Amazon Is Coaching Cops On How To Obtain Surveillance Footage Without a Warrant (vice.com) 129
popcornfan679 shares a report from Motherboard: When police partner with Ring, Amazon's home surveillance camera company, they get access to the "Law Enforcement Neighborhood Portal," an interactive map that allows officers to request footage directly from camera owners. Police don't need a warrant to request this footage, but they do need permission from camera owners. Emails and documents obtained by Motherboard reveal that people aren't always willing to provide police with their Ring camera footage. However, Ring works with law enforcement and gives them advice on how to persuade people to give them footage. Emails obtained from police department in Maywood, NJ -- and emails from the police department of Bloomfield, NJ, which were also posted by Wired -- show that Ring coaches police on how to obtain footage. The company provides cops with templates for requesting footage, which they do not need a court warrant to do. Ring suggests cops post often on Neighbors, Ring's free "neighborhood watch" app, where Ring camera owners have the option of sharing their camera footage. As reported by GovTech on Friday, police can request Ring camera footage directly from Amazon, even if a Ring customer denies to provide police with the footage. It's a workaround that allows police to essentially "subpoena" anything captured on Ring cameras. Last week, Motherboard also found that at least 200 law enforcement agencies around the country have entered into partnerships with Amazon's home surveillance company Ring.
Re: (Score:3)
Why this is not new. Police always could ask for something and if you agree to hand it over, no need for a warrant. The only thing that changes is that now every body and their dog has 24/7 camera surveillance.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not new at all security companies that do offsite backups of security footage for homes and businesses already work with law enforcement to facilitate getting the owner's permission and if presented a warrant to supply back ups. It's new for amazon and making the news because they are in the spot light.
Re: Not in my neighborhood (Score:1)
I told the cops they could take my footage whenever they wanted as long as I didn't alert them ahead of time not to. I also specified that I would not be able to spend a lot time going through it with them. In the rare instance when I would not be able to assist, I would say so. We get along just fine. I'm not a drug dealer or murderer or rapist and that probably helps a bit.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Another city returns to been great again.
New jobs and investment returns.
All thanks to tech like CCTV and police getting images of the criminals.
Re: (Score:2)
lawyer lawyer lawyer lawyer! (Score:2)
lawyer lawyer lawyer lawyer!
and in court you demand the logs + raw files + the full chain of custody + all paper work and if any thing does not fit you must acquit
What am I missing? (Score:3, Insightful)
They have to ask, not take without permission. And they are told to browse the publicly uploaded video section to see if there's anything they are interested in. Isn't that pretty much how it's always worked with CCTV from stores?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They have to ask, not take without permission.
The police say: "Either you can give his information to us voluntarily . . . or we will close your shop for two months, raid your employer as an accomplice, sequester your children in social services, etc., etc. etc.
That's the whole point of this coaching . . . frighten folks into giving permission with Gestapo and Stasi tactics.
Re:What am I missing? (Score:4, Informative)
For some reason, Amazon's "coaching" does not mention any such methods... Indeed, it seems quite the opposite, emphasizing voluntary cooperation with law-enforcement for the betterment of the community.
Could you, please, cite any examples from the coaching materials, that are remotely like Gestapo or Stasi?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I get that you are (correctly) saying this is not currently what is being advocated. Unfortunately, you know that's where it will end up, given enough time. People will cooperate, but there will be that guy that won't. Cops will really want that footage because of what they believe it contains, but not have sufficient cause for a warrant. So instead they're resort to bullying.
If cops can (and do) bully innocent people into confessing to crimes they didn't commit (because they just want the bullying to end,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They can already do that, and do not need Amazon's "coaching" for it at all...
Every once in a while such tactics are reset by cases like that of a certain rapist called Miranda, for example, but they have nothing to do with neither Amazon's in particular, nor video surveillance cameras in general.
So, why are we supposed to hate Amazon — or police
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All they need is to say that they suspect an alleged child molester
is in the area, and everyone will open their cameras to them.
Because "think of the children!".
Taking with and without permission... (Score:5, Interesting)
The police can take anything without permission, as long as...
1) It is done with a warrant, and...
2) It does not force you to testify against yourself.
But circumstance #2 doesn't stop the police from using -ANYTHING- outside your body as evidence of a crime. Like it or not, a video recording saved in a database on a server hosted by Amazon is owned by Amazon. They can decide to do whatever the hell they want with it, including giving it to the police, with -OR- without a warrant.
Don't like Amazon giving Ring videos to the police? Then stop buying Ring, and buy your own Camera & DVR. They're ridiculously cheap, and all the data is saved to your DVR. Keep the DVR in your home, and you can say no to the police all you want...that is, unless they serve you with a warrant.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure this always holds, though I'm also not sure where the line is consider:
In the first scenario AFAICT the landlord would not be able to grant the police access to your apartment. The second I'm not entirely sure about, could the bank grant the police access? The other scenarios I could think of included records with special protections (e.g. legals or medical).
Re: (Score:2)
Really good question (Score:2)
Now can you tell me how I can prevent the neighbor to the left and right of me from buying a Ring and capturing all my comings and goings, not to mentioned the neighbor across the street pointing a Ring right at my entire house 24x7?
The answer is: you can't. Anything viewable from the street is not considered private. If you commit a crime outside the walls of your house, and it's within public view, any evidence to the crime (video, witness testimony, etc.) can be used against you. Now anything inside
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the state.
Generally in my state hidden cameras, and any audio with out the permission and knowledge of the parties recorded is expressly forbidden. Put in a hidden nanny cam with audio, not only is it not admissible in court but could get you fined and possibly put in jail if you caught the teen baby sitter getting freaky with her boyfriend.
Recording the neighbors property on a fixed security camera is kind of a grey area if it doesn't catch anything inside the home the yard technically has no ex
Next step... (Score:2, Interesting)
The whole thing is a bit "Owrellean" for me (which is why I would NEVER put some cloud-controlled camera on/in MY house). At least they are requiring consent EACH TIME for EACH video segment requested. That seems reasonable. The police don't need a warrant to request voluntary information from the public. Never have, and they shouldn't need to.... although they should ALWAYS state that cooperation is not required. And it seems these requests from Ring/Police do say that, at least some of them.
What sca
Re: (Score:2)
Orwellian. Yeesh.
Re: (Score:3)
How is voluntary cooperation in any way "Orwelean"? Police aren't your enemy — thieves and burglars are. Some police could be assholes, there is no escaping it, but all criminals are.
Suppose, you have your bike stolen from your porch. Instead of spending hours going from house to house (so expensive and time-consuming, most will not even do it), the investigator could just review the street's videos. With the AI's help, he could have the thief's picture in 15 minutes... With face-recognition, he may h
Re: (Score:3)
>"How is voluntary cooperation in any way "Orwelean"? Police aren't your enemy â" thieves and burglars are. Some police could be assholes, there is no escaping it, but all criminals are.'
Agreed. Which is why I am OK with their current model. I said *I* wouldn't want a cloud based camera. I have no assurances what is being done with the data. That is just my choice.
>"The recordings will still be of public space, and what scares you so would be no different from an actual officer standing there
Re: (Score:2)
With no barriers, the government is free to surveil anyone, anywhere, anytime, for any reason, and back through all of history (of that device). It is a far, far cry from an "actual officer standing and watching" because there is *inherent* privacy by how many resources such a thing requires.
This is where AI and facial recognition scare me more than anything.
Even if cops have eternal access to camera footage, it's still going to be a full time job for one cop to sift through all of that trying to keep tabs on one person. When you can turn on an AI supercomputer and point it all the footage, it will be able to index each individual's clips and highlight the interesting ones for quick access. That is really scary.
On the flip side, I get why people are going with these cheap cameras. Cops are not
Re: (Score:2)
>This is where AI and facial recognition scare me more than anything.
Exactly
>On the flip side, I get why people are going with these cheap cameras.
I certainly understand too.
>Unless you consider the surveillance state you're inadvertently helping create. The question is probably how long until it's abused by the state, not if.
Yep, and that is my issue. If we could just have this stuff where *WE* are in control of the server (on-site) and it not be cloud based, it wouldn't be an issue. Alas, nobod
Re: (Score:2)
There was never a right to nor expectation of any such "inherent" privacy.
If anything, the new technology "democratizes" law enforcement — if earlier only a VIP could be protected or hunted by police' personal att
Re: (Score:2)
The recordings will still be of public space, and what scares you so would be no different from an actual officer standing there and watching (perhaps, recording with his body-cam).
You can say the same thing about attaching a GPS tracker to a car. A cop could just sit there and follow you all the time. Yet the supreme court ruled that the GPS tracker (without a warrant) is in violation of the 4th amendment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
No, the act of attaching is — or can be argued to be, which is the same thing — (a part of) an actual, physical search. No, if we must have a car-analogy, this is like following your vehicle with a drone — programmed to recognize your car (or its license plate) — on public roads.
Which is no different, legally, from an actual officer following you. Which is perfectly legal and requires no warrants.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with the "don't talk to police" mantra, is that it assumes a confrontational nature to the conversation. I have a policeman that lives across the street. I've made friends with that policeman that lives across the street. I don't have a Ring device, but if he came looking for video it would go something like:
-Heh, there was a breakin'/accident/fight in front of your house yesterday.
-Wow. Really? I bet my Ring device might have camera coverage of it. What time did it happen? I'll search the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Citation needed.
Re: (Score:1)
You do not want to be on surely short list of people that did not agree?
Objection! (Score:2)
If someone get's an good lawyer they should be able to get off.
Same as CCTV for years... (Score:1)
Do the crime, get seen seen on CCTV, some other camera.
Police ask to see CCTV in the area to find the criminal.
Expect the police to investigate and find the face of the criminal in the area.
Like during the VHS and NAS decades..
Slowly crime is reduced as the criminals get found.
Re:Same as CCTV for years... (Score:5, Insightful)
Welcome to new tech, same as old tech.
...except a thousand times more pervasive, focused on residential areas, and more conducive to misuse because of ease of access.
Do the crime, get seen seen on CCTV, some other camera.
Also, don't do any crime, don't do anything that would normally be considered suspicious, but still be subjected to surveillance, and don't receive any protection from a court because the police don't have to abide by any normal standard of suspicion or probable cause, nor complete normal paper chains, nor get subpoenas or warrants.
That might not all seem like a big deal today, but if these cameras continue to proliferate at their current rate and improve technologically (no reason to think either thing won't happen), we'll be under constant watch. Again, that might still not seem like a big deal, but what about when bad actors (yes, there are bad cops, and sometimes bad people who employ them, and hackers, and...) exploit the all-seeing eyes to oppress political enemies, track the whereabouts of personal enemies and sex crime targets, and all manner of other evil uses? My concern is not for my neighbor's doorbell cam in 2019 as much as for how fascists will seek to abuse what this tech evolves into in the near future if we don't place some limits on its use now.
Re: (Score:2)
So was CCTV. But the crime can be viewed and the criminals found.
The "the near future" is what London was doing with CCTV since the mid 1990's.
What is done to every driver and passenger entering any US city.
Re "focused on residential areas"
That is where the criminals are stealing from. Nice parts of a city.
Yeah right (Score:1)
> Also, don't do any crime, don't do anything that would normally be considered suspicious, but still be subjected to surveillance, and don't receive any protection from a court because the police don't have to abide by any normal standard of suspicion or probable cause, nor complete normal paper chains, nor get subpoenas or warrants.
So you've lost this much-vaunted privacy on... other people's front porches?
Yeah, sorry, if there's video of you committing a crime on someone's front porch, then do not pa
Re: (Score:1)
Don't like being on my residential security camera? Don't come on to my property.
Re: (Score:2)
What a great time to be alive (Score:1)
I'll happily let law enforcement do whatever they want with my Ring footage as they see fit.
I'm glad to live in a place where I can trust the security of my home to Amazon, the utilities in my home to Google, my free speech safe zone to Facebook and Reddit, and my opinions to late night comedians.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll happily let law enforcement do whatever they want with my Ring footage as they see fit.
There is some middle ground between unfettered access and telling the police to fuck off, you know. Responding helpfully to a nicely worded request isn't that far beyond the pale.
It's funny that the same people that scream for the world to pay for their every want have serious issues with being reasonable participants in the public square.
title is kinda clickbait (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a flaw in the constitution (Score:5, Interesting)
The Bill of Rights restricts the federal government (and, to oversimply, the states) from certain acts in order to preserve the rights of individuals.
But the Bill of Rights does nothing to prevent private companies from engaging in the same behavior.
Back when the constitution was written, this wasn't a problem. Private companies were mostly small, and usually operated in a limited (often very limited) region. Most individuals were farmers. Communication was often face-to-face, or written in letters. Technology was more simple, making surveillance harder.
Now we've reached the point where large oligopolies are collecting a lot of data on individuals. Where large oligoplies, for their own purposes, are devoting tools to mine big data for trends. Tools that can be easily adapted to law enforcement use. And those large oligoplies are not subject to the Bill of Rights. There's no requirement for a warrant before a search. Nor is there any freedom of speech on social media. No requirement for a warrant for data voluntarily handed over.
As long as companies are willing, you could literally create a surveillance state in the US without violating the Bill of Rights. Right now, the only thing that's preventing that is cost and the relative slow pace of the state when it comes to adapting to new technology. Cost is always dropping in tech, and there's a benefit for a large organization to be useful to government. Sooner or later that benefit will exceed the cost of cooperation.
I predict that this cooperation will first be common for the most heinous crimes. Who is going to attack Amazon, Facebook, or Google from handing over data on a pedophile to the US government? Then, as these requests become more common, the bar will lower.
Hope you like living in this new world we are creating.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Even back then there have been private companies with a massive overreach. The East India company was a particularily well known example for the autors of that bill of rights.
Re: (Score:3)
Came here to say the same thing. The first real court case establishing corporate personhood in the US dates back to 1818. Given that the constitution dates from 1789, the US had all of 3 decades where corporations weren't able to leverage a lot of the protections in the Bill of Rights. Leverage.
The Bill of Rights doesn't protect us from companies, it protects companies from the government. Citizens United wasn't something new, it just codified a longstanding practice.
If you dig into your history, you'll fi
Re: (Score:1)
The Bill of Rights restricts the federal government (and, to oversimply, the states) from certain acts in order to preserve the rights of individuals.
But the Bill of Rights does nothing to prevent private companies from engaging in the same behavior.
This is commonly stated, but it is in fact false, on multiple levels.
For example, Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946). In that case, the Bill of Rights was held to apply to a company town, even though it was private property. The mere fact that an entity is private or that something happens on private property does not prevent the Bill of Rights from being applicable.
By limiting Amendments such as the 1st to Congress - and by not having any writing in the Bill of Rights limiting it's applicability to go
Fortunately, Their Cameras Suck (Score:2, Interesting)
Having had both generations of Ring doorbell camera, I can safely predict this only gives law enforcement footage of criminalsâ(TM) backs as they leave the area.
To give Ring credit, theyâ(TM)ve worked with me to resolve issues, they even sent me the v2 camera for free when they couldnâ(TM)t resolve issues with the v1. Their customer service has been exceptional... just with a flawed product.
Even with power saving as disabled as you can get it, even with a mesh Wi-Fi access point only half a d
Orwell was wrong (Score:3)
You don't have to make Telescreens mandatory, you only have to offer free Prime delivery.
Creepy (Score:2)
What about us criminals? (Score:2)
Lets say I am a criminal. Can I access, or make arrangements to access the live footage to see where the damn cops are?
(Evil cackles).
Flying Monkeys (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If it's a reasonably small time frame, sure. (Score:1)
If the police are really investigating a REAL crime (and not on a fishing expedition), and the time period is small, and I reviewed the footage to make sure I'm not showing the police something I'd rather not be, I'd totally give them the footage. Why not?
I'm more concerned about some kind of large request, like "footage from the last 2 weeks". But honestly, the sample letters looked reasonable to me. It didn't use the typical cop threats and intimidation, and they made it clear it was your choice. It's