Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Government

Police Can Keep Ring Camera Video Forever, and Share With Whomever They'd Like (stripes.com) 107

Posted by EditorDavid from the I-filmed-what-you-did-last-summer dept.
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...
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Police Can Keep Ring Camera Video Forever, and Share With Whomever They'd Like More

Police Can Keep Ring Camera Video Forever, and Share With Whomever They'd Like

Comments Filter:

  • Big Tech are in it for the money. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by QuietLagoon ( 813062 ) on Sunday November 24, 2019 @12:44PM (#59448950)
    Privacy be damned. Constitution be damned. So long as the profits continue to flow.

    • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by Freischutz ( 4776131 )

      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?

      • 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)

          by CoolDiscoRex ( 5227177 )

          “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)

            by rtb61 ( 674572 )

            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:2)

            by zidium ( 2550286 )

            Assuming that true “critical thinking” begins at an IQ of 110, and realizing that roughly 2/3rds of Americans are below this level, we have decisions about what’s acceptable in consumer technology being made by those least likely to fully understand or care about their ramifications.

            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

        • 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.

    • 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)

      by mi ( 197448 )

      Privacy be damned

      There is no privacy in a public street.

      Constitution be damned

      If a cop could stand there watching, legally, so can a camera.

      So long as the profits continue to flow

      To profit, you have to be doing something, that people want...

      • Re:Big Tech are in it for the money. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by AleRunner ( 4556245 ) on Sunday November 24, 2019 @02:07PM (#59449234)

        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

      • 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...

      • > 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

      • Actually, no. It's called stalking. And there is no way that I trust bored cops or incel cops or jilted cops not to use this for stalking, same as they get caught doing illegal searches through police databases on their neighbours they're having a beef with.

        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

      • We get that you lack a basic education, but that doesn't excuse your inability to grasp why police access to cameras recording everything everyone does all the time everywhere they go is a bad thing.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        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.

    • You understand this couldn't happen without the cooperation of all the people paying their own money to purchase these devices and installing them on their homes and connecting them to the wireless network they are also paying for. Don't let them off the hook.

    • How many times is Slashduh going to repost this same article?

    • Privacy be damned. Constitution be damned. So long as the profits continue to flow.

      Ah yes. The republican credo.

  • So, what's the plan? Anything gonna be done about it? Or is it just one of those things?

    • Wat will be done? Easy. A bunch of people will yammer about Big Corps, Congress will make a lot of noise about Regulations on Big Corps, and nobody will bother passing any laws which actually tell the Police they can't do what they're doing.

    • Short (Score:2)

      by JBMcB ( 73720 )

      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)

    by Ungrounded Lightning ( 62228 ) on Sunday November 24, 2019 @01:05PM (#59449006) Journal

    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:2)

      by mi ( 197448 )

      How am I supposed to enforce this? Take him to court? Under what law?

      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)

        by Cederic ( 9623 )

        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)

          by mi ( 197448 )

          There are in the UK.

          Citation needed.

          Anti-stalking

          What "stalking"? The camer is stationary, it is not following (stalking) you around. It is not harassing you either...

          Infringement of your rights to privacy

          No such infringement is possible in a public street. There is no privacy there.

          That's not even true in the US.

          Citation needed.

          In the UK there is a legal right to privacy

          Not in a public street.

          Causing distress suffices.

          Oh, wow — an inanimate object hanging on somebody's door is causing you distress? I

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by schwit1 ( 797399 )

      I wonder what a lower power laser pointed at the camera would see.

      • I would be curious to see what that would do. Somebody with one of these things try it and let us know. Maybe try an inexpensive laser pointer, a focused IR light, an IR laser, etc...
    • Point a cheap laser pointer at his camera. I used to do that at work. They won't see the beam, just that the camera has gone defective.
    • Is the fidelity of this camera good enough to identify you from across the street? Wide angle security cameras are typically not all that great past 20 feet or so. If you want (for example) license plate recognition for people who stop at your house you need good placement and a narrow focus security camera with good optics.
      • 4K cameras with good lenses are common now.

      • From Safehome.org [safehome.org]:

        Ring Video Doorbell offers built-in night vision, smart motion detection and two-way voice communication with noise cancellation. The HD camera has a 180-degree field of view with 720p @ 30 frames per second. ...

        The Ring Pro offers a 1080p wide-angle camera for exceptional video quality. It has a 160-degree field of view and uses LED technology with its built-in night vision. It offers advanced motion detection and noise canceling two-way voice communication.

        Note that the devices (both ver

        • They are capable of recording audio, that does not equal turned on (although it may well be in the many states where that is legal). To my original point, 720p with junk optics is not positively identifying a thing 60 feet away unless it's a house.

  • 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 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)

      by Archfeld ( 6757 )

      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)

      by Ken D ( 100098 )

      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

      • I wouldn't rely on Google maps as a reliable source of lot lines. Even the county web site here has the lot lines a little off. Where I used to live, the residential streets were owned by the residents up to the center line of the street. With a public right of way that extended 10 feet beyond the back of the curbing. Additional drainage and utility rights of way existed in various places, but the owner of the lot was responsible for the upkeep. In fact, when they wanted to fix sidewalks, they billed the ho

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Ken D ( 100098 )

          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.

    • "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)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      People can "report" like media and use CCTV. Freedom of the media, the freedom to buy and use a CCTV product.
      The freedom to report a criminal and crime to police.

    • 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 deal about it.

    You power of discovery

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Kohath ( 38547 )

      There's no expectation of privacy in public for anyone. Minors count as anyone.

      • 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)

          by Kohath ( 38547 )

          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)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Eyes cannot trespass.
      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...

  • Anything that is recorded, can. and. will. be used against you.

    Because "protect and server". /s

  • Look up more (Score:3)

    by LordWabbit2 ( 2440804 ) on Sunday November 24, 2019 @03:01PM (#59449392)
    Look up more, there are cameras everywhere already. I live in a third world country, I worked on a project that involved building automation systems and part of that was the camera's in the building, and outside the building etc. So I got into the habit of looking up and noticing camera's, and that spilled over into looking up when I wasn't on site. This ring sting is like trying to close the barn door after the horse has bolted. Camera's are so cheap that anyone worried about security installs one (and then promptly forgets about it) hoping it will act as a deterrent (it generally doesn't, because people don't notice them) and it's taking footage of everything all the time, and if the mass infection of cameras to mine bitcoin is any indication most of them have factory admin passwords.

    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.
    • Auto-twitter... or worse: ML auto-social media posts. Would surveillance become a feature? A gym auto-posting before and after progress photos from surveillance... if they people want this it also serves as a new grassroots style organic synergistic marketing platform.

  • 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.

  • 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?

  • 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

    • 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.

  • If you have a camera on your porch you're stupid. Haters are welcome on my porch.

  • 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

  • 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)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      People see who is doing the crime.
      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.
  • I thought that Police had to have the home owners permission first before they could access any saved recordings?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/08/28/doorbell-camera-firm-ring-has-partnered-with-police-forces-extending-surveillance-reach/ [washingtonpost.com]

    The partnerships let police request the video recorded by homeownersâ(TM) cameras within a specific time and area, helping officers see footage from the companyâ(TM)s millions of Internet-connected cameras installed nationwide, the company said.

  • How can a person be concerned about their privacy in a public space? That's why they call it public hmm?
    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

    • 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

Slashdot Top Deals

Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills. -- Ambrose Bierce

Close