EFF Challenges Ring's Spokesperson Shaq To A Discussion About Police Surveillance (eff.org) 64
Shaq O'Neal was one of the greatest players in basketball history. But as a spokesperson for Amazon's Ring security cameras, the EFF also calls him the "one man at Ring who might listen to reason," challenging him to go one-on-one with the EFF's privacy experts:
In just a year and a half, Amazon's Ring has set up more than 500 partnerships with law enforcement agencies to convince communities to spy on themselves through doorbell cameras and its social app, Neighbors. The company is moving recklessly fast with little regard for the long-term risks of this mass surveillance technology. These partnerships threaten free speech and the well-being of communities, vastly expand police surveillance, undermine trust between police and residents, and enable racial profiling by exacerbating suspicion and paranoia.
So far, Amazon has not committed to making any changes. But we think one person at Ring might listen: basketball legend Shaquille O'Neal.
Shaq has been a spokesperson and co-owner of Ring since 2016, and has been nearly as much a public face of the company as its CEO, Jamie Siminoff. EFF would like to sit down with Shaq to discuss how Ring's partnerships with police can actually end up harming the communities that the company hopes to keep safe. If we wanted to learn how to dunk, we would go to Shaq. Before he promotes the sale of cameras that surveil neighborhoods indiscriminately, Shaq should come to the experts. Shaq, sit down with us and learn how these partnerships turn our neighborhoods into vast, unaccountable surveillance networks.
So far, Amazon has not committed to making any changes. But we think one person at Ring might listen: basketball legend Shaquille O'Neal.
Shaq has been a spokesperson and co-owner of Ring since 2016, and has been nearly as much a public face of the company as its CEO, Jamie Siminoff. EFF would like to sit down with Shaq to discuss how Ring's partnerships with police can actually end up harming the communities that the company hopes to keep safe. If we wanted to learn how to dunk, we would go to Shaq. Before he promotes the sale of cameras that surveil neighborhoods indiscriminately, Shaq should come to the experts. Shaq, sit down with us and learn how these partnerships turn our neighborhoods into vast, unaccountable surveillance networks.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank-you. Shaq was mediocre at best. If he wasn't freakishly tall he'd have never made a team at all. How many of the "greatest players in history" couldn't shoot a free throw to save their lives ? :)
Hack a Shaq for the win
Re: Basketball Jones (Score:1)
Shaq has also worked for a living (Score:1)
The trick is to get John Perry Barlow of the EFF talking to him. The former songwriter for the Grateful Dead, Barlow also been famous a long time with really strange friends, and yet is also an amazingly nice man. I got to meet him a few times in the early days of the EFF, and when he taught some lessons for an Internet law course at Harvard. If anybody could explain the ethics problems of what FaceBook is doing, and explain them to a celebrity who's not already deep into technology ethics, it's Barlow.
Re: (Score:1)
That'll be a trick, perhaps someone in Virginia Beach with the Cayce group or another talented individual.
JPB passed away almost two years ago.
John Perry Barlow (October 3, 1947 – February 7, 2018)
Amazon is insufficiently managed, in my opinion. (Score:2)
Amazon web pages are a mess. While researching one item, there is an attempt to distract with other items.
Often the web pages show a low price with shockingly high shipping cost.
Amazon Sells Clothing From Bangladeshi Factories Blacklisted for Safety Issues [sourcingjournal.com] (Oct. 23, 2019)
US Supreme Court Accepts Amazon Warehouse Worker Wage Appeal [slashdot.org]. (Oct. 10, 2019) "The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear Amazo [reuters.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I see MANY ways Amazon is insufficiently managed. Let's discuss poor management on Slashdot. Amazon web pages are a mess. While researching one item, there is an attempt to distract with other items.
Amazon does massive A/B testing - - I'm sure that their own internal research shows this is more profitable overall.
Often the web pages show a low price with shockingly high shipping cost.
AKA more incentive for you to enroll in Amazon Prime to get free shipping. And if you have 'free' shipping anyway, might as well order everything and the kitchen sink from there that you wouldn't have otherwise. Now it's the mailmain's problem to drag a 40 pound bag of dogfood to your front door as opposed to having to carry it all the way from your car to your house yourself.
Don't get me wr
Amazon is self-destructive, in my opinion. (Score:2)
Shaq should challenge back... (Score:2)
"I accept, but first we do a game of one-on-one basketball, for 12 minutes - and for every basket made, that person gets to ask one question at the debate."
Seriously, he's a SPOKESPERSON, not a CEO, CTO, or engineer. If the EFF wanted to be honorable and fair, they'd ask the CEO or CTO of Ring to discuss the issue - not the paid face who's there to capture your attention (apparently, quite effectively) so you listen to the sales pitch.
Re: (Score:2)
Agree 100%. I mean, Shaq does have a PhD, but would he even use Ring if they didn't give it to him for free?
Re: (Score:2)
Agree 100%. I mean, Shaq does have a PhD, but would he even use Ring if they didn't give it to him for free?
Perhaps he can get Dr. J [wikipedia.org] to help him out.
Re: (Score:2)
He is a celebrity endorsing the product (also an investor before Amazon bought it out). How is it dis-honorable or unfair to invite him to a sit down to discuss downsides he may or may not be aware of?
Re: (Score:2)
You're the kind of guy who likes to go to trade shows and haggle the booth staff about why their choice of X5R caps are simply ludicrous given the edge requirements of the DDR controller, right?
Why would you expect to have a debate about technical (or in this case, perceived legal) issues around a product with someone not in that area? Do you want to always try to educate the cashier at your grocery store about the problems of use of ammonia-based cleaners on vinyl flooring, or why their choice of backend
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong on all counts. There is a difference between salesperson, cashier, and endorser.
If I have actual questions or concerns about the specs, I will ask the salespeople and give them a chance to clarify. If they can't answer and don't offer to have someone get back to me with the answer, that's the end of it (and a sale is unlikely). If the price of an item comes up significantly different to the posted price, I will ask the cashier to check.
Now, can you answer the question? How is it dis-honorable or un
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's not his role. He's essentially a marketing drone, and it's not his job to be all up-to-date with any perceived intricacies about privacy and the like. At best, he might quit being a spokesperson for Ring, but that won't change their privacy guidelines. Most likely, they are trying to set up a "gotcha" type situation where the EFF can say "see Ring doesn't understand their own privacy concerns!" It's a publicity stunt, pure and simple, trying to use a well-known public figure.
But then, if I
Re: (Score:2)
Random person you have never seen before might be a sales/marketing person. He is an endorser, lending his personal fame to the product. If you doubt that has an effect, I'll point out that celebrity endorsers are typically paid a lot more money than a sales and marketing person and that that isn't just because the company is feeling generous.
He has put himself in the position of recommending a product by his own free will however unqualified he may be to make such a recommendation. This was a publicity stu
How sad is that (Score:2)
The discourse on privacy, police state, mass surveillance and the generalized 1984-esque nastiness that's looming large on the horizon apparently rests on one fucking overweight former basketball player managing to convince an out-of-control private corporation to pretty-please reconsider how they do business.
Where are the elected representatives in this? Where's the damn public, the interests of whom they're not representing?
This is beyond sad.
Not sad at all (Score:4, Insightful)
The damn public wants criminals deterred, caught and punished — with clear evidence. EFF can scream its pretty little head off — there is not, and never has been, any privacy in public.
Whatever I can see, I can also record — and share with anyone, police included.
Re: (Score:2)
There has been a certain amount of privacy in public, Your person and your goods are not subject to search merely because you are in a public place. Privacy for other people visiting your home if you have Ring active is new legal territory. Should homeowners be compelled to turn over such records, or delete them, under a European style "right to be forgotten"? What about recording children? And is a warrant or subpoena required to obtain those records from "the cloud"?
Re: (Score:1)
No. You could've been followed — legally and ethically — by police, private investigators, or anyone.
Off topic.
No, it is not — people and businesses have been hanging those around premises for years. I could take the DNA left by my guests, and scan their fin
Re: (Score:2)
The presence of witnesses and the process of "following" someone make the witness visible in turn. The publication of the recordings to a central authority, in this case Amazon, means a centralization and necessary organization of the stored data that make it more dangerous and more vulnerable, and less accessible to the people being recorded. The EU has reacted to such centralization by putting in law a "right to be forgotten". How this will apply to Ring surveillance involves very interesting legal, moral
Re: (Score:2)
This is both untrue and irrelevant.
A private company is now "an authority"? Now, this is sad indeed...
There is no, and there has never been such a right. Had there been, your ex could compel you to undergo a memory-wiping procedure [brainworldmagazine.com] to make sure, you have no recollection of the fun
Re: Not sad at all (Score:1)
The damned public ALSO doesn't want to live in a goddamned Nazi police state. Take your fucking panopticon to China - real Americans want nothing to do with the instruments of totalitarianism.
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing Nazi [hitler.org] about privately-owned video-cameras nor about the camera-owners willing cooperation with police.
If you actually read the above link, you may find yourself agreeing with the Nazis on a worryingly large number of items...
Abj, ohttre bss naq zvaq lbhe shpxvat ynathntr va gur shgher.
No elected representatives understand technology? (Score:2)
Apparently we have no elected representatives who have a knowledge of technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently we have no elected representatives who have a knowledge of technology.
Everyone smart enough to understand technology can comprehend that congress is a dumpster fire.
Re: (Score:2)
OK Boomer
We didn't light the fire
Re: (Score:2)
OK noob
I'm a gen Xer, not a boomer. But keep trying
Re: No elected representatives understand technolo (Score:1)
The primary thing our elected representatives understand is how to accept a suitcase full of cash in a dark parking lot. They practice that skill several times pretty week.
Re: No elected representatives understand technol (Score:1)
*per week
The USA needs a GDPR (Score:1)
Yes, it was hassle to adapt everything to it. But it is one of the few things the EU did, that we are proud of. It stopped several entire classes of shenanigans in their tracks. It brought what us tech geeks always wanted everyone to do, but never dared to demand, because ignorant unpeople (those who just gave up on privacy and being a person of their own) hate it when you force them to face a less comforting reality. I'm sure everyone here faced such a person, when suggesting Linux, PGP, Signal and whatnot
Re: (Score:2)
The USA doesn't need a GDPR. We hate it when the government tells us what to do and substitutes some techno-supposedly-elite bureaucrat's preferences for our own. Everyone else's values and preferences aren't the same as yours.
The biggest impact of the GDPR on most people's lives has been that they now have to click annoying announcement cover-ups/pop-ups very time they visit a site because they routinely and automatically delete cookies between sessions so the site has no way of knowing they already clicke
Catching package thieves is not "spying on myself" (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's just slashdot's daily anti-Ring news.
At this point I'm starting to think this controversy is already being funded by Amazon to sell more cameras.
Re: (Score:1)
Give us the login for the camera pointing in front of your doorbell. What do you have to hide? There isn't a camera there? What do you have to hide? What if I offer to pay for the camera? What do you have to hide?
Some of us value our privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Then don't get a Ring doorbell. What "privacy"? It is like you snowflakes are just learning about cameras or something.
Re: (Score:2)
They are paranoid that you might become paranoid.
So the information about what happens on front doorsteps must be controlled. To prevent you from becoming paranoid. In the name of ... [checks notes] ... freedom.
Re: (Score:1)
The police catch the criminals...who stole something outside a home, who entered a home.
Now "experts" want privacy and protection for the criminals? So the world can see who is doing the crime?
In what US cities crime is "allowed" for political reasons.
Upload the video clips and show the world who is doing crime.
Re: (Score:1)
Totally objective (Score:1)
Yeah, no fear-mongering here...
Nope, not here either. Just the cold objective truth.
Interesting, do these people want discrimination?!
"one man at Ring who might listen to reason" (Score:2)
Suppose you actually convince him it's completely evil. Is he:
(a) going to break his contract,
(b) be sued BECAUSE he broke his contract,
(c) finish his contract and not sign up, or
(d) finish his contract and RE-sign up..
What, do you think he's doing this because he's just nice and likes the product? (He may be nice and he may like the product, but that's
Re: (Score:3)
What?!? He's a SPOKESMAN. He's a paid public face. He's a REPLACEABLE public face. Do you really think management actually cares what he thinks?
More realistically, they are trying to piggyback on Shaq's name recognition to get the general public aware of the dangers that these pose in the EFF's opinion. Heck, we're talking about it right here, right now, and likely wouldn't have been if it wasn't for this open challenge, and there hasn't even been a 'debate' yet. And if they do manage to get Shaq/Ring to agree, they'll get a youtube video out of it which Shaq fans may stumble across causing them to pause a moment and think about the issue.
Either
Re: (Score:2)
What personal privacy? Are you guys just learning about video cameras? It is 2019 you know. Security cameras have been around for decades and the police sometimes use them too.
Four Minutes Ago I Had Some Respect For The EFF (Score:1)
You know what Ring mostly sees around here? (Score:3)
Been lurking in Neighboors for a while to see what Ring sees. You know what Ring mostly sees around here?
People tugging on car doorhandles. At 2 in the morning. Sometimes they get lucky and Ring records it. And unlucky in that now their car's been burgled.
Porch pirates but Ring is kinda lousy for this. You want a sideways shot from down low. That's still a work in progress for me.
People, dressed in cop clothing with a cop sidearm and a cop badge banging on a coworker's door at 2:30 am. And looking really, really skeevy. That was no cop. Dressed like one, but no, not a cop. He's tryign to figure out who it was.
Lost pets.
People trying to break into houses. Like, full on you can tell he's using a foot-long crowbar to pry the door open (florida doors swing out, go fig) Fails and fast-walks away. Drawn hoodie, flat-looking backpack on the back. Looked like he's done it a lot, no wasted motion, short quick little movements.
People looking into houses. Shielding their eyes to get a better look (kill the flare)
So yeah, Ring sees a *lot* that otherwise wouldn't be reported, recorded, looked at and talked about.
Is this bad?
Fuck that, mine's charging its battery and I'll be putting it up tomorrow. Considered it for a few months, in the end, it won.
If the police won't take care of things, we will. Don't care what the bleeding hearts think.
Re: (Score:2)
And so goes the argument for a license to carry.
Undermining trust IN GENERAL (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have 12 cameras. They are everywhere all along my property. Hell, two of them track the night sky up North.
I'm a photographer.
People do have a reasonable expectation of privacy to a reasonable degree.
For instance: I can take a photo of a woman standing on the sidewalk outside a pharmacy. That's legal. If I zoom in on the prescription she's holding so the writing is clear, now we've got problems.
Casual goings-on around my property are, by way of reasonable, in public.
Technology adds another level of reason
Re: (Score:2)
While my neighbour can expect that I will see her pick up her paper in the morning, is it reasonable that someone in another country can see her as well?
No, and to make it more localized: your neighbor has no expectation of privacy when she picks up her newspaper out of her driveway in the morning. But if you're photographing her doing it every morning and she sees you, then she's got every right to ask you "Just what the fuck do you think you're doing!?".
Re: (Score:2)
She has the right to ask, but she doesn't have the right to an answer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you just learning that security cameras exist? What a drama queen.
Re: (Score:2)
I start distrusting my neighbors and not even feeling safe walking down my own street.
All the busy-bodies are peering at you through their curtains. And before you can make it to the end of the street, they have phoned the members of the neighborhood quilting club about you as well. So the word is out already. And if you are up to something where that sort of attention makes you uneasy, perhaps you should change your habits.
What a stupid claim/requirement (Score:2)
Before he promotes the sale of cameras that surveil neighborhoods indiscriminately, Shaq should come to the experts.
So anyone that appears in an advertisement for a product needs to "come talk to the experts" before promoting the product?
Slow your roll, EFF - I don't expect Shaw to be an expert on ink jet printers (Epson) or auto insurance (the General) before appearing in those ads, let alone the cruise industry (Carnival Cruises), why must he educate himself before promoting Ring devices? He was smart enough to invest in Ring as a startup, why does the EFF assume he's ignorant to their concerns about Ring devices?
Profiling by exacerbating suspicion and paranoia (Score:1)
Suspicion - its all on video - the world can see the crime and who the criminals are...
Poor people shop online too.
They have a right to keep the package they have delivered too.
They had to save working class wage to pay for that delivery.
Why should some criminal in the area get the "privacy" to steal?
It not "paranoia" when people can play back the images of criminals doing crime in once good parts of a city.
You guys (Score:2)
Don't do anything in public ... (Score:2)
.. that you wouldn't want your wife, child, friends, or mother to see. Because someone might see you.
One has no privacy in public.
Period.
You want privacy, stay home with the curtains closed.
Oh .. and another thing. You are very boring. No one cares what you are doing. No one is looking at the video except for that busybody down the street who has been peering out her front window for years and you never even knew. And that other weird guy that has had a camera running 24x7 and likes to fast forward it ever