Ring Reportedly Outed Camera Owners To Police With a Heat Map (theverge.com) 102
Amazon-owned home surveillance company Ring gave law enforcement a heat map that let police see all devices installed in an area, allowing them to view users down to the street level. CNET first reported the news. From a report: While the feature was removed in July, law enforcement could reportedly use the function to search for the concentration of cameras in a neighborhood, and even see circles drawn around individual user locations. The documents that revealed the feature were obtained by a privacy researcher and shared with the publication. The feature was so specific, according to CNET, that police could essentially obtain the specific location of Ring customers. While police can request videos from users through Ring, the company has denied that it provides information to law enforcement on who, specifically, owns their products. Ring said in a statement to CNET that zooming in on the map "would not provide actual device locations."
Paying for Your Own Surveilance (Score:5, Funny)
So over the top Amazon, not only making people pay to be surveilled but generating a profit in both directions, from the surveilling and from the surveilled and even all their visitors, now that is just so deliciously evil, well done Bezos, going for that cartoon level evil billionaire thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon is well on its way (Score:2)
With all these news about Ring, it looks like Bezos is vying hard to get Amazon up the Privacy Rapists chart.
The current standings are:
- Facebook (Privacy Rapists 1.0)
- Google (Privacy Rapists 2.0)
- Amazon (Privacy Rapists 2.5 - formerly at 3.0)
Re:Paying for Your Own Surveilance (Score:4, Funny)
So over the top Amazon, not only making people pay to be surveilled but generating a profit in both directions, from the surveilling and from the surveilled and even all their visitors, now that is just so deliciously evil, well done Bezos, going for that cartoon level evil billionaire thing.
"Only in a Police State is the job of a Policeman easy." -Orson Welles, "A Touch of Evil", 1958 (I always thought it was George Orwell)
https://www.quotes.net/quote/7... [quotes.net]
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/... [wikiquote.org]
Re:Paying for Your Own Surveilance (Score:4, Insightful)
"Only in a Police State is the job of a Policeman easy." -Orson Welles
But it also gets a lot harder when people get tired of the bullshit. The police in Hong Kong are learning this now. China has also underestimated that you must take your time enslaving people... can't rush the job or you backlash. If your people will rebel when you extradite them... start with only making that mandatory for convicted criminals... then slowly work your way up to everyone. It works... it works damn good too!
Re: (Score:2)
There are many people around the world who have been enslaved at times who would disagree with this. Whether enslaved by weapons or by poverty, the change for individuals is _very_ fast. For a population, it can take longer to convince them this is he way they should live. But nations after revolutions, around the world, have often been enslaved within a generation afterwards.
Re:Paying for Your Own Surveilance (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Maps don't show locations (Score:5, Informative)
Ring said in a statement to CNET that zooming in on the map "would not provide actual device locations."
It's good to know that maps don't give visual indications of a location.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It won't show exactly where the camera is just where the house that contains the camera is. It's up to the cops to guess that it might be located say at the front door ;)
Re: (Score:2)
The police in my area have actually requested those of us who own such cameras to let them know and they'll contact us if they need evidence. I opted out.
The camera is very useful, there are a lot of thieves out there. I will gladly fork over any footage I have of thievery caught on its camera. I will not, however fork over footage of every teenager smoking a joint or up to harmless antics, every improperly parked car, every mild infraction some teenager gets up to (I know their parents, that's all I need).
Re: (Score:2)
In most cities if you register a security camera with the city they will pay your costs.
Re:So if they allow Ring users to opt in (Score:5, Insightful)
They do not need a warrant, nor your permission, nor probable cause. This is because you do not own the video footage. You lost ownership rights when you agreed to store the video on Rings servers. The video belongs to Ring and Ring can give it to anyone who asks for it.
Re:So if they allow Ring users to opt in (Score:5, Informative)
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 including, without limitation, the Ring Neighbors feature or application, the Ring Community, or via a share link, for any purpose and in any media format. You shall not use, reproduce, modify, upload, publish, transmit, distribute, display, or otherwise exploit for any purposes whatsoever any Content: (i) not owned by you without the express prior written consent of the respective owners, and (ii) in any way that violates any third party right. Ring reserves the right, but shall not be obligated, to remove any Content from the Services at any time in its sole and absolute discretion. You agree that you will indemnify Ring for all claims and resulting from Content you share through our Services, including, without limitation, the Ring Neighbors feature or application or Ring Community
Re: (Score:2)
The police in my area have actually requested those of us who own such cameras to let them know and they'll contact us if they need evidence. I opted out.
Which tells them that they might have a strong interest in you.
The camera is very useful, there are a lot of thieves out there. I will gladly fork over any footage I have of thievery caught on its camera. I will not, however fork over footage of every teenager smoking a joint or up to harmless antics, every improperly parked car, every mild infraction some teenager gets up to (I know their parents, that's all I need).
That a security camera can provide useful footage is beyond doubt. But having cameras that Law enforcement has direct and easy access to is not needed. It is pretty obvious by now that they do. Even your opting out only tells them that you might have a reason, so you can bet they'll sneak a peek at it.
You want a security cam, there are less open IP solutions, or non internet connected versions out there.
Re: (Score:2)
Not all, but most people who have security systems expect their security companies to work with law enforcement to help keep their property and neighborhood safe. There is however a limit, I would rather law enforcement and the security employees not be able to just stream my wife sunbathing in the summer that is not only an invasion of privacy it's creepy. After all people are people no matter where they work.
My cameras are mine and I control my footage not someone else but I have given law enforcement som
Re: (Score:2)
Not all, but most people who have security systems expect their security companies to work with law enforcement to help keep their property and neighborhood safe. There is however a limit, I would rather law enforcement and the security employees not be able to just stream my wife sunbathing in the summer that is not only an invasion of privacy it's creepy. After all people are people no matter where they work.
My cameras are mine and I control my footage not someone else but I have given law enforcement some footage (no body was sunbathing).
Oh yes - I am all about sending Law enforcement footage if needed. But for the same reasons as you, I'd like to restrict that to voluntary or subpoena situations, not the fishing expeditions that we know will happen with these always on, always watching, and always available systems.
Re:And who is supposed to be bothered by this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Another day, another big-brother apology post from timholman.
Re: (Score:2)
Another day, another big-brother apology post from timholman.
He has a point though.
Anyone who believes that Ring cameras violate their privacy won't install them. Those who do install them are a self-selecting group.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That happens already with business security cams. Should a homeowner have less rights than a business in this regard?
Re: (Score:2)
Consent isn't required to photograph people in public spaces or visible from public spaces.
Re: (Score:2)
The entire point of having a Ring camera is to share the video with your neighbors and with the police.
Funny; that's not what the Ring Commercials emphasize at all. They emphasize that you, the homeowner, was the intended viewer/listener of the video and audio; not the Jackboots. And not your "neighbors", either!
Re: (Score:1)
Of course homeowners can keep their Ring video recordings strictly private ... if that is what they choose. They can also share the video with anyone they please, be it their neighbors or the police. Again, that is their choice. The situation is no different than if I were to share a video recorde
Re: (Score:3)
Somehow you want to pretend that a Ring camera is some sort of Orwellian telescreen being installed by the Thought Police. It is a security device voluntarily purchased and installed by homeowners.
I very well understand the benefits and limitations of consumer home surveillance equipment. I have had cameras and a security "server" at home for well over a decade.
Where I have a problem is when (not if) Amazon makes a back-door deal with LEO, and silently and without permission puts you on that "Heat Map", and a Process Server shows up at your door one fine day with a Subpoena Duces Tecum for your video footage.
Then it becomes a non-voluntary situation.
It's not the devices we fear; as usual, it's the hu
Re: (Score:2)
The police can already do that if they notice you have security cameras. Seriously, what a drama queen.
Re: (Score:1)
Wouldn't that be completely pointless, given that the video isn't actually stored on the Ring camera, but instead is stored on an Amazon server?
But do you know what could be subpoenaed? The video footage from your conventional security camera system. So does
Re: (Score:3)
Under no circumstances should people assist cops in their pursuit of our own neighborhood safety, law, and order.
Re: (Score:1)
Like with decades of CCTV after a crime...
First amendment auditors get to use a camera on a street and publish.
CCTV like networks on private land?
Their CCTV images.
Just as "all the traffic going down the street" was seen by years of CCTV... from private property...
Re: And who is supposed to be bothered by this? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Nice name. Sure all sorts of weapons have pro's and con's but an AR-15 for home defense is not a stupid choice. Whether or not it is optimal must also take into account the nature of said home defense strategy and of course the invasion. Sometimes there is more than one criminal entering your home... sometimes they are armed as well. Having a high capacity and accurate weapon becomes far more useful in that scenario than a short barrel shotgun. While this certainly does not diminish the usefulness or p
Re: (Score:1)
The problem with an AR-15 for home defense is that the round can still go through several walls/ceilings after going through the person you're aiming at (and one or two you aren't).
Re: (Score:2)
Over penetration is a concern associated more with the ammo you are using not the platform in which is is fired from. Read the article, not all AR-15s are the same, they are highly configurable which is just another reason they are so popular. Flexible, Reliable, and easy to use. That does count for something.
Now if someone said they are using an AR-15 with 7.62 designed for AP usage then there would be more merit to the being stupid argument and definitely to the over penetration argument.
I am no weapon
Re: (Score:1)
Standard AR-15's are chambered in .223/5.56 NATO. You can put different uppers on an AR-15 receiver that will handle different calibers, but unless you configure it to fire a low-power handgun round it's going to shoot through walls if fired inside a house with any rifle round. If you have an AR built for low velocity handgun rounds then might as well just use a handgun and have the the advantage of the shorter barrel.
7.62 is typically an AK round.
Re: (Score:2)
From the article I referenced.
"No, the .223 Rem./5.56 NATO will not shoot through a building. In fact, on interior walls it has less penetration than that of common handgun cartridges, even when those feature JHP bullets. Unless youâ(TM)re using bonded rifle bullets designed to maintain structural integrity, the bullets of a .223 Rem./5.56 NATO cartridge will yaw in drywall, break apart and not over-penetrate. Oh, theyâ(TM)ll go through a wall or two, but not like a handgun."
They talk about severa
Re: (Score:2)
but unless you configure it to fire a low-power handgun round it's going to shoot through walls if fired inside a house with any rifle round
You must have very weak walls, then. How do rifle rounds pass through brick walls these days?
Re: (Score:1)
Are the interior walls of your house or apartment brick? Just about any bullet will go through several layers of sheetrock.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
most rounds will not be going through brick walls.
Not everyone has brick walls for exterior walls.
Interior wall penetration is a concern because you don't want to miss your target and injure a loved one on the other side.
Interior walls are often 2x4 supported drywall and 16" air sandwiches. Any projectile capable of ending the life of an intruder is going to definitely penetrate at least one entire wall in a normally constructed home putting any living being on the other side at a significant risk.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: And who is supposed to be bothered by this? (Score:2)
Re: And who is supposed to be bothered by this? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Nice name. Sure all sorts of weapons have pro's and con's but an AR-15 for home defense is not a stupid choice. Whether or not it is optimal must also take into account the nature of said home defense strategy and of course the invasion. Sometimes there is more than one criminal entering your home... sometimes they are armed as well. Having a high capacity and accurate weapon becomes far more useful in that scenario than a short barrel shotgun. While this certainly does not diminish the usefulness or preference of the short barrel shotgun for home defense, especially if there is only a single invader, it does call out your ignorant comment on what is or is not stupid.
consider the following article https://gundigest.com/article/... [gundigest.com]
Sure there are more than enough opinions on what is best or not, but in most cases they are usually emotionally driven. Any gun is better than no gun and the more accurate the firearm is by design the better. There have been more than enough firearms professionals on this subject to leave your ignorance in the dirt.
What you really want is defence is depth. Start out with a ring of landmines, then make a bunch of physical barriers and obstacles while not fogetting to add some decent vantage points and at least three fully stocked armories in your home with everything from an Uzi to long barrel sniper rifle so you can deal with any combination of intruders from any range. Some automated turrets would be handy but it'll be a few years before that tech is consumer ready.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice name. Sure all sorts of weapons have pro's and con's but an AR-15 for home defense is not a stupid choice. Whether or not it is optimal must also take into account the nature of said home defense strategy and of course the invasion. Sometimes there is more than one criminal entering your home... sometimes they are armed as well. Having a high capacity and accurate weapon becomes far more useful in that scenario than a short barrel shotgun.
What is your scenario? Most people are not posting guard duty while their SO is sleeping. So assuming you are going for a kill shot, you are likely to be a bit groggy, probably scared, and neither of those lends itself to a small caliber shot to the head.
Which is why my preference is for a semi-auto shotgun.
The only way the AR-15 is useful is in a pitched long duration battle where you are wide awake, and can take cover and the time to aim for that kill shot. Meanwhile, once you have decided that letha
Re: (Score:1)
Shotguns with barrels less than 18" are illegal in the US.
Re: (Score:1)
They most certainly are. A shotgun with a barrel less than 18" is considered a Class III firearm under the National Firearms Act. Owning one without an NFA Stamp is a federal crime.
Re: (Score:2)
So they are not illegal, are they? Owners need an FFL or other permit.
Driving a car in USA is illegal too... without a licence.
Re: (Score:1)
Driving a car is a privilege, not a Constitutional right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Owning one without an NFA Stamp is a federal crime."
lmftfy
"Owning one without an NFA Stamp is an "unconstitutional" federal crime."
Can we just call things what they are? It is important often times.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes.
Re: (Score:2)
"Owning one without an NFA Stamp is a 'constitutional' federal crime."
There, are you happy? As a bonus, my statement is consistent with United States v. Miller, and yours is not.
Re: And who is supposed to be bothered by this? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What does AR15 ownership have to do with Ring camera ownership? I used to have a Ring doorbell when I lived in a shitty area. It was nice to be able to answer the door and let someone think I was home when I wasn't. I don't have an AR15. It's a stupid home defense weapon, anyway. You want a short barrel shotgun for that.
Exactly. My own version is a semi auto shotgun. Something like this will do: https://www.dunhamssports.com/... [dunhamssports.com]
The AR-15, although designed to kill other humans, requires way too much accuracy to bring down an adversary in an emergency situation.
Re:And who is supposed to be bothered by this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Like hell it doesn't. Furthermore I, as a non-Ring owner with security cameras feeding into my own NAS, have "license" to monitor all traffic going down the street, for whoever to look at that I so choose.
You have no reasonable expectation of privacy [lawshelf.com] on a public street.
You do,
not neatly as much as you suppose,
Whaaa? Privacy of your liberty? In public places? What are you attempting to say?
So that freedom to petition the government for the redress of grievances part of the first amendment was just for show. Public order is simply a myth.
Your apparent understanding of the meaning of "peeping tom" is inconsistent with the generally accepted meaning of the term. And whether I chose to "narc" on your location is my decision, not yours.
The crazy thing is you think that you have a right to privacy in public places.
Re: (Score:1)
"The crazy thing is you think that you have a right to privacy in public places."
The grey area is when the camera on your private property captures activity on someone else's private property.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it's not a grey area. Read the link:
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
All of that material concerns physical trespass into the bounds of private property, not whether something was clearly visible to the public from outside the property.
The author should have referred to the "plain view" doctrine [wikipedia.org], but I'm not about to rewrite the article on their behalf.
Re: (Score:3)
Then just be a cop. Let them have the data. Let them use facial recognition when YOU walk into the door of YOUR home.
Whew, it's ok, it's you! You're letting the state track you and all who pass in front of your camera(s). Do you lend them privacy by not doing so? No. You out all, not selectively, for the purposes of law enforcement-- the good cops and the bad, the hazy content foisted at a jury, and the clear.
Yes, you can currently decide. You can permit people the liberty to walk freely and unidentifed, or
Re: (Score:1)
You haven't made the arguments. You've simply declared that it exists and demonized anyone who thinks differently. And yes, that strategy is lost upon me.
Re: (Score:2)
Explain in detail why you think you have a right to privacy while in public.
To be pedantic, you need to be specific about the privacy, as there are arguably many types. For instance, physical sight/lack thereof, and of mind/thought. I'd argue that you might not have the former, but sure as hell have the latter in public - for instance, if someone demanded me to tell them my most inanimate secrets, I can tell them to go fuck themselves, and maintain that privacy of mind.
Re: (Score:3)
Despite the foaming at the mouth, s/he's got a point...
This is essentially a privatised (and subsidised) surveillance network. If your local government proposed that they'd put this many cameras in this many streets, I'll bet there'd be immediate outrage. If they then went on to say "yeah, but we won't pay much for it, because we're partnering up with Amazon", there's be outrage all over again.
Having lots of cameras around isn't necessarily the problem - joining them up absolutely is though. The fact that y
Re: (Score:2)
Which Ring cameras don't do. They're triggered by motion, so the only way anyone is going to be recorded is if they happen to be walking by when someone else is on the owner's property. As for the police, they will see nothing unless (a) they request the video of a motion-triggered event, and (b) the residents provide the video. There are no continuous video recordings. With Ring c
Re: (Score:2)
WHY DO YOU GUYS KEEP TALKING ABOUT RING? Literally EVERY security camera does this. Every single one. You can buy them for $50 online. The police can also request video from them. The Ring camera only really covers 15 feet in front of the camera.
Re: (Score:2)
WHY DO YOU GUYS KEEP TALKING ABOUT RING? Literally EVERY security camera does this. Every single one. You can buy them for $50 online. The police can also request video from them. The Ring camera only really covers 15 feet in front of the camera.
Citation, please?
I will be more than happy to call the police myself and offer them a disc or USB drive with evidence of a real crime if my surveillance cameras record something of interest.
But I want to be the arbiter of that; not the State.
Re: (Score:1)
Are you dumb? Most cities have forms you can fill out where you put in your camera make and model and they offer you a rebate on your costs. Police can also request video from your camera if they know you have one. They can even request mobile phone video. And guess what? You can say no. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE WITH RING. The police do not have access to your Ring video if you don't give them access.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This is false and only applies when the video is in your possession. For example, on a USB drive in your pocket. In that case, and ONLY in that case, you can refuse to give it to anyone and require that they kill you before they take it from your cold dead hands.
However, as soon as you transfer custody of that video to a third-party (such as store it on Rings servers) you no longer have either custody or control over that video. Ring can give it to whomever Ring wants to give it to, or just post if openl
Re: (Score:2)
Its CCTV on private property.
Shared with police to stop crime and criminals.
What "privacy"? Its CCTV installed on private property... to secure a home from criminals...
You know what the "CC" in that "CCTV" term that you keep throwing around means?
It means "Closed Circuit". As in "Not Broadcast".
This is the exact opposite of that concept.
Re: (Score:1)
New networked devices are placed on private property and can help police with their work... finding criminals.
Re "opposite of that concept." - A criminal is detected by police on private property and has their image seen by police..
via CCTV in the past
Whats so "opposite" about seeing criminals doing crime on private property?
When using CCTV in the past tech in 2019? On private prope
Welcome (Score:2)
So? (Score:2)
Could the police not simply drive by and see the “rings”?
Ring (Score:1)
So if you own a ring you obviously agree with surveillance and being surveilled. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. What's the problem here? We have the right to record public roads. We have the right to allow the police to see that when they are investigating crimes. The issue here is that we don't have oversight on when, who, and for what the cameras are accessed for. That's your own personal fault for electing dweebs, it's not that of ring or amazon. We need to allow surveillance but law e
Re: (Score:3)
We need to allow surveillance but law enforcement should only be able to view or convict people for serious violent crimes based on it. Not jay walking or traffic violations. If they do use it other than for serious violent crime investigation they can get a penalty or jail time.
The problem is, those "law enforcement officers" always seem to have a convenient excuse when abusing their authority. Just like when you are driving down the highway, and a police car blows by you like you are standing still. Report that incident to the Police, and it will always be "I was chasing a drug suspect.", or some such.
Don't believe me? Try it the next time you see a Police car pass you by going 100 MPH with no lights and siren. You'll see.
Oh, and about 10 years or so ago (I can't find a reference
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read the last part of my sentence? "If they do use it other than for serious violent crime investigation they can get a penalty or jail time."
AND "Also implement full public disclosure of all accesses and the control thereof should be a 6-person independently chosen rotating (staggered with one year terms and no-renewal) committee of citizens."
Re: (Score:1)
A police report of a a crime is not a "convenient excuse".
Thats a working class, a low income person, a wealth person, a poor person who has had their property stolen.
House of work lost in wages
FUCK YOU AMAZON (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah! Stupid security cameras! Derp!
Heat map (Score:2)
How accurate do they expect that to be? If I give Ring/Amazon the address at which I installed it, pretty accurate of course. But what if I install it elsewhere? IP location isn't very accurate in my neighborhood.
Re: (Score:2)
How accurate do they expect that to be? If I give Ring/Amazon the address at which I installed it, pretty accurate of course. But what if I install it elsewhere? IP location isn't very accurate in my neighborhood.
Less so if you're wise enough to use a VPN for such things.
Re: (Score:1)
"says this one is is Sweden...what the..."
I do have an expectation of privacy (Score:3)
The point is, I do have an expectation of privacy even on public streets and in public parks. I expect to be seen but I don't expect to be recorded with out my consent. If I or my kids are playing a game, I expect anyone recording the entire game and not specifically their kids or friends to ask permission. I will always say yes but it is an expected cutesy. I definitely don't expect to be constantly monitored and for that information to be kept for eternity.
As for the police - to a large extent I think they can be trusted with not overstepping their monitoring. The RCMP got slapped pretty hard for doing illegal surveillance in the 1970s and lost almost all their powers of electronic surveillance in 1984 with the creation of CSIS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] . So I do expect my police and my neighbours to behave.
Re:I do have an expectation of privacy (Score:4, Insightful)
The point is, I do have an expectation of privacy even on public streets and in public parks.
If you do, you're wrong. It's PUBLIC areas. It's all in that description.
Also, there's no difference of being 'recorded' into passer-bys memory and to be recorded by a camera. Your actions can be recalled and the only difference is that the camera doesn't lie or forget/misread/mix-up actions of different people into one (which happens quite often).
I actually prefer a camera so as to not be misidentified or similar.
Re: (Score:2)
Because I did not explicitly consent, these systems are not centrally monitored by authorised personnel but in the possession of busy-body neighbours, aren't clearly marked as per most country's CCTV recording regulations (including identifying a responsible party for the CCTV that you would have recourse to complain to if you had any issues with their siting, monitoring, etc.), and could be filming me picking my nose and putting it on the Internet, or falsely claiming that I scraped someone's car just beca
One Week (Score:2)
It's been almost one week without a Ring headline. Must be a new record!
IoT is for suckers. (Score:2)
Alarmist rhetoric (Score:2)
You can tell I have a doorbell camera by driving down the street.
Take off your tinfoil hats, the front of your home within view of the street is not private. All a police officer would need to do is drive by your home after a crime and then request a subpoena for your videos if they saw a doorbell camera. They should be doing that anyway because I don't have a Nest doorbell, I use a different brand. They could even walk up to the door (if it's not inside a locked gate) and look at it.
I would gladly turn