abiding citizen, and generally side with the police in most matters that I read about. This ain't one of them. State and local officials don't control the internet, and they won't be able to keep it out of your vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
So it's alright if people track the police, and have a public database showing their current location? Even in a public place people have some expectation of privacy.
Depends, if they are on duty then yes, yes it is.
Re: (Score:2)
What privacy? You are on a public street? You can't lose your privacy, you never had it.
Re: (Score:2)
If I pass by your house and your camera is staring at me without my even entering your property, I do have something to fear from it: the loss of my privacy. And then in turn your camera might have something to feat from me if it's too in my face./quote?
Does this still apply if I'm looking out my window with a cup of coffee in my hand? Would I have something to fear from you if I caught your eye as you walked past?
Sounds like a camera would be a good thing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If I pass by your house and your camera is staring at me without my even entering your property, I do have something to fear from it: the loss of my privacy. And then in turn your camera might have something to feat from me if it's too in my face.
Does this still apply if I'm looking out my window with a cup of coffee in my hand?
...
Sounds like a camera would be a good thing.
A single camera is not an issue. The problem is the aggregate of cameras pouring video to the cloud. If you gaze at a passerby, nobody cares. However, if you put your coffee down and then proceed to follow someone down the block, then yes that is a problem.
You may not have an expectation of privacy on the street, but you do have an expectation of not being followed physically, or virtually.
Re: (Score:3)
Think of the accolades!
Re: (Score:2)
If you could be anything more than -1, you would. Clearly, you have no sense of humor, nor any clue about the Duke Boys.
Re: (Score:2)
"That's all fine and dandy as long as your camera isn't filming the street "
Assuming you're in the US since that's what this article is covering. You have no presumption of privacy in the street, and anyone is legally within their right to take your photo.
Re:Why do people buy these things? (Score:5, Interesting)
I may have no expectation of privacy, however, I do have some expectation to NOT be tracked, or have my movements surveilled if I'm not under official investigation for a crime.
These are two different but very important concepts.
With technology the latter is much easier to do....and can put plenty of people to be looked at in a dragnet type scenario.
Having someone physically see me with their eyes as I walk by is one thing and we have no expectation of privacy.
Even if you are a street photographer, sure take my picture, again no expectation of privacy.
However, if you now have photographers everywhere, and doorbell cameras and every other type camera, and feeding all of that to be digested by the police and authorities, they you have a surveillance state, where your every move is stored and tracked and can be used against you, even if you've not committed a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
With that, I'll agree with you. Nobody, including the government has any business tracking anyone w/o a warrant.
Re: (Score:2)
That argument holds a lot less water now that ubiquitous surveillance is a technical possibility. Given enough quantity of surveillance it attains a new quality of invasiveness. Just see what they can learn about you from your metadata. Location data alone is horrifying.
Re: (Score:2)
Committing a violent act right outside my front door will lead to bad results for you. The 4th amendment will be the least of your concerns, chief.
You're driving on a public road. You have ZERO expectation of privacy. Why is this so hard for some people to figure out? Sheesh.
You're just itching to shoot someone aren't you?
Re: Why do people buy these things? (Score:2, Interesting)
The American Left, ladies and gentlemen. ... Where thieves, rapists, pedophiles, and home invaders are the victim, and their victims are the enemy.
Anyone who would vote Democrat is either insane, or themselves a criminal.
Re: (Score:2)
Because people are too lazy to roll their own camera systems. Mine works using ffmpeg and cron jobs.
Re:Why do people buy these things? (Score:5, Informative)
Because they're cheaper than a property crime, and unfortunately, there's a lot of property crime that the police aren't interested/don't have the resources to deal with. It's a choice made out of desperation, since choosing not to install cameras means any property crime that happens to you won't get solved or prosecuted.
In my neighborhood there was recently a rash of garage thefts, where some kids who had jacked a car would roll through the suburban neighborhood, stop in front of an open garage, dash in, grab anything of value, dash out, and keep on rolling. The police response was to shrug and say, "You should keep your garage closed and locked at all times."
Yeah, fuck you guys. We deserve to be able to be secure in our homes and on our properties. If I want to leave my garage open while I mow the back yard, I should be able to do that without being worried that someone will run in and steal my shit. And this isn't a bad neighborhood - it's an upper-middle-class suburb filled with families where most everyone has at least a bachelors degree, and a lot have masters and PhDs. While these dash and grab robberies are happening, there are kids biking and using kick scooters on the same block.
The response, since the police say, "we've got no evidence and no leads, case closed" is to drop a couple hundred bucks and set up your own cameras. And by and large they work. Now when shit happens, 20% of the time the victim provides the police with a video of who did it, and often the vehicle they used is in the shot somewhere as well. That's lead to a couple of convictions, and property crime is dropping.
I never, ever wanted to have cameras around my house. That's fucking crazy. But when the neighbor down the street is out a couple of grand after a broken car window gave access to a garage door opener, and that gave access to bikes and power tools, $500 of wireless cameras doesn't seem like a bad investment. If it prevents a couple of grand of damage because a criminal sees the camera and moves on, that's great insurance. And if it doesn't but leads to a conviction, at least there's the peace of mind that the asshole didn't get away with his crime.
No camera, and the asshole gets away with it every time. Unfortunately that's true in a surprisingly large number of neighborhoods. Cops are busy with real crime, and a quick smash and grab doesn't rise to the level of something worth their time. Pretty much nobody puts up cameras because they want to. It's done out of necessity.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Who travelled to their nice part of a city to do crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Why do people buy these things? I don't have one (yet), but I'm tired of solicitors coming to my door and wasting my time, interrupting my porn. If I can check who's outside on my phone/iPad first, I won't get off the couch for them.
Re: (Score:2)
If it stops crime and catches bad guys, it is worth it. If one isn't helping the police, they are helping the criminals. Pure and simple.
Obviously you haven't been keeping up, often the police are the criminals.
Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Are Amazon's 'Ring' Doorbells Creating A Massive Police Surveillance Network?
Yes.
Re: (Score:2)
!Alarm!Alarm!Alarm!
Betteridge Law Violation!
Lock `em up!
Re: (Score:2)
It must (Score:5, Insightful)
The only way to prevent government intrusion into datasets is to not collect those datasets.
Re: (Score:3)
Police inaction (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Police inaction (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you expect the Law Enforcers to actually care about "crimes" against plebians?
DUH LAW doesn't give a flying fuck about the well-being of commoners. Why would we expect their enforcer goons to care more than their drunken black-robed masters?
Re: (Score:3)
Well, not in my neighborhood. I got burgled several years ago. Cops sent over a detective who took finger prints. Eventually the caught the two. I even got invited to the court case.
I suspect it is like that in most U.S. villages. I suspect you are talking out of your ass in the usual dystopian view that passes for deep insight among the technobobs like you.
Re: Police inaction (Score:2)
Maybe it's small town versus big city.
I've called the cops before about burglary. The dispatcher literally laughed at me. Said I could come into the station if I needed paperwork for insurance. Similar experience both in San Franshitsco and in New Jack City.
Re:Police inaction (Score:4, Informative)
I guess I would call it a "police spy network", if the police actually used the video to solve crime..... In the entire Seattle area, any theft of personal property is ignored by law enforcement, even if there's a video.
Same thing where I am, too. No police enforcement of theft even with video.
Bicycle thefts have skyrocketed.
Mail theft has skyrocketed (we even had video w/faces, but no interest).
Shoplifting has skyrocketed.
People have to risk defamation lawsuits to have any hope of deterring thefts. That is, posting signs around the neighborhood or on FB saying "Bicycle Thief" with a photo of the perp, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
At least where I am police will take a stab at solving a property crime if there's video. That's leading to a real uptick in cameras being put up, because if you're not willing to, you know that after a crime you'll need to suck up the insurance deductible and that the perp won't ever get investigated, much less caught and tried for anything.
It's another form of vigilanteism, which almost always rears its ugly head when cops won't do the job.
Re: (Score:3)
Which leads to the other really distributing trend with these cameras - the social vigilante network. Videos posted to Facebook.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, it is a police spy network. It just is not used to do anything for the citizens. Instead it is used for the original purpose of any police force: Monitoring, control and creating fear in regular citizens. All that "fighting crime" is mostly a cover story.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It greatly depends on where you live, even within the same general area. For instance, in the greater-Seattle-area suburb where I live, when I've interacted with the police a handful of times, they've been courteous, professional, and diligent. In my case, they even followed up on fairly minor crimes like property damage.
Seattle citizens, unfortunately, have a special knack for electing politicians who are big on virtue-signalling and not so much about solving hard problems, which probably bleeds over int
Re: (Score:3)
Well legalizing drugs, or at least making them available for cheap fixes a lot of these problems. Less criminals, less desperate people becoming criminals, and resources and time for the cops to go after the people that are hurting others.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you high on?
Simple solution (Score:3)
Just place the camera/doorbell facing in such a manner as to allow view of anyone ringing the doorbell but not the street view. I have my house wired but on a private DVR system. I know when the 14 year old gets home and when someone delivers something but the camera does NOT have a street view nor do I provide access to any footage unless I choose to.
Re: (Score:2)
My street facing camera was able to ID the yahoo that took out my mailbox. I'm glad I had it running, so were the police.
If the police want a town full of busybodies... (Score:4, Interesting)
... re-badge the Ring units as "Mrs. Kravitz" (the neighbor snoop on the old Bewitched TV comedy). "This household monitored by Mrs. Kravitz" would be a hoot to see. If it weren't another big step closer to a police state, that is.
That Amazon is, essentially, inviting the police in to view the video content is disturbing. Not that one person will make a difference, but I'll be thinking twice to buy through them in the future. Who's winning the race to being the most evil: Google or Amazon. Tough to call.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder (Score:2)
I wonder how many of those who are afraid of big brother would be going door to door or demand the police to go door to door to see who has cameras if their home or car was broken into?
Re: (Score:2)
any camera's footage can be subpoenaed, not seeing the problem or difference here, it's the same as any other recording security camera.
I hate spying on citizens, but using due process and warrants has always been fine and the American way.
Re: (Score:2)
yep but subpoenas take time. by the time they get the footage, your property could be gone forever.
Not just the police (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyone who can manage to hack it.
Residents are paying for those "free" Rings (Score:3)
FTA: In April, the city of Hammond, Indiana, announced it had $37,500 in funds to subsidize Ring devices -- half of which came from Ring. The other $18,750 came from the city, said Steve Kellogg, Hammond police's public information officer.
So 2/3 of the money came from "the city." This money is also known as "taxpayers' money."
Re:Residents are paying for those "free" Rings (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, you're so right. I think we should just put gps/heart rate/etc chips in everyone. Then we can cull the sick too and have a perfect society AND solve ALL crimes.
Sieg. Fucking. Hiel. Asshole.
Why? (Score:2)
From the Wikipedia page on the Ring doorbell: Alarming concerns regarding the security of the smart doorbells have been raised. Researchers at Pen Test Partners in the UK have analyzed the Ring smart doorbell and concluded that it's possible for an attacker to gain access to the homeowner’s wireless network by unscrewing the Ring, pressing the setup button and accessing the configuration URL.[6] In another security issue that had been observed, a mix-up of two databases allowed some users of the Ring smart doorbell to view live footage from complete strangers' front porches
Why would anybody buy this thing? My cousin bought a 'smart' doorbell (not a Ring though). It had a built in relay to open the door lock remotely when you pressed a button on a wireless terminal that came with it or via smart phone app. The way the thing was supposed to be wired up according to the drawings that came with it all a thief had to do was unscrew the outdoor terminal that contained the relay and short a couple of wires to get in.
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty hard to do that without triggering the camera with your face close enough that they can see your pores. I'm guessing that's a bit of a deterrence, especially since they have push notifications of motion, and there's a pretty good chance that the homeowner is calling the cops while you're playing electrician.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty hard to do that without triggering the camera with your face close enough that they can see your pores.
This is why the balaclava is so critical. It just looks like a watch cap until you pull it down.
Re: (Score:2)
And if you read the sentence after that, you'll find out why that doesn't likely matter either.
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, wit most door locks getting in is not much harder. The reason most burglars do not get in via a cleanly picked lock is that burglars are generally low-success and low skill types and society does not give them any chances. Increased crime of this type is the price to pay for creating a large underclass of people.
Re: (Score:2)
What that large underclass of people is doing in their nice part of the city.
To review what the criminal did trying to get in.
Increased crime can be reported and talked about. Frame by frame
Re: (Score:2)
You really _are_ stupid and blind. Fascinating.
Re: (Score:2)
Every frame lets the wider world understand the change to that community.
Re: (Score:3)
Crime rates go up.
Why not understand who is trying to enter and do crime?
Re: (Score:2)
Rock through the window is even quicker. And you don't have to learn how to read wiring diagrams.
Democracy is no protection (Score:3)
People will stupidly vote themselves police-states and full-blown fascism (remember that Hitler was voted into office), and at the same time claim they are for personal freedoms and limited government power.
Artificial Intelligence to analyse the video (Score:3)
This will create billions of hours of mostly boring video. In its current manifestation it could only really be used to solve a specific crime. Someone disappears in a neighbourhood, so search video in a specific place and time.
But soon AI will be good enough to interpret much of the video. Specifically who went where when. Then that information can be fed into a huge database. Where it can be proactively mined, and combined with other information such as web surfing, purchases, emails. Google or Amazon will probably provide that database free to the government.
That is where we are going. Difficult to stop it. We need much stronger democratic institutions to guard against it.
When, in 100 years or so, AI can really think, we will already put ourselves in the straight jacket required for our control and probably elimination.
Does it matter? Does anything really matter? Probably not.
What about other systems? (Score:2)
Like Arlo?
Warrant? They don't need no warrant (Score:2)
Oh I know the TOS and their "policies" say otherwise. But the relationship between Ring and law enforcement is such that a "warrant *wink*" will do. And if Ring gets caught, they'll merely change their TOS to remove the warrant requirement.
If you're going to put up a camera system, camouflage it into a light fixture. Don't make it obvious that you have these cameras. The reason:
This is great (Score:2)
Mr. Smith, we see you've painted your mailbox blue. As we are sure you are aware, the color blue has been blacklisted, and you are in direct violation of the anti-blue-mailbox statute. Enclosed is your fine. Payment is demanded within 14 days.
Here in America, we have a long history of really dumb and shortsighted laws with over the top penalties. These laws are often politically motivated, and targeted at specific subsets of people for political or monetary gain.
It saddens me that those with the means to pu
No Presumption of Privacy in Public Places (Score:2)
"...the sheer number of cameras run by Amazon's Ring business raises questions about privacy involving both law enforcement and tech giants"
Um, if you're being photographed by these, then you're out in public, and there is no presumption of privacy. Anyone is legally able to take your picture.
I kinda love my new Ring doorbell .... (Score:2)
Seems to be the latest thing to slam these as "Big Brother" .... Already read one article trying to call the tech "racist" because of claims it effectively profiles people. (Hard to even grasp the stupidity of that comment, except it's some kind of general idea that only the wealthier people own a Ring, and it's only "undesirable" poorer people like delivery drivers or door to door salespeople who get captured on these videos and shared around with other "wealthier people".) As far as I'm concerned, 99%
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, he'd just shoot your ass first.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, looking similar to a criminal is going to be a big problem.