Police Can Keep Ring Camera Video Forever, and Share With Whomever They'd Like (stripes.com) 107
schwit1 shared this new from the Washington Post:
Police officers who download videos captured by homeowners' Ring doorbell cameras can keep them forever and share them with whomever they'd like without providing evidence of a crime, the Amazon-owned firm told a lawmaker this month... Police in those communities can use Ring software to request up to 12 hours of video from anyone within half a square mile of a suspected crime scene, covering a 45-day time span, wrote Brian Huseman, Amazon's vice president of public policy. Police are required to include a case number for the crime they are investigating, but not any other details or evidence related to the crime or their request.
Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., said in a statement that Ring's policies showed that the company had failed to enact basic safeguards to protect Americans' privacy. "Connected doorbells are well on their way to becoming a mainstay of American households, and the lack of privacy and civil rights protections for innocent residents is nothing short of chilling," he said. "If you're an adult walking your dog or a child playing on the sidewalk, you shouldn't have to worry that Ring's products are amassing footage of you and that law enforcement may hold that footage indefinitely or share that footage with any third parties."
While Ring tells users not to film public roads are sidewalks, Ring isn't enforcing that, according to the article. Amazon argues that that's ultimately the user's responsibility.
And will their cameras start using facial recognition algorithms? Amazon answers that that feature is "contemplated but unreleased," though they add that "We do frequently innovate based on customer demand," and point out that other competing security cameras are already offering facial-recognition...
Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., said in a statement that Ring's policies showed that the company had failed to enact basic safeguards to protect Americans' privacy. "Connected doorbells are well on their way to becoming a mainstay of American households, and the lack of privacy and civil rights protections for innocent residents is nothing short of chilling," he said. "If you're an adult walking your dog or a child playing on the sidewalk, you shouldn't have to worry that Ring's products are amassing footage of you and that law enforcement may hold that footage indefinitely or share that footage with any third parties."
While Ring tells users not to film public roads are sidewalks, Ring isn't enforcing that, according to the article. Amazon argues that that's ultimately the user's responsibility.
And will their cameras start using facial recognition algorithms? Amazon answers that that feature is "contemplated but unreleased," though they add that "We do frequently innovate based on customer demand," and point out that other competing security cameras are already offering facial-recognition...
Big Tech are in it for the money. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Privacy be damned. Constitution be damned. So long as the profits continue to flow.
Yummm..... Isn't the totalitarian police state, ruled by populist strong man, wonderful?
Re: (Score:2)
You do understand that these cameras are owned by private individuals, not the police. More, the police need the individual's permission before they can have camera footage. What you have hear is basically a 21st century version of the neighborhood watch.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
“More, the police need the individual's permission before they can have camera footage.”
Currently. This won’t be the case indefinitely. The frog’s still on ‘simmer’ with this one and I’m sure somewhere buried in the “agreement” is a clause that let’s them override your permission in certain circumstances.
In 2019, in order to not be a Luddite and utilize the technology of era, you must give up quite a bit. These are trade offs that probably should
Re: (Score:3)
The interesting thing is this kind of technology can also track the rich and greedy and the cronies, the lobbyists and corrupt politicians. Which is why a big stink about it, is kicking up now. They wanted to track us but instead, we can open source network the products and facial recognition and track them, where ever their greed, ego and lusts take them, all of them.
Interesting huh, they really did not think it all they way through originally and they the tech took a leap forward and then SNAP, ohh noes,
Re: (Score:1)
I 150 percent agree with you!
Re: (Score:2)
This is why the Democrats' putsche to "GET EVERYONE OUT TO VOTE" is literally destroying the nation. Most of the people they actually encourage to vote are sub-90 IQ simpletons who only vote for more "free" mon
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the people they actually encourage to vote are sub-90 IQ simpletons
Do you mean Republicans?
Re: (Score:3)
More, the police need the individual's permission before they can have camera footage.
False. They need Amazon's permission, and Amazon will basically have the Red Hot Chili Peppers song on repeat.
Re: Big Tech are in it for the money. (Score:2)
Privacy be damned. Constitution be damned. So long as the profits continue to flow.
Typical government/corporate overreach. Our lives are bought and sold without a penny going to us. Hmmm, where have I seen this before?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is no privacy in a public street.
If a cop could stand there watching, legally, so can a camera.
To profit, you have to be doing something, that people want...
Re:Big Tech are in it for the money. (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no privacy in a public street.
In places with strong privacy laws, people are allowed to see you but they aren't allowed to use that data so yes there is privacy. Even in most less enlightened places that's simply legally not true. The situation is limited, but normally it's okay for someone to see you. However, if someone starts tracking you without reasonable justification then eventually you can use anti-stalking laws to stop them.
What is missing from this, though, is the difference between random data held by many people and mass data aggregation. If you go out and murder someone it's very likely that someone saw you leave and that is likely to be used against you because the whole society will unite to bring the data together. Normally, though the data is of no use because it's too diffuse. If however I gather all the video from all the cameras and then match it against a facial recognition database, I can now identify your patterns of leaving your home. A bent policewoman can then use that data to burgle your house.
The problem is not the filming as such. The problem is the bringing together of the data in a database, together with analysis of that data, meaning that it can be easily abused
Re: (Score:2)
To profit, you have to be doing something, that people want...
That's a really good way to make a profit, but it is certainly not the only way people do so...
Re: (Score:2)
> There is no privacy in a public street.
Someone’s porch is not a public street. Porches can be location on any exterior part of a home, facing in any direction, facing any number of things.
> If a cop could stand there watching, legally, so can a camera.
You’d see the cop and he/she would create a situation of sufficient tension to cause one to modify their behavior. I’m not going to scratch my balls when someone’s staring at me. A doorbell, one of hundreds on the street, is
Re: Big Tech are in it for the money. (Score:2)
Last night was yet another investigative commission trying to paint police racism as "just a problem of systemic bias". -
Hoping for another police strike - crime doesn't go up, but cops making up phoney excuses to harass people goes down.
Keep the de
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In Europe we have GDPR which means you can have CCTV watching your own property, but if it can see on to the street or onto other people's property you need to comply with privacy rules.
If it can see them coming and going from their house, for example, you are probably violating their right to privacy and need to move it or cover that area of the image.
People can also request that you delete footage of them, or supply them with a copy of it if they were outside your property at the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How many times is Slashduh going to repost this same article?
Re: (Score:2)
Privacy be damned. Constitution be damned. So long as the profits continue to flow.
Ah yes. The republican credo.
Really? Was there ever any doubt? (Score:1)
So, what's the plan? Anything gonna be done about it? Or is it just one of those things?
Re: Really? Was there ever any doubt? (Score:1)
Short (Score:2)
The plan is to cover someone's short, or boost up another stock. Why has there been a constant stream of Ring articles over the last few months? Are any other webcam companies doing the same thing? Maybe? Who knows? Doesn't matter?
Our across-the-street neighbor. (Score:5, Interesting)
While Ring tells users not to film public roads are sidewalks, Ring isn't enforcing that, according to the article. Amazon argues that that's ultimately the user's responsibility.
Oh, really?
Our across-the-street neignbor put in a ring button. It faces our house and covers our entrire frontage (with a negligible part - less than a foot - obstructed). And the entire public street snd both sidewalks between us, of course.
So Amazon is happy to give this footage to cops without any warrant and says it's his responsibility to not point the doorbell button this way? How am I supposed to enforce this? Take him to court? Under what law? Complain to the police, the main beneficiaries of this surveilance?
Let me know when the class action suit starts.
Re: (Score:1)
People "walk" around all day and can "see" from the street.
AC if such a law worked then every CCTV camera, media company, citizens doing journalism and people doing First Amendment audits have such laws used on them.
US courts would be full of people using such laws after every encounter and publication of a news story near them.
Showing a frame of them, their "private" property seen from the street and trying to use such laws...
The really simple way of thinking of this f
Re: (Score:2)
You can definitely get arrested for taking pictures through somebody's windows in situations where it is legal to simply look.
Waving your hands in that direction is not a good enough analysis to rule out the applicability of "peeping tom" laws.
Re: (Score:1)
Private property owned by the person giving the CCTV images to the police... the person reporting the crime
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. There is no law being violated — there is nothing illegal about someone standing in front of your house and watching you, all day, if they choose to. Your house can be seen, and so it can be recorded — as Google did, no doubt, when it photographed the whole nation for their Street View.
And, of course, all of the recordings I make are mine to share with whomever I please — the entire profession of "paparazzi" exis
Re: (Score:2)
There is no law being violated
There are in the UK.
there is nothing illegal about someone standing in front of your house and watching you, all day, if they choose to
There are in the UK. Anti-stalking, anti-harassment laws. Infringement of your rights to privacy.
Your house can be seen, and so it can be recorded â" as Google did, no doubt, when it photographed the whole nation for their Street View.
A handful of static images is materially different to round-the-clock video surveillance. Even if you would draw parallels the courts recognise the difference.
And, of course, all of the recordings I make are mine to share with whomever I please
That's not even true in the US.
Nor are you suffering any damages. So why would there be any such legal action?
In the UK there is a legal right to privacy. Video footage of people in public can fall foul of the related laws; video footage of people in their own home taken by strangers absolutely does.
What damage? C
Re: (Score:2)
Citation needed.
What "stalking"? The camer is stationary, it is not following (stalking) you around. It is not harassing you either...
No such infringement is possible in a public street. There is no privacy there.
Citation needed.
Not in a public street.
Oh, wow — an inanimate object hanging on somebody's door is causing you distress? I
Re: (Score:2)
Here, let me help you with a couple of citations:
https://google.com/ [google.com]
https://bing.com/ [bing.com]
https://learntofuckingsearchon... [learntofuc...zycunt.com]
The person to whom you replied is talking about someone repeatedly and continually filming his home. Too fucking right there's a right to privacy, quite apart from the various legal constraints on filming in public.
Re: (Score:2)
Here, asshole, let me give you a citation too [imgur.com].
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder what a lower power laser pointed at the camera would see.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Our across-the-street neighbor. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Security cameras are legal. Willfully damaging your neighbor’s property, is not.
Re: Our across-the-street neighbor. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From Safehome.org [safehome.org]:
Note that the devices (both ver
Re: (Score:2)
People are the problem (Score:2)
The problem is people willingly purchase video surveillance systems that upload their video to "the cloud". The people who purchase Ring Cameras don't care about personal liberty.
Sidewalks (Score:2)
Sidewalks are on land owned by the householder, who is legally responsible for the upkeep... even if the city does the install and repair work. So surely the householder can record what they like on their property, including sidewalk, despite the public right of way rights?
Re: (Score:2)
What gives you the expectation of privacy while appearing in public ? In my area sidewalks are not owned by the householder but rather public property. Either way what is visible from the street is legal tender so to speak. That is why they have 6' privacy fences in most neighborhoods. On top of all that anyone foolish enough to upload video to a google owned data storage with no privacy agreement gets what they deserve... outed ?
What happened to anonymous posting here ? You have to login to post anonymous
Re: (Score:2)
The road and sidewalk do not typically belong to the property that they front. You can easily view the approximate property lines at maps.google.com and see that public roads reside in their own piece of property. In my area the side roads are much smaller than the width of the roadway (which is of some standard width), so for my property the property line is actually some 10 feet back from the edge of the pavement. I have a fence at this line, and could have erected one closer to the road only with the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I said "approximate". It's good enough to see that there are lot lines on each side of the roadway, The ridiculousness of some hammerhead lots, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
"Sidewalks are on land owned by the householder"
While I'm sure this varies by state, city to city, and even parcel to parcel, I can tell you that at least in my area this statement is false ~95% of the time. Most areas (again around me) there is a meaningful attempt to place the sidewalk in the "Right of way", in cities most of the time you are in a subdivision, and in most subdivisions the owners "lot" ends at the ROW as designated in the subdivision plans. The only times you'd generally outright own the
Re: (Score:1)
The freedom to report a criminal and crime to police.
Re: (Score:2)
Sidewalks are on land owned by the householder, who is legally responsible for the upkeep... even if the city does the install and repair work.
In the US this is almost never true, sidewalks are owned by the City, even when the property owner is responsible for some maintenance. The city also owns the strip of land between the sidewalk and the street. And yes, the resident or property owner is responsible for mowing any grass.
get a good lawyer for your case and make a big (Score:2)
get a good lawyer for your case and make a big deal about it.
You power of discovery
What is the law on recording minors in public? (Score:2)
Is there any law?
Re: (Score:2)
There's no expectation of privacy in public for anyone. Minors count as anyone.
Re: (Score:1)
Good luck making that argument to a judge. Minors count as minors. A subway station is a public space. Does that allow you to film an upskirt while in one?
Any camera capturing private property, no matter how many public places might be included, is going to give you legal problems. If your doorbell camera captures my 15 year-old daughter's bedroom window and I find out about it you're going to be a registered sex offender for the rest of your life.
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck making that argument to a judge. Minors count as minors. A subway station is a public space. Does that allow you to film an upskirt while in one?
It won't matter whether your upskirt camera is used on minors or adults. Upskirt cameras get prosecuted. Don't be dumb.
If your doorbell camera captures my 15 year-old daughter's bedroom window and I find out about it you're going to be a registered sex offender for the rest of your life.
I don't have any cameras. But no, a camera aimed at a public space won't be a problem. Tell her anyone can stand on the sidewalk and see her and capture as much video as they want.
Re: (Score:1)
CCTV can work as a service and product.
People can give resulting media file that to police.
If any such laws existed and stopped such camera work?
Every CCTV installed in the same way would not be legal.
News reports, camera use and First Amendment Audits would not be legal...
Such laws would see all media in the USA look very different if such laws got used...
s/can/DO/ (Score:2)
Anything that is recorded, can. and. will. be used against you.
Because "protect and server". /s
Look up more (Score:3)
I'm not saying we shouldn't try restrict their use, or access to the footage, but whining about it now and getting all hyped about "stopping the police state" has come and gone LOOOONG ago.
And it's not just idiots with connected doorbells.
I lived in a smallish suburb that had only two road entrances. One of the private security companies that most people were signed up with approached all members about installing LPR camera's on the two entrances. Most people agreed and paid the once off charge and they installed the camera's. So now it's not the police who know when I come and go, it's a private security company as well. I will also wager a years pay that the private security company doesn't have the technical skill to install and maintain the camera's, so that was contracted out to some other IT related company. I may as well have a twitter feed telling everyone when I go out.
So yeah, idiots with doorbells are the least of your police state monitoring worries.
Lets not forget, ALL highways have camera's, so even if you evade your neighbours doorbell, and the overzealous security companies LPR camera's, if you get on a highway you are on camera (with LPR), not to mention the myriad of camera's in criminal "hotspots" to "combat crime".
Lesson of the day, SMILE, you're on camera.
Re: Look up more (Score:2)
lets not forget (Score:2)
ring will only turn over the video footage without a warrant if the owner agrees, otherwise a warrant is needed. but this includes ALL doorbell cameras, security cameras and anything else that collects video, not just ring. the only thing ring does differently is they market the feature.
If there is a major crime in your neighborhood, the police will canvas it and ask for footage from anyone with a video camera. If you refuse, they will get a warrant no matter the camera brand.
Work for the Cops for FREE (Score:2)
So, if we install a Ring system, the cops have free reign to send out orders for work for them to be done on us the taxpayers' own time?
Re: (Score:2)
It's considered public service.
All the hand-wringing, and there's still this: (Score:2)
All the hand-wringing is to be expected, but no one's really considering reality:
If you're expecting this thing, with its 1920 x 1080 with 155* field of view to be a super privacy intruder you'll be sorely disappointing. Reality doesn't work like CSI or whatever pap is on TV these days.
You photographers will recognize the problem, this is a wide-angle from *hell*.
You'll get a decent shot head-on, and it's a great little intercom.
But it won't let you clearly see the guy in the hoodie 75 yards away in the si
Re: (Score:2)
Lemme rephrase something -- the motion detection sees out to the mailbox and the sides of the driveway, which means whatever is on the streets and sidewalks and sky won't be recorded... ...unless it's already recording something else, like the delivery guy.
Ding Dong (Score:2)
Profit by FUD. (Score:2)
What I see is a game of "disrupt" playing out. In this case its a game of force the surveillance conversation and cash in from both sides during the battle.
The game plan is this.
1. Get as many ring cameras installed so you will have a huge footprint that can't be easily removed. Check.
2. Get as many police departments hooked on the fairly awesome surveillance system. Check.
3. Sit back and watch as the two sides fight it out in courts and media. Offer solutions to both sides. Declare yourself the
Re: (Score:2)
Why?
Not sure about your criminal red herring, but for the rest of us regular citizens this is the infrastructure for domestic spying down to our neighborhoods. Most of us don't trust Amazon to do right with our information anymore than we trust the NSA to do right with our information. In this case, it's all just one subpoena, or overzealous DOJ away from full government access.
All of this in the name of one less burglary? Not for me.
--
Won't somebody please think of the children? - Helen Lovejoy
Re: (Score:1)
Why should the poor and working poor have to accept decades of "burglary" as police had new tech removed from them due to city politics?
Whats the next science that police cant do to protect the privacy of criminals?
Anti-Ring (Score:2)
I don't get all the anti-Ring hate. Ring is just a cheapo security camera. It doesn't even work long distance. It is only good for about 20 feet or so. It doesn't record continuously, only when it detects motion nearby. There are other security cameras that have much better resolution and can record 24x7. The police can request video from any of those cameras as well.
Re: (Score:1)
The world can see who is doing the crime, per US city.
Who is stealing for the poor, working poor, middle class and wealthy. Again and again.
Why should poor people accept the cost of crime and accept "privacy" for criminals?
Have to pay for the results of crime over decades?
So criminals can get a way with crime? So police cant see who is doing crime?
So the world cant see who is allowed to do crime due to a lack of policing?
The results of lax and no police work over d
Fuck Ring. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a sign up sheet or do I just show up and wedge myself in?
Do the police request from home owner, or Amazon? (Score:2)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/08/28/doorbell-camera-firm-ring-has-partnered-with-police-forces-extending-surveillance-reach/ [washingtonpost.com]
what? (Score:1)
Also why is a Senator painting local police like they are some kind of creepy stocker?
Further, there seems to be a lot of fear by the administration to try and circumvent the publics' surveillance of public areas. What kind of liabilities are they trying to mitigate people from capturing?
And lastly, how many of us believe the US government actually cares about our privacy given all the illegal survei
Re: (Score:2)
How can a person be concerned about their privacy in a public space? That's why they call it public hmm?
If you are hiking in a public park, national forest, or whatever, and you step behind a tree to relieve yourself, do you have an expectation of privacy? If not, why did you even step behind the tree? Would you be surprised to find hidden cameras on every tree recording what you are doing? Would you think of that as being somehow inappropriate? Or would you just shrug it off as 'public place, no expectation of privacy'?
Also, if you are walking down a trail with nobody around, you are likely to be willing
Re: DOORBELL CAMERAS R IMMENSELY BENEFICIAL!!! (Score:1)
You put cameras in your house and release it unedited to the public first.
Nice bathrobe, by the way.
Re: DOORBELL CAMERAS R IMMENSELY BENEFICIAL!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
His house is private. The street is public.
Re: DOORBELL CAMERAS R IMMENSELY BENEFICIAL!!! (Score:4, Informative)
His house is private. The street is public.
Nope. His house is private. The street belongs to the city. And is private to all citizens in relation to the police. The police has no right to "take a video" filmed from a "private house" (illegally pointing at a 'public space') pointing into the cities space, nor has Amazon the right to give the videos away that are:
a) owner ship/copyrighted by the owner of the device
b) ownership/copyrighted - under privacy laws (ok, a joke in the US) - by he actually non consenting people on the pictures filmed by those cameras
That happening basically would break 10 laws in Europe and most certainly a hand full in the US, too
However the amazing thing is that there are still americans on /. that find this: ok!
Re: (Score:2)
and most certainly a hand full in the US, too
Cite a single one.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps not in Europe where privacy rights may trump contracts, but in the US, Amazon clearly has the right to give away the recordings:
"You hereby grant Ring and its licensees an unlimited, irrevocable, fee free and royalty-free, perpetual, worldwide right to use, distribute, store, delete, translate, copy, modify, display, and create derivative works from such Content that you share through our Services" [ring.com]
Re: (Score:2)
They will be so much more efficient than the stupid old government, and we won't have to worry about those pointless "elections" anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt this contract is enforceable.
You buy a device.
What has the seller to have any rights about he pictures that device takes?
What is next? You buy an iPhone and you think Apple has the right on all the pictures you take with it?
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the "Your hereby grant..." portion. You have rights to the video of your own camera. But the license ALSO grants others rights as well. So you can keep your photos, and they can give away their copies as they see fit
Re: (Score:1)
The media, press, owning a video recoding device is not a crime in the USA to be looking into bay an EU gov...
Walk onto a persons private property and do a crime? Expect a police repot of that crime.
The police can ask if CCTV like images, video exists.. can they have a copy...
Just like with CCTV and VHS tape, the police get a copy.
The files also stay with the victim of the crime...
They can broadcast the video, give/sell video to the media, be t
Re: DOORBELL CAMERAS R IMMENSELY BENEFICIAL!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
(illegally pointing at a 'public space')
Holy shit, you're retarded. Anyone can film a public space.
Re: (Score:1)
Not legally - with a fixed installed camera and then distributing pictures of the people who did not consent to be "distributed".
You can make hand shots, and show them to your friends, but putting them on social media is already at the edge. Unless you film a public figure at a _public event_!!
It is illegal to make a picture of my visiting the parade of the Queens Birthday and publishing it on FB or on your website. Because: it is me ... I'm not the queen, I'm a random guy at the celebration.
Re: (Score:2)
It is illegal to make a picture of my visiting the parade of the Queens Birthday and publishing it on FB or on your website.
Not in the UK it isn't. You have no expectation of privacy in public and it is both legal to photograph you, and to publish that photograph.
Using your image for commercial purposes introduces complications, but trust me, I have a website full of street photography with no model releases and no legal issues.
I particularly enjoy taking candid photographs of police officers. The good ones notice anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Of curse you have no legal issues. :P
Because the people you publish don't know and/or don't care.
Nevertheless it is not legal. Perhaps after BREXIT
Re: (Score:2)
Oh for fuck's sake. It is legal to photograph people in public in the UK. It is legal to publish those photographs.
Shit, it's legal to photograph and publish photographs of children.
I have no legal issues because my actions are legal. I photograph people in public, which is a legal thing to do. Legal. Allowed by the law. Not illegal. Permissible. Entirely, completely, utterly and wholly legal.
I hope that helps clarify things for you.
Re: (Score:2)
If the person can be identified, as in close up, it is not legal to publish it without their permission.
That is fact since 50 years or more, regardless of EU or not EU.
Your knowledge is simply not up to date.
The only exception are public figures in public events. Your millage, what a public figure is, and what a public event is: may vary.
In other words: if you make a photo of the Eiffel tower when I'm in front of it, looking at you, a watcher can identify me: it is not legal to post it without my permission
Re: (Score:2)
The Eiffel Tower is in Paris and I don't know French photography law.
In the UK? Yeah, I can photograph you, I can publish that photograph, I can even tag the photograph with your name.
Your options are to like it or to seethe in bitter anger at the injustice of the world; the photograph stays up anyway.
I'm not your free of charge photo model to make your Eiffel tower picture more impressive.
No, you'd be the subject of my photograph. I don't want you to model, I greatly prefer candid portraiture, capturing who the person is and not the persona they want to portray.
Re: (Score:3)
(illegally pointing at a 'public space')
In the US we're allowed to photograph a public space. It is always legal.
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty common here in Jurup too AFAIK. It is the distribution and/or publication that is severely restricted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well damn, guess I just dont exist because I dont fit your narrative.
Fuck constant surveillance. Even Ring says these shouldnt be pointed at public space
Re: (Score:1)
Slashdot Moderation - The Early Days
——-
The Earth is Round! (Score: -475, Troll)
By C. Columbus (15) on Saturday December 8, 1492 @21:36 (#817)
I confirmed it for myself!
——-
I don’t agree with you, BTW. In fact, I seriously disagree with you. This doesn’t mean that you are a troll, though. Your beliefs are probably sincerely held.
I don’t think most modern US police officers consider protecting and serving their highest priority. I think that police officers, being h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Gubbermint does not own it all. Big Biz like Google, Facebook and Amazon own it all.
By 'IT' I mean your data, your life and everything.
It will only get worse as more people think that buying this sort of [redacted] is a good idea. Eventually, some might wake up and realise that it is not a good idea in any shape or form whatsoever.