Amazon Told Police It Has Partnered With 200 Law Enforcement Agencies (vice.com) 83
At least 200 law enforcement agencies around the country have entered into partnerships with Amazon's home surveillance company Ring, according to an email obtained by Motherboard via public record request. From a report: Ring has never disclosed the exact number of partnerships that it maintains with law enforcement. However, the company has partnered with at least 200 law enforcement agencies, according to notes taken by a police officer during a Ring webinar, which he emailed to himself in April. It's possible that the number of partnerships has changed since the day the email was sent. The officer who sent the email told Motherboard that the email was a transcribed version of handwritten notes that he took during a team webinar with a Ring representative on April 9. Additional emails obtained by Motherboard indicate that this webinar trained officers on how to use the "Law Enforcement Neighborhood Portal." This portal allows local police to see a map with the approximate locations of all Ring cameras in a neighborhood, and request footage directly from camera owners. Owners need to consent, but police do not need a warrant to ask for footage.
Re: Smart (Score:1)
I rather it be consent, then some rubber stamped (Score:1)
Obviously the public needs to make sure its opt-in vs opt-out but I would like to see more information on how they are using it. This reminds me more of neighbor watch which I don't particularly mind.
Re: (Score:1)
Sharing video with law enforcement is opt-in, and the owner must grant permission to share any particular video.
The privacy/personal freedom concerns are more about the owners though, less so than law enforcement. Neighbors who don't appreciate your brown friends can report suspicious behavior to the police, and anonymously send them video of the person walking on the sidewalk in front of their house.
Re: (Score:1)
Nope. Please explain more since you brought it up.
Re: (Score:1)
Yea, I just want to know the numbers on how many of these customers were even aware they "gave consent."
Re: (Score:1)
" Ring cameras will record when the doorbell is pressed (even if you have a legitimate reason, like you invited me to come over), or when motion is detected"
Um, so? Some security cameras record 24x7.
Re: (Score:1)
"call for action"? You are a psycho "libertarian". Why are you going to call to action? Your buddies are all gathering to raid Area 51 to "find the truth". You don't need anyone else, remember?
my town is one of those (Score:5, Insightful)
My small town is one of the cities participating in the Ring program. The PD blitzed all the local facebook groups and the local newspaper with an offer for a steeply discounted Ring doorbell camera. As far as I can tell a lot of people signed up for it. People will easily accept 'free' without thinking about what comes along with it.
Re: my town is one of those (Score:1)
Hahaha Google spying probably. Don't want to deal with that right now.
Re: (Score:1)
Google has been spying on people for decades. Inside of your home. This seems less invasive.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, Google spying comes with an Amazon camera.
Re: (Score:1)
how exactly does it deny you freedom? it's for catching scum like package thieves and other burglars
Re: (Score:1)
If you think that's all it will be used for, you're even dumber than the people who bought it from Amazon.
I know people like you can't perceive future threats, but perhaps you should start working on that skill before the next wave of people you disagree with use it to silence, blackmail, and intimidate you.
Also, what good is freedom if you're forbidden from expressing it without constant fear of judgement? Would you want others having a live YouTube feed to your latest political ramblings while drunk? How
Re: (Score:1)
"How about them knowing about the details of every web search you made? Or better yet, all of the porn you watch?"
If you use the internet, this is already being done. You guys get so upset about friggen security cameras.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
What "privacy risks" are you referring to?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
It is amazing so many paranoid people use the Internet regularly.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
"You have nothing to hide, so don't worry"
A line I have heard far too many times. I don't trust cops, especially now that they have become militarized, and have arrest quotas to meet.
I'm sure the citizens of Germany in the 1920s and early 1930s were being fed that same line.
"Now step into this 'shower'. We need to keep the camps sanitary and free of lice"
That's going to be the next popular line in the United States the way things are going.
Captcha: Subdue - this is exactly wh
Re: (Score:2)
I do have stuff to hide, such as what time a person came over my house, who that person was, what time they left, and what vehicle they drove.
There is other stuff I need to hide also, such as what time I left the house, who left with me, which vehicle I took, what time I came back, what vehicle I came back in, and who arrived with me.
Then there are details like, what time I mowed the lawn, what I was wearing when I mowed the lawn, did I orbit the property c
Re: my town is one of those (Score:1)
Every time this argument comes up, there's never an intelligent argument as to why video footage of a publicly viewable space infringes on rights and freedoms (except unless you're a criminal).
And i do yearn for them. Before fully endorsing mass surveillance it would be great to see some brainstorming on legitimate risks, beyond fear based opinions anyone older than 5 could come up with.
Obviously morally corrupt individuals w
Re: my town is one of those (Score:1)
The same could be said about eye witness accounts, and maybe the cameras exonerate you in a circumstance you'd otherwise be found guilty. Especially if you were a minority with police prejudice, or a criminal background.
In any crime the expectation is a proper investigation, and not the sole reliance on circumstantial evidence. Additionally, if I was captured on camera, the likely hood of the killer being captured would be similar.
Re: (Score:2)
free (Score:2)
They sure do. Gmail. "Apps".
WOW, they don't need a warrant to ask? Whodathunk? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a super-informative summary. Here I thought the police needed a warrant before they could ask if you want to _voluntarily_ provide footage from your camera that might help them solve a crime. I could have never imagined such a high level of government overreach could possibly exist. Warrentless "asking." This type of invasive behavior must be stopped.
Excellent Journalism! Amazing Editing! (Score:5, Insightful)
Owners need to consent, but police do not need a warrant to ask for footage.
That is horrible writing. It can be parsed as "Owners are required to consent to letting police see the footage." If a competent writer or editor had reviewed that, it would read more like: Police hope that camera owners will be compliant and give them the footage so that they don't have to go through the work to get a warrant for it.
That's a bit more honest.
And the second part of the sentence? Why does it even exist? Of course police can ask for anything under the sun without a warrant. You're just not required to give it to them.
Re: (Score:1)
Ah, yes. Uneducated. But you make 100% sense.
But Red Light Cameras Are A "No No" in Texas (Score:1)
From Texas governor Abbott:
"...that the cameras are costly, 'pose constitutional issues' and 'Texas should ban the use of these devices.'"
Read more here: https://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article230697554.html#storylink=cpy
So much for that (Score:4, Insightful)
Any notions I may have had of picking one of these up have been thoroughly quashed by all of the recent news about the partnerships between law enforcement and Amazon.
>Owners need to consent
Yeah, maybe for now....
Re: So much for that (Score:1)
It'll be like your right to consent to a voluntary search of your car. If you deny it they will detain you until they get the warrant, because denying a search is probably cause, and turn your whole house upside down.
Your best course of action is to ignore their calls and don't open the door when they knock.
This is scary as fuck (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
What? Denial becomes probable cause and a search warrant is issued? If that happens, that is the least of your worries. And yeah, get over yourself, no one cares about your weed. You guys get upset over the wrong things. 1984 already happened and you don't even know it.
Re: (Score:2)
And yeah, get over yourself, no one cares about your weed if you're white
Re: (Score:2)
Weed laws have relaxed in (some) states but the same crooks that would have gladly ruined someone's life over an joint not 10 years ago are still working there, are still the same people, and are still running the system. Even in the most liberal states, if they don't like you they will use parallel construction to get in your house. Have a few too many ounces? That makes you a trafficker. Have kids in the house? Child En
Legal safeguards (Score:1)