Everything Cops Say About Amazon's Ring Is Scripted Or Approved By Ring (gizmodo.com) 114
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: Amazon's home security company Ring has garnered enormous control over the ways in which its law enforcement partners are allowed to portray its products, going as far as to review and even author statements attributed to police in the press, according to emails and documents obtained by Gizmodo. This summer, Ring even urged a Florida police department to delay announcing its partnership with the company for weeks, telling officials that it preferred to keep the spotlight on a separate initiative launched by the city, designed to incentivize the purchase of its home surveillance products.
Because there are already thousands of Ring users in major cities across the U.S., one of Ring's primary goals in its police partnerships is encouraging existing customers to download Neighbors. To ensure that police stay on message when promoting the app, or answering questions about it, Ring not only provides police departments with talking points but widely seeks to secure contracts that grant it the absolute right to approve all police statements about its services. Contracts and other documents obtained from police departments in three states show that Ring pre-writes almost all of the messages shared by police across social media, and attempts to legally obligate police to give the company final say on all statements about its products, even those shared with the press. (In exchange, police are also given the ability to approve any Ring press releases that directly reference the partnering police agency.) Ring's so-called "press packets" to partnering agencies include a "Press Release Template," "Social Media Templates," and "Key Talking Points," as well as high-resolution Ring and Neighbors App logos "to incorporate with PR materials as needed." Furthermore, according to Gizmodo, "the packets are accompanied by instructions dictating that final drafts of public remarks must be sent to Ring so that the company's PR team can 'review and sign off' before they're sent to local news outlets."
Motherboard recently reported that Ring has partnered with 200 law enforcement agencies across the U.S.
Because there are already thousands of Ring users in major cities across the U.S., one of Ring's primary goals in its police partnerships is encouraging existing customers to download Neighbors. To ensure that police stay on message when promoting the app, or answering questions about it, Ring not only provides police departments with talking points but widely seeks to secure contracts that grant it the absolute right to approve all police statements about its services. Contracts and other documents obtained from police departments in three states show that Ring pre-writes almost all of the messages shared by police across social media, and attempts to legally obligate police to give the company final say on all statements about its products, even those shared with the press. (In exchange, police are also given the ability to approve any Ring press releases that directly reference the partnering police agency.) Ring's so-called "press packets" to partnering agencies include a "Press Release Template," "Social Media Templates," and "Key Talking Points," as well as high-resolution Ring and Neighbors App logos "to incorporate with PR materials as needed." Furthermore, according to Gizmodo, "the packets are accompanied by instructions dictating that final drafts of public remarks must be sent to Ring so that the company's PR team can 'review and sign off' before they're sent to local news outlets."
Motherboard recently reported that Ring has partnered with 200 law enforcement agencies across the U.S.
Re:Amazon is going to regret... (Score:4, Insightful)
...partnering with police organizations that regularly besmirch themselves by killing civilians and terrorizing POC.
In general terms, the above is a lie. The overwhelming majority of cops are not out bustin heads and shooting at folks like you see on TV, and such behavior is NOT tolerated AT ALL in most departments.
I know a number of cops, young and old alike, they are NOT out trying to finding a situation where they can shoot folks, quite the opposite. IN FACT, every one of them I know has stories of times when they COULD have legally shot somebody, but decided not to, sometimes at great risk to themselves. IMHO, cops are maligned unfairly by the likes of you who just hear what you want in the press reporting.
I'm not saying there are not problems, cops are people too and some cops are not well suited to the job, have a bad day, or are outright evil. But when you look at the number of documented interactions between police and citizens the overwhelming majority of these encounters are NOT contentious much less violent. When it DOES happen to get violent, the overwhelming majority of those encounters are completely justified in the name of public safety or the safety of the cop (who is entitled to go home alive at the end of their shift). In the TINY fraction of encounters where the cop overreacts, it is RARELY because the cop was out looking for a reason.
What happens is in the extremely rare event a cop mistreats somebody it is HUGE news. So huge that even the *hint* of the possibility the event was unjustified, even if there is no evidence, especially when the one getting shot is of a specific race, some folks just ASSUME it was a cop acting badly. Case in point, Ferguson MO a few years ago, when a young man got shot and killed by a cop. We had all sorts of stories about how the shooting was unjustified, how the cop reacted badly and it escalated in actual riots, with little but hearsay evidence and trumped up accusations. As it turns out, this young man died after he tried to take a cop's gun away by reaching through the window of the police car, causing the weapon to discharge, then after moving some distance away was shot by the officer when the young man tried to charge the officer again. The shooting was 100% justified and although the young man's death was regrettable, it was HIS fault for starting a violent altercation with the officer and trying to take the weapon.... But the news stories didn't tell that version of events, but went for the riot causing "unjustified shooting" version of the story instead.
The media does this ALL the time... The sad fact is that blood sells, reporting of violence draws clicks and revenue, gets folks to tune into your TV channel or radio show. So anytime there is even a whiff of a chance, they roll out the satellite trucks, do man on the street interviews and report on every tabloid worthy lead, verified or not, in a rush to be first, get the most clicks and make the most money. It's why they rag on Trump all the time too, he's been GREAT for the news industry, with his tweeting and "special" pet names for his opponents, it's GOLD for news revenue. His scandalous past is a huge draw too, with the parade of sleazy lawyers, high dollar call girls coupled with a flamboyant personality who's been in the public eye for decades, lord knows there is a LOT of material to dredge up any time they need to prop up the website traffic on the cheap.
Re: (Score:1)
Dude, one death is one too many,
Yet, we still drive cars and give folks antibiotics. That trope is unrealistic, unless you are willing to accept the violence and crime that comes from just not having police at all. In which case, you are just nuts IMHO. Why? Because MORE people will die, violently, if we do away with police, and in order to eliminate death caused by any cop, implies you must get rid of ALL of them.
So, where I agree, one unnecessary or unjustified death is too many, the alternative is many many more. So what do you wa
Re: (Score:2)
...partnering with police organizations that regularly besmirch themselves by killing civilians and terrorizing POC.
In general terms, the above is a lie. The overwhelming majority of cops are not out bustin heads and shooting at folks like you see on TV, and such behavior is NOT tolerated AT ALL in most departments.
The same could be said about the Gestapo, Stasi, or KGB. Most of their employees were not out to kill people either.
The behavior *is* tolerated and even encouraged. It has become part of their training.
Turning cops into soldiers is a convenient way to get around the Posse Comitatus Act and it has been done without the restrictions that the military operates under. They now operate more like an occupying force.
I know a number of cops, young and old alike, they are NOT out trying to finding a situation where they can shoot folks, quite the opposite. IN FACT, every one of them I know has stories of times when they COULD have legally shot somebody, but decided not to, sometimes at great risk to themselves. IMHO, cops are maligned unfairly by the likes of you who just hear what you want in the press reporting.
How about being maligned unfairly for civil assets forfeiture and policing for profit? This is
Re: Scan my face, see if I'm lying. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is about the most evil thing I've ever heard of a large corporation do since IBM in 1930's Germany.
Sure Enron or Union Carbide might seem 'worse' at face value; but the encroaching surveillance state, and the normalization of constant, pervasive erosion of privacy should be terrifying.
Not to mention the harm it causes to society in general causing an attitude of: "Your neighborhood is full of criminals around every corner, just WAITING to get you -- don't trust ANYONE" Nancy Grace would be thrilled.
Re: (Score:1)
" This is about the most evil thing I've ever heard of a large corporation do since IBM in 1930's Germany."
Wow. Not familiar with PR packs, huh? This place is full of drama queens.
Re: (Score:1)
Agreed - but who the hell are the police actually going along with this? It's hardly "impartial application of the law" if you're doing what a corporation tells you, is it?
I'm sure some level of this goes on everywhere, but when the police are up for sale, you don't have a police force any longer.
What do you call it when.... (Score:3)
What do you call it when a government is get in bed with private enterprise?
What do you call it when private enterprise takes control of government?
How are these different?
Re: (Score:1)
Who do you think provides the computers, services, planes, tanks, buildings, etc for any government?
Re: (Score:1)
America has been Corporatist for generations. Have you just now noticed? How cute!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You forgot the most important question:
Who's gonna stop 'em?
Re: (Score:2)
Let's face it, local government is full of lazy or disenfranchised workers lacking expertise with poor attitudes and poor health at public service desks. Private sector sucks up all the driven individuals who want to effect change and get paid for it (literally everybody worth hiring). You have a small pool of experts at a consulting company or services firm who can support hundreds, if not thousands, of cities and counties by easily scaling up operations just by rubber stamping implementations everywhere.
This message bought to you by Fox Business
just wait for that to get to the court room! (Score:2)
just wait for that to get to the court room!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
instructions dictating that final drafts of public remarks must be sent to Ring
The Gizmodo article is written to be inflammatory and to make people feel outrage (so if you feel outraged, good job, you're a sheep). "Instructions" are not contractual.
Re: (Score:3)
I guess I'm not a sheep because I'm not outraged -- this is exactly what I've come to expect from corporate run America. You could say I'm jaded. The past 924 days have left me expecting more of the worst. Still, I feel a little sick each new instance of it.
Re: (Score:2)
"Instructions" are not contractual.
They are when they are in the contract.
Was planning on purchasing 4 Ring spotlight cams (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
You should check out Blink cameras. They are much better than Ring, and even cheaper. Also owned by Amazon.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, you could do all that, but Blink cameras are $50 each with zero setup. They work for a year on a single AA battery and there is no cloud charge. Amazon purchased the company last year. Check out Amazon for more information. Plus I don't trust those cheap HD security cams. They all use cheap firmware from the same Chinese source and are hackable.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"with zero setup" = zero actual security, video beamed to the mothership. I know, you don't care, you've got excuses for everything. Lazy AF. Go fuck yourself apologist. You aren't offering a real solution.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/10/18177305/ring-employees-unencrypted-customer-video-amazon
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/11/tech/amazon-alexa-listening/index.html
https://gizmodo.com/the-terrible-truth-about-alexa-1834075404
Re: (Score:1)
Hmmmm, I didn't think about that! I'm rushing out to buy some cheap Chinese HD cams right now!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you could do all that, but Blink cameras are $50 each with zero setup. They work for a year on a single AA battery and there is no cloud charge. Amazon purchased the company last year. Check out Amazon for more information.
So instantly any problem with ring is a problem with this other blink, no doubt amazon will class all cameras as one thing and sell the feeds to who ever they like.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Just get a decent NVR and cameras separately, then run them all on a separate network without internet access (but allow access from your home network or VPN, so you can access the feeds or recordings). It's working well for me.
Comment removed (Score:3)
I love my Ring (Score:1)
It works really well. In addition, the "Neighbors" app lets me see other incidents in the area, and allows me to share my video with my neighbors. So far we have caught quite a number of potheads and thrown them in jail.
Re: (Score:1)
19. Join us by downloading the free ‘Neighbors’ app.
Re: (Score:2)
Great you put some people in jail that weren't hurting anyone, and now the tax payer will have to pay for them. As a bonus you get private citizens to pay for loosing all their privacy, one step up from them just giving it away on Facebook.
Re: (Score:1)
They were hurting plenty. They had the reefer madness. Also, it is "losing" not "loosing". Kind of like "loser".
Re: (Score:2)
I think 110010001000 is simply a bot.
Re: (Score:2)
So far we have caught quite a number of potheads and thrown them in jail.
Why do you care about catching potheads? If they are violent, or if they are thieves, sure. But if they are just smoking pot, why bother them?
Re: (Score:1)
The pot makes them violent.
We have always been at war with Eastasia (Score:2)
Remember, if you challenge Big Brother, how can you be for Privacy?
Privacy only exists for the State.
We are only Serfs.
No, wait, serfs actually had rights.
Re: (Score:1)
What you say is unfortunately true thanks to tax-cuts for billionaires sucking dry the pool of money available to adequately fund staffing of government offices.
..." as the quaint old saying
But the solution is to increase progressive taxes sufficiently to be able to afford a properly working government "for the people
Re: (Score:2)
No pun intended of course
Fascism (Score:1)
When corporations control the governement,
When corporations control law enforcement,
You now officially live in a fascist totalitarian police state.
What are you going to do about it ? Nothing, of course. Except maybe give more money and power to those corporations, because shiny toys.
Re: (Score:1)
True. Because a company puts together PR packets they now control the government. Slashdot libertarian logic.
Amazon is creepy (Score:2)
Amazon is creepy. Interesting how we once thought that Microsoft would be one to achieve world domination.
One ring (Score:5, Funny)
One Ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them
This is fascism (Score:2)
An unholy alliance between mega-corporations and the police... It's more fascism than everything Trump has done combined.
Trump is the greatest curtain the bank owned government has ever had to shield who the government really works for from scrutiny.
Re: (Score:2)