Doorbell-Camera Firm Ring Has Partnered With 400 Police Forces, Extending Surveillance Reach (washingtonpost.com) 223
The doorbell-camera company Ring has quietly forged video-sharing partnerships with more than 400 police forces across the United States, granting them access to homeowners' camera footage and a powerful role in what the company calls America's "new neighborhood watch." The Washington Post: The partnerships let police automatically request the video recorded by homeowners' cameras within a specific time and area, helping officers see footage from the company's millions of Internet-connected cameras installed nationwide, the company said. Officers don't receive ongoing or live-video access, and homeowners can decline the requests, which Ring sends via email thanking them for "making your neighborhood a safer place." The number of police deals, which has not previously been reported, will likely fuel broader questions about privacy, surveillance and the expanding reach of tech giants and local police. The rapid growth of the program, which launched last spring, surprised some civil-liberties advocates, who believed fewer than 300 agencies had signed on.
Ring is owned by Amazon, which bought the firm last year for more than $800 million, financial filings show. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos also owns The Washington Post. Ring officials and law-enforcement partners portray the vast camera network as an irrepressible shield for American neighborhoods, saying it can assist police investigators and protect homes from criminals, intruders and thieves. "The mission has always been making the neighborhood safer," said Eric Kuhn, the general manager of Neighbors, Ring's crime-focused companion app. "We've had a lot of success in terms of deterring crime and solving crimes that would otherwise not be solved as quickly."
Ring is owned by Amazon, which bought the firm last year for more than $800 million, financial filings show. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos also owns The Washington Post. Ring officials and law-enforcement partners portray the vast camera network as an irrepressible shield for American neighborhoods, saying it can assist police investigators and protect homes from criminals, intruders and thieves. "The mission has always been making the neighborhood safer," said Eric Kuhn, the general manager of Neighbors, Ring's crime-focused companion app. "We've had a lot of success in terms of deterring crime and solving crimes that would otherwise not be solved as quickly."
While you can Opt-out (Score:5, Insightful)
While you can Opt-out there isn't a nice hard switch to prevent methods for law enforcement to spy on you that may not necessarily be legal, or at least admissible in court.
Just think how the NSA rather easily got the Telecom companies to share their records to them a decade ago. Where they gathered who called possible terrorist, and who they called and who called them. So many Pizza delivery guys were probably being watched because they wanted to ask for directions.
Say Ring had fallen under the pressure of law enforcement then had your doorbell track every time you left your home and when you returned. They notice that every other Thursday that you come home from work 2 hours later then normal.
Now the police can say track you on where you went to work on Thursday, then follow you after normal working hours to see if you are doing anything odd. Say traveling to a neighborhood where lower income people live. So you now a suspect in a possible drug bust, while you were just volunteering your time with meals on wheels.
Sure you may not get arrested, but the police will be eyeing you to see if you commit a crime. You are not charged for a crime, or even suspected on doing a crime, however you are being watched because you in a free country may be doing something out of the ordinary, that others in your community may not be doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop dreaming, the cops do not have the manpower to watch your precious self and everyone like you. They wait until they have some indication of a crime and then grep the available sources. Mind you, I do not think it is a good idea for people to invade the privacy of others with those cameras. On the other hand, crime isn't something to be trifled with if you have a family to protect.
Re:While you can Opt-out (Score:4, Insightful)
While I agree that I am probably much too boring of an individual to be watched. However, there has been cases where people who had been vocal against the police, or just happened to piss off the wrong politician. In general have been under increased surveillance by the police, just because they did something that got their attention, not necessarily connected to anything wrong, but just because they angered a person in power.
The issue with these Cloud based services, is that there isn't a switch that I can be sure the data isn't leaving. Gone is the idea of the Home Server Appliance. where if I just don't hook it up to the internet I get nearly all the functionality without the privacy.
Your argument is on the same vane as If you are innocent then you shouldn't worry about being spied on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hate to break it to you, but those scores already exist, and have for decades. There are companies dedicated to gathering information about people and scoring them. Mostly credit scoring and insurance companies, but other data brokers. I'm always amazed that people don't know this. Insurance companies look at things like your social media posts for example.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet another reason not to be on Facebook...or other social media.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you're a terrorist or shooter. Then it's pretty much mandatory to be on there and post pics of puppies and rainbows to lower your score.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, let's assume that they have some indication of a crime. Maybe because I happened to misdial a number and end up at some sleeper cell that way. What now?
Re: (Score:2)
The police man just happened to stop at that one light, with a very short yellow which turned Red much quicker then you though.
Even the best of us, will probably break the letter of a few laws every day. For the most of us, it isn't worth enforcing. However if you are a target, they can decide it may be worth enforcing. Even if the prosecutor couldn't use any of it. Just being put in Jail over the night isn't really just.
Re:While you can Opt-out (Score:5, Insightful)
"However if you are a target, they can decide it may be worth enforcing. "
Um, that is exactly what black people (justly) complain about. It is funny when white people start figuring stuff out. Laws aren't applied equally.
Re: (Score:2)
Why people who use the internet and mobile phones are so upset about Ring I'll never understand. Is there something special about video that scares people?
Re: (Score:2)
The secret police in the former East Germany, the Stasi would have loved to have these things.
In fact, if they did have these things back in the late 80's . . . we would still have an East Germany today.
If King George had these back during the American Revolution . . . the Queen of England could suspend Congress today, if she felt like it.
Re: (Score:2)
secret police has been around for thousands of years
Re: (Score:2)
But it's never been as efficient as today.
Re: (Score:2)
Do really think that King George would have acquired all kinds of powers because of Ring? I guess the same is true of the American President, who currently has way more real power then the King of England has had since the Stuarts, and one of those lost his head and another was simply fired for trying to suspend Parliament in both cases..
Re: While you can Opt-out (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If only Stalin had thought of founding an online bookstore, he would have been successful in getting what he wanted.
It's opt-in, by request (Score:3)
From TFA: Officers donâ(TM)t receive ongoing or live-video access, and homeowners can decline the requests, which Ring sends via email thanking them for âoemaking your neighborhood a safer place.â
I'm cool with this. I live in an urban area and we have crime, mostly property (car break-ins, GTA, package theft). But someone was shot and killed on the corner of our block last winter. Still no suspect.
I'm planning on putting a couple of cameras outside, front door and alley on the garage. I will register with the police as well.
My dashcam has resulted in some tickets as well (dashcam is awesome, everyone should have one).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This commenter is part of the problem. He assumes that there is enough police manpower to monitor every urban street, and wishes to deny the city police forces to monitor neighborhoods because he thinks the police magically know all the criminals by first name.
Re: (Score:2)
This is opt in. You can choose not to share video.
Over 20 years as an urban resident here.
How many times have you had a murder occur about 100 feet from your front door? One time here.
How many times have you had a car broken into. Four here (with no valuables in the cars).
How many times have you had grand theft auto on friends car's while visiting? Two for me (both Jeeps).
How many times have you had a Breaking and Entering with Theft at a property you owned (it was being rented, we were all in the backy
Re: (Score:2)
As a bonus, many cities will pay for your cameras. Don't listen to the idiots here who moan about "privacy". These cameras are dfesigned to take video of burglars and package thieves. No one cares if a Ring camera videos you picking your nose walking down the street.
Re: (Score:2)
And body cameras were designed in order to document crimes as well. Interesting how many police officers can turn theirs off when they want privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
That's interesting. How many? You seem to know every police officer on the planet!
Re: (Score:2)
I know several police officers. Including the ones who talk about how their night went and then laugh about how they 'forgot to turn it back on after leaving the bathroom, oops!".
Tricky and icky - huge potential for abuse (Score:3)
Do I care? No...I don't commit crimes and I don't have a mistress. However, if you do anything illegal or anything you don't want a divorce lawyer seeing, you should give it second thoughts. Remember, even if what you're doing is legal or doesn't fit the standards for a conviction, do you want your neighbor making accusations and showing the video? Even if you have a prescription for that joint, do you want that mentally ill old person with the crazy eyes and "interesting" theories about Obama's deep dark hidden motivation going around with video accusing you of being a junkie?
How long before a neighbor extorts you?
Sounds like a mafia scam waiting to happen...buy a house near someone powerful or famous, install every hidden camera you can legally install, record all footage, waiting to find something to extort them with. I have a few people on my block who have grudges with their neighbors (city people are insane) who I could easily see doing something shitty like this if it were made convenient enough.
To be clear, I like the police partnership. It's a good thing when not abused. Making it easier to catch dangerous criminals is huge. I want every violent offender to be paranoid and never feel safe. However, I do fear what happens when a mentally ill neighbor tries to use the footage for shady purposes.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to break it to you, but you don't need to "authorize" surveillance footage of your house. I know. Shocker. I can stand on the sidewalk and take pictures of your house without permission. I know...shocking! The only thing shocking is that Slashdotters think that security cameras were recently invented (by Ring I guess).
How effective? (Score:2)
"We've had a lot of success in terms of deterring crime and solving crimes that would otherwise not be solved as quickly."
Cool. So what is a lot of success? Where's the data? What's the trade-off here?
Re: (Score:2)
Many cities provide data on that. Example: https://ovsjg.dc.gov/sites/def... [dc.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm... that is data for private security cameras, which is a more general category that doorbell cameras. And it doesn't say anything about how effective they were - if they played any role in solving crime.
I'm interested in the trade-off between giving them access to data from a private device and the reduction in crime. Or deterrence in crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, it is #7 on that document: "The number of times that footage from a private security camera contributed to a
successful arrest by MPD, including a breakdown by offense.
There was one arrest made in a homicide case and one arrest was made in a murder
case in which video footage was extracted from a security camera owned by a
program participant. MPD detectives may have viewed footage that was obtained
directly from the program participants without that information being specifically
tracked."
How would
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I thought the document you posted had that info, not the document summarized by the document you posted.
As for deterrent effect, you can't know directly, but they have numbers for crime before cameras and crime after. Some of the reduction could reasonably be attributed to cameras.
Re: (Score:2)
Police and people around the world get to see the crime rates.
Who is doing the crime and how.
City politics can't hide from the video clips.
Now do it on a city-wide scale, videos showing who the crims are with an unflinching unbiased eye, and you may see a shift in popular support for certain ideologies. This will be reflected in elections.
Not too sure I'm against this. (Score:2)
I'm not too sure I'm against this. I am all for securing personal liberty, yes I am... but I'm also very much for:
1. Knowing and possibly identifying the cockroaches that visit us every dump day. Y'know, the shady AF guys in the beater white pickup that's 80% rust and collect all manner of stuff. Way I see them, they're always casing the neighborhood.
2. Knowing who's knocking on my door when i'm not home. Why? Because burglars often do that to verify vacant / not vacant home. Could be ADT guy. Coul
Re: (Score:2)
But what if the Ring captured video of you carrying your groceries up the steps? PRIVACY!!! By the way, I own a Ring but don't recommend it for technical reasons. It doesn't work too well. Read the reviews. I found the Blink cameras work better.
Re: (Score:2)
But what if the Ring captured video of you carrying your groceries up the steps? PRIVACY!!! By the way, I own a Ring but don't recommend it for technical reasons. It doesn't work too well. Read the reviews. I found the Blink cameras work better.
Pfft. By the time somoene gets to the Ring footage (would only show me driving my car into the garage, I never use my own front door) the LPR cameras my city has deployed just about every intersection will show my shitbox going about its day, the credit card machines know I was just a the grocer's, and the alarm knows I just disarmed it and opened garage door.
It's almost like idiocracy already, if they want to know where you're at, they'll know it. We had a vicious robber take out a business when I was wo
Re: (Score:2)
For perspective... if you are so willing to believe in the benevolence of government or business why do citizens even need a Bill of Rights for protections from the Government or Laws to control and regulate businesses?
On the contrary, my thinking is that the government isn't to be entirely trusted. I am a firm believer in the Bill of Rights, in particular 1, 2, 4 and 5. The Bill has to be shored up and protected viciously, because there are forces in this country hell bent on stripping all those rights out, in particular 1 and 2. This must be defended vigorously, vociferously, and even viciously.
Make no mistake, the future you are wanting to help build will result in massive suffering of innocent people because now even the lowest and nicest of protesters protesting for freedom of speech, religion, equal treatment, or just decency will be easily located by bad actors and "dealt with".
Uh-huh. Like they aren't already, more than ever? Moving protest activity online / bragging about it / organizing it onlin
Big brother (Score:2)
Not only is big brother here, but it's being paid by the people being spied upon.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah. Just pay me when you record me and we're good.
Re: (Score:2)
No thanks. Just stay in your private space and we're good.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok. Please point the camera away from my garden or face a lawsuit. Since my garden is in my country, I would actually win that suit.
Re: (Score:2)
What "trivial of shit"? Wanting to protect your house from theft? Let me guess: the police are out to get you and are the REAL enemy right? We should surveil THEM! As a Libertarian (a.k.a suburbanite), I demand it!
You're missing the most important issue... (Score:2)
When these police departments partner with Ring they agree to release no public statement that isn't pre-approved by Ring. And in some cases Ring is the one writing the releases themselves.
'
Think about this...a business dictating what law enforcement says.
This is every bad Hollywood movie cliche from 'small town sheriff controlled by factory owner' to OCP in Robocop.
As usual, people missing the point (Score:2)
Everyone on here is talking about privacy. First, if you are out in the open you have no expectation of privacy. Anyone and everyone can see you and your actions.
More importantly, the only reason these cameras exist is because people are criminals. It's the same reason we have laws against murder, robbery, and rape. Because people murder, rob, and rape. If people wouldn't do those things, there wouldn't be a need for a law.
Same here. Don't be a criminal and the reason for the cameras disappear. But then
Re: As usual, people missing the point (Score:2)
How this could get nasty... (Score:2)
I know I already commented, but just thought of this...
If the footage from my Ring is used in a criminal trial...can I be subpoenaed? I can see a lot of defense lawyers using this tactic. Suddenly you have a whole city block of people being questioned. The defense then could ask for all footage taken by the cameras. Which would open another whole can of worms.
Defense attorney - "So the police arrested my client, yet here is footage of two other crimes being committed by people living on that very block. Why
Re: (Score:2)
Yes you can be subpoenaed for video taken by your mobile phone camera or dashcam too. Are you having trouble conceptualizing what a camera is? Attorneys have been subpoenaed camera footage for decades.
Re: (Score:2)
Which in both cases you'd be aware of what was going on. With the Ring you are given no indication the footage is being looked at or even being used in an investigation. The police are not contacting the house owner and give them a statement saying, "Hey, we looked at this footage this month." Which, IMHO, is something they should be required to do.
Notice I said 'defense' lawyers. Implying this footage was already submitted by the police as evidence. Evidence you have no clue you can now be subpoenaed to te
Consented surveillance is not bad (Score:2)
homeowners can decline the requests
This is important. So long as they are Not denied or reduced in important services if they refuse or otherwise pressured to accept the requests.
will likely fuel broader questions about privacy, surveillance and the expanding reach of tech giants and local police.
ONLY questions, not reasonable objections, as Surveillance with consent of the property owner Is (1) For their benefit, and (2) Not a bad thing.
Despite some possible risks that do come from surveillan
The TOS *will* change (Score:2)
Right now they ask. Once people are use to sharing with law enforcement, that wil
Re: (Score:2)
I'm really shocked by people on Slashdot. Do you think that Ring doesn't make interior cameras? They make a full line, just like 100s of other vendors. It is like you guys are just learning that cameras exist, or security cameras exist, or cloud based video exists. I thought Slashdot readers were supposed to be knowledgeable about tech stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Just wait until Ring starts shucking cameras for *inside* the house.
They already do [ring.com].
Re: (Score:2)
I wish my local PD did this. (Score:2)
...I'd love to get free/reduced cost cameras. I'd happily point them all over my property and neighborhood.
"But you'll be under surveillance!"
I'm fine with that, thanks.
It's NOT the "why would you be afraid if you don't commit crimes" thing, precisely.
It's that I'm far more likely to get VALUE from being watched because I'm more likely to be a victim of a crime than a perpetrator (ie and if I'm a victim of crime, get better chances of positive resolution/prosecution).
Re:Hopefully..... (Score:5, Insightful)
One can opt out?
Best way to opt out is to not buy one. I would think that if the Manufacturer lets you know that the police access the video, and you install it anyway, you just issued a writ of okey-dokey to both the manufacturer and the police. Next up - forging an alliance for the cameras inside the house. Extra discounts for installation of a camera in your teenage daughter's bedroom.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, filming any property but your own is allowed in the US? How fucked up is that, how about me making videos of what's going on in your bedroom, after all, you have windows so you agree to me filming you shagging?
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, filming any property but your own is allowed in the US? How fucked up is that, how about me making videos of what's going on in your bedroom, after all, you have windows so you agree to me filming you shagging?
You are generally free to film where there is no expectation of privacy, so filming your property visible from the road is OK, filming through your window is not.
Re: (Score:2)
I expect privacy in my yard. And the laws of my country actually agree with this. What now?
Re: (Score:2)
Then someone better not point a camera at your yard? Is that a real question?
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, filming any property but your own is allowed in the US? How fucked up is that, how about me making videos of what's going on in your bedroom, after all, you have windows so you agree to me filming you shagging?
Cool specious slippery slope. There's a difference between inside and outside of the house here in the colonies.
Re: (Score:2)
Over here in the old country we're more along the lines of inside and outside of my property.
Re: (Score:3)
Wait, filming any property but your own is allowed in the US? How fucked up is that, how about me making videos of what's going on in your bedroom, after all, you have windows so you agree to me filming you shagging?
That would be allowed too in many jurisdictions. The general rule is anything visible from a public place is fair game. So if you leave your bedroom curtains open while you fuck and I can see it from the public sidewalk in front.........hey, I get to film a porno.
Re: (Score:2)
I live next door and opposite people who have one. Can I opt-out?
If for nothing else, this can be used as an example of a rhetorical question. Come to think of it, most questions about privacy are rhetorical.
Even when my mom asked me, when I was still living at home, what time I came home last night I refused to answer. Rather than giving details I took the full punishment.
But we must live in a dangerous neighborhood if all these people need a camera, right?
Regarding the safety of a neighborhood, I suspect a lot of these are sold to people who live in gated neighborhoods, to houses that have the most expensive ADT package, and a safe room to boot. Pernicious paranoia I call it.I know a few people who are exactly like that.
But if your neighbor has a "Ring", and you are concerned about it pointing toward you, utilize a countermeasure of a bright freaking light pointed dierctly at the camera 24/7. You might not be able to do anything about his camera, but the
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is how the video is obtained.
Previously: Police show up, say what happened and ask if they can have access to the footage.
With Ring: You're not asked. They can take the footage without ever telling you they did so. As many times as they like.
Re: (Score:2)
Um no, the police need to ask the homeowner for permission. Christ. So stupid.
Homeowner permission (Score:3)
Amazon provides footage directly to LE on request, without a warrant, if homeowner declines. The homeowner's Ring contract gives Ring non-exclusive license to use the footage.
Further reading for those sniffing the coolaid (Score:3)
References:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/08/amazons-ring-perfect-storm-privacy-threats/ [eff.org]
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/j5wyjy/amazon-told-police-it-has-partnered-with-200-law-enforcement-agencies/ [vice.com]
https://gizmodo.com/everything-cops-say-about-amazons-ring-is-scripted-or-a-1836812538/ [gizmodo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is how the video is obtained.
Previously: Police show up, say what happened and ask if they can have access to the footage.
With Ring: You're not asked. They can take the footage without ever telling you they did so. As many times as they like.
Per TFA you can refuse to share the video.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is how the video is obtained.
Previously: Police show up, say what happened and ask if they can have access to the footage.
With Ring: You're not asked. They can take the footage without ever telling you they did so. As many times as they like.
Per TFA you can refuse to share the video.
All you have to do is believe that. My rule of thiumb is that if an internet connected device can listen to you, it will send audio to whoever the manufacturer decides to send it. It is always listening. The same for cameras.
Now I have nothing against home surveillance systems. I just know exactly what will happen if they are connected to the internet. Trusting a manufacturer is naive. Trust what you design and implement. If you want ot have IP have a separate network for it - that isn't difficult.
Re: (Score:2)
here! here! Bravo! my neighbors Ring is across from a park and we are center to shootings within three different intersections, and they always want his Ring footage. he says no. local PD, they probably have it already regardless if he knows or not.
Oh hell yes. I suspect that they have it, have used it, and all the neighbor has done is annoy them, so if the neighbor has a problem, it will take a lot longer to respond to it.
ADAPT or DIE (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not where I live. You may film your private property as much as you like, but putting up stationary cameras to film public places is off limits.
Re: (Score:3)
Not where I live. You may film your private property as much as you like, but putting up stationary cameras to film public places is off limits.
Where's that? In the US at least it's perfectly legal in most places; and many video cameras currently do just that.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of Europe, actually. Wouldn't be surprised if it's a EU thing by now.
Re: (Score:2)
But of course you can. You can always decide that you don't want to get the images.
Re: Hopefully..... (Score:2)
Did you even read the article? It lets police ask you if they can see the footage. In each case you have to opt-in to sharing it.
The article is PR (Score:5, Insightful)
The resident's permission opt-out is an illusion...
See https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/08/amazons-ring-perfect-storm-privacy-threats/ [eff.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Make those police agencies get a damned WARRANT!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Your sig is appropriate. Police do not need a warrant to question witnesses to a crime, or talk to people about a crime which happened in the area. This is no different.
The criminals are in plain view. That a camera, rather than a person, is seeing the crime take place makes no difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, let them go in person and talk and interview all they want.
But when police want to bug a place or set up surveillance, they traditionally have had to get a warrant...THIS is no different.
The only difference I guess is, rather than the cops themselves placing the cameras, other people are, but the results are the same and the police should not be able to log
Re: (Score:3)
Your sig is appropriate. Police do not need a warrant to question witnesses to a crime, or talk to people about a crime which happened in the area. This is no different.
The criminals are in plain view. That a camera, rather than a person, is seeing the crime take place makes no difference.
Yea so you're flat wrong. The fact that a camera saw something has fuck all to do with whether or not they need a warrant. The warrant requirement is based on whether the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy under the 4th Amendment. If a reasonable expectation of privacy exists and there is no applicable exception to the warrant requirement, then they have to get one.
in this case the camera is private data to which a clear privacy expectation exists (and it doesn't matter what you think
Re: (Score:2)
But they do as a rule need a warrant to set up surveillance. Which is essentially what is happening here.
Re: (Score:2)
Make those police agencies get a damned WARRANT!
Warrants are not and should never be required for CONSENTED surveillance or searches Which some residents consent to of their own free will, because assisting police in capturing criminals protects them.
They have just as much to engage with law enforcement for consented activities as YOU do to decline a search of your private home without a warrant.
If you don't like it: then YOU have that choice to withhold information -- decline requests, don't install
Re:Hopefully..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I do need the police. But I do need the police to follow the law. I kinda have a problem with a law enforcement that tries to circumvent the very law they are supposedly protecting.
Re: (Score:2)
What law are the police circumventing here? Did you know that the police can ask for video and information from you? I know, it is shocking.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. They can ask to get it from me. I can hand if over if I'm so inclined. To force it, they require more than just a "gimme".
Re:Hopefully..... (Score:4, Insightful)
They can ask, AND you have a right to share it with them of your own free will --- even if the law and circumstances say they would need a warrant to COMPEL a search and seizure; Some people are willing to help and be kind to law enforcement and aid or volunteer to help civil authorities or their community in some respect, even when it is not required to take that step by the law.
Some of these privacy advocates have gone so crazy and far off the deep end, they would suggest that property owners should not have the right to co-operate with law enforcement and allow CONSENTED video surveillance and data sharing, even when this surveillance clearly benefits the consenting person directly (By deterring and catching people who would do the camera owner harm) ---- In this case, the surveillance is deliberate, as the property owner installs the doorbells for the purpose of surveillance.
Re:Hopefully..... (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, I do need the police. But I do need the police to follow the law. I kinda have a problem with a law enforcement that tries to circumvent the very law they are supposedly protecting.
They aren't circumventing any laws. They are getting information from a witness, no need for a warrant or anything else. It's no different than if they went door to door asking questions, except it is video and takes a lot less effort.
Re: (Score:2)
They are - they are circumventing surveillance restrictions usually only derogated from by the courts (or via legislation).
Re:Hopefully..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, no. Believe it or not a cop can ask you to voluntarily video from your mobile phone, or dashcam or security cam and have for decades. I know, the planet Earth is shocking, but you are welcome here.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, da police are the REAL criminals, right? Always spying on us and stuff. We are so edgy and cool! We don't need the police!
As someone who has questioned police in and out of a courtroom many times, yes. They are of the same mindset and are generally no better than those they purport to be stopping. The only difference is they differentiate themselves with unique colored clothing........and they legally carry a firearm while fulfilling their "duties".
Re: (Score:2)
Is there any evidence that Bezos tries to influence the reporting from the Washington Post?
Re: (Score:2)
No. The GP is merely attempting to indicate a connection with no evidence. Innuendo goes a long way these days.
Re: (Score:2)
While I absolutely don't discount the possibility of Bezos leaning on the Post, I have to admit I don't see it here--it seems to be a warts and all report on what Ring is doing. Does anybody know of any damaging facts they left out?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is working, especially when people post video when their door gets kicked in. It turns what once is something that happens relatively infrequently into something people think happens all the time.
Re: I'm not big on conspiracy theories but... (Score:2)
People have been peering out of their windows for decades before houses were even connected to the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Officers don't receive ongoing or live-video access, ...
I would not bee too sure about that. While Ring may not provide that service, they could probably tell the police how to sniff the network streams. Privacy and security do not seem to be selling points for Ring devices, otherwise the footage would never be sent over a network to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah man...because cops are the REAL criminals...you know what I mean? So edgy! Have another Latte!