Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy

Amazon's Ring Will Ask Police To Publicly Request User Videos (bloomberg.com) 41

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
Amazon.com's Ring, long criticized for a cozy relationship with law enforcement, will start requiring the police to publicly request home security footage captured by the company's doorbells and cameras. From a report: Beginning next week, police departments that want Ring users to help with investigations will be required to make the requests in the company's Neighbors app. Previously, police officers emailed users in a dedicated portal. Ring, the leading maker of internet-connected doorbells, has put cameras on the front of millions of homes, selling residents peace of mind via smartphone. But for civil liberties groups, the cameras -- and their use by law enforcement agencies -- pose threats to Americans' privacy and civil rights. Ring has shown no signs of abandoning its relationship with the police, but in recent years has grown more transparent, publicly identifying law enforcement partners and, as of next week, letting all Neighbors users see what information is being requested.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Amazon's Ring Will Ask Police To Publicly Request User Videos More

Amazon's Ring Will Ask Police To Publicly Request User Videos

Comments Filter:

  • Bad idea (Score:3)

    by groobly ( 6155920 ) on Thursday June 03, 2021 @11:05AM (#61450802)

    This is nice: the perp can find out who might provide damning evidence. In cases around here, the perp has often been ANOTHER NEIGHBOR. Alternately, if the "victim" is a neighbor, they might decide to pay a "friendly" visit to the doorbell owner, who might not otherwise want to get involved.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by jwhyche ( 6192 )

      It's all just for show. The moment Amazons policy starts getting in the way the police will just show up with a subpoena, probably with a gag order, and Amazon's policy goes right out the window.

      • I was going to post the same thing. Amazon's policy doesn't matter. Court order trumps all, unless someone at Amazon wants to go-to jail for contempt of court. This policy is likely more for the looking for information at or near the moment of crime in attempt to ID the criminal. Would be much the same as if a Police officer knocked on your door and stated they suspect a criminal just ran/drove down the street. Notice you have a camera there aimed at the street, do you mind if we look at your footage? Ultim
      • Well, there's another option of dubious legal standing [cnet.com] available for that situation.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        It's all just for show. The moment Amazons policy starts getting in the way the police will just show up with a subpoena, probably with a gag order, and Amazon's policy goes right out the window.

        You do realize a warrant, asubpoena and all that is better than we have now?

        Right now, Amazon's system is between "here's free access to all the recordings" and "Ask user for recordings". So if you notice the house across the street has a Ring and you wanted to spy on them, it's a fairly simple matter to do it witho

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by e3m4n ( 947977 )
        thats not the point. A subpoena has always been the law of the land. Previously LE could go straight to amazon and pull your feed without warrant, subpoena, or even your knowledge let alone permission. If it wasnt part of Ring, the cop would politely canvass the neighborhood and ask everyone for their camera footage, which everyone typically hands over anyway. It was the doing it without asking that was the sticking point. Without your consent you could potentially have your fifth amendment violated if you

      • Subpoena and gag order is one of the reasons my camera system is encrypted. They can stick that subpoena and gag order where the sun don't shine. They can have access to the encrypted video files so I follow the subpoena but I'm not going to decrypt them. Unless I want to and bully me with subpoena and gag order makes we not want to. I was seriously bullied in school, I can't tolerate such behavior now. I snap and see red. They can't force you to decrypt them, not yet at least. And I have such "terrible" me

    • This is nice: the perp can find out who might provide damning evidence. In cases around here, the perp has often been ANOTHER NEIGHBOR. Alternately, if the "victim" is a neighbor, they might decide to pay a "friendly" visit to the doorbell owner, who might not otherwise want to get involved.

      Since users will be submitting their video directly to the police, I'm don't see how the perps are going to know who provided it. Bloomberg stories notwithstanding, Amazon is quite sensitive to the issue of user privacy

      • If the police requests are public and the address of the camera footage in question is made public as a part of that request, then . . .

    • A couple of points: 1. The thieves in my neighborhood stole from other neighborhoods, not keen to turn the block against them. 2. How many houses do you think they're visiting that they need specifics on where they left evidence behind?

  • It seems that Ring has introduced another paradigm into to society about who actually owns the content of the devices they sell. The owner of the ring device needs to be part of the equation and needs to opt-in for every request from law enforcement.

    • They do that via buying and installing the device. It's in the EULA no doubt. Plus people think they will keep their shit safe or something how protect them. Ironically, if someone robs your home, the cops aren't going to find your stuff. They may find the criminal, but your shit is not coming back unless they someone how get the criminal essentially the same day they rob you and the criminal still has your stuff.

      Good luck with that.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by e3m4n ( 947977 )
        Every time I see people post camera footage of their cars getting broken into all I ever see is a big ugly hoodie and no other identifiable features. The only thing those devices are good for is confirmation you got your shit broken into, and spying on the owner. When I was in the Navy we had a saying, well we had more than a few, but one particular to the heavily industrialized environment we work/live. "Navy ships are designed to kill people. Unfortunately they spend a lot more time around its crew than t

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by NFN_NLN ( 633283 )

      > The owner of the ring device needs to be part of the equation

      They already have that. It's called buy a camera with RTSP.

      Instead of streaming right into a megacorporation's cloud where you lose control, you just stream to your own private server. And this the mind blowing part -- you can host that private server in the cloud -- or not.

      • Instead of streaming right into a megacorporation's cloud where you lose control, you just stream to your own private server.

        Because the same people who always run their machines as an admin because they can't figure out how to create a restricted account, are the same ones who are going to install, configure and maintain their own on-site server, let alone try to figure out how to use a cloud-based server.

        • That kind of setup is getting easier by improved design and simpler for common people to understand. If they can follow instructions they can set it up just fine.

    • I avoided it altogether, and got a UDM Pro, some cameras in general for outside, and Ubiquiti G4 doorbell. All of the nice functionality I want, none of the privacy concerns since all of the data is stored locally and only I have access.

  • Great, a fucking paywall (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DarkRookie2 ( 5551422 ) on Thursday June 03, 2021 @11:21AM (#61450868)
    ./ needs to stop posting stories I cannot read. If Bloomberg doesn't want to put things behind a paywall, they can take it off the internet and hide it in some shit apps.

  • Making these requests through the Neighbors app makes much more sense than emailing individual Ring users. You never know who may have recorded something of interest nearby (perhaps the perpetrators approaching or leaving the area) instead of at the scene of the crime. No doubt many of these law enforcement requests will also be shared on Nextdoor or Facebook, leading to more shared video.

    I also expect that these public requests will significantly increase the engagement of Ring users with law enforcement

    • You dont "stop" crime with a camera or a law, let alone one placed on your front door where nothing happens. This is a "cover your ass" policy Amazon is doing to avoid being sued for sharing customer information. This is about unbridled surveilance from police departments.

      • You dont "stop" crime with a camera or a law, let alone one placed on your front door where nothing happens. This is a "cover your ass" policy Amazon is doing to avoid being sued for sharing customer information. This is about unbridled surveilance from police departments.

        I am involved in my neighborhood crime watch, and I can assure you that there isn't a single Ring user out there who gives two flips about Orwellian dystopian fantasies. They want to stop criminals from breaking into their cars and steali

        • Yeah, exactly. I'm not worried about some imaginary slippery slope where when I have a doorbell camera, the very next thing that happens is the Government is operating on me and putting a camera in my skull. And not a little camera, I mean like a big 1980's era camcorder they literally graft onto my head and we're all walking around with these huge camcorders on our heads that only record in black and white because it's more depressing that way.

          I'm _slightly_ more worried about the real prospect that some f

          • Honestly, how many people do you know first hand that have been robbed and stabed by a crackhead in their own house?

            You're just scared shitless by something that's possible, but unlikely to happen. But the erosion of privacy is already happening to you. Having to strip whenever you fly abroad is real. Having your electronics cracked within a 100 mi of the border is real. I could go on, but if you haven't realized this by now, you're unlikely to care for freedom, democracy or accountability.

            This is the same

          • You can install a lethal security system. No one will know until someone breaks into your home. It do have several disadvantages though. For instance don't ever lose your keys. Should note you should check the law in the state you're in first.
            As we know the criminal will be released eventually and commit more crimes. So death is preferred. You'll be doing society a service. I'm under the belief that if everyone had such a system less breakin crimes would be committed. Self-preservation is a powerful motivat

      • You dont "stop" crime with a camera or a law, let alone one placed on your front door where nothing happens.

        No, but you move it elsewhere so you don't get robbed. Security is about being a harder target than somewhere else.

        This is about unbridled surveilance from police departments.

        Huh? The police can put out a public request - did anyone film someone on around X near Y; we are investigating a crime. As always, people can com forward or remain silent. No one is giving the police access to all videos without permission.

  • Yes of course they need to ask, in a public forum. What's to stop a pedophile cop from just watching some family come and go whenever he wants to. Or what's to stop a cop from stalking his ex? What's to stop a bad cop from waiting until a family is out of the house and then breaking in to ransack the place. Nothing whatever, is what. And you think they don't do this? You honestly think that? And what about all the other cameras and sensors people have installed, how long before the police have on-demand acc

  • Amazon.com's Ring, long criticized for a cozy relationship with law enforcement

    I cannot imagine, how any such criticism can possibly be valid. Valid enough to be mentioned...

    Would some be willing to elaborate? If law enforcement remains a necessity — because there remain criminals among us — what's wrong with working there? Or with helping it? And if there is nothing wrong with working there, what's wrong with supplying such workers — and their helpers — with whatever they need/want

    • ... legitimate and ethical business cordially?

      Because there are rules to acquiring evidence, which is already a very low bar in the USA. Because cameras record without consent or awareness of the people in front of it. Now if the camera is in a public place, tough shit, I'll admit but Ring has asked for surveillance cameras to be put inside the home. In other countries, people are protected from surreptitious recording of their lives in non-public space, and are entitled to be "forgotten". The USA however, maintains a policy of few rights to privac

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mi ( 197448 )

        Because there are rules to acquiring evidence, which is already a very low bar in the USA

        Whether this is true or not — and you offer no citations, so it probably is not — it is irrelevant to my question... Which was not about evidence-rules or cameras, but rather about it (not) being wrong to have a "cozy" relationship with law enforcement.

        Ring has asked for surveillance cameras to be put inside the home

        ... where they are controlled by the home's owner, who has full right to provide it to police

        • ... you offer no citations ...

          https://www.jonathanhak.com/20... [jonathanhak.com]
          https://www.tpatrialattorneys.... [tpatrialattorneys.com]

          ... are controlled by the home's owner ...

          So your argument is, the owner is 'the boss' of the device: How do you know? A clueless owner can easily be replaced as 'the boss' of his video-record.

          https://www.vice.com/en/articl... [vice.com]

          ... full right to provide it to police.

          Now it's what the police want that's important. Sometimes, it's the problem:

          If the community member doesn’t want to supply a Ring video that seems vital to a local law enforcement investigation, police can contact Amazon, which will then essent

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by mi ( 197448 )

            So your argument is, the owner is 'the boss' of the device: How do you know?

            So, you've given up trying to defend the criticism of the "cozy" relationship Amazon has with law enforcement — the original topic of the thread — and would like to switch to how owners of these cameras choose to cooperate with police.

            Ok...

            Your argument is two-fold:

            Homeowners may be too dumb and cooperate with police out of stupidity.
            To which I reply, that anyone may be "dumb", including millions of Internet-users

Slashdot Top Deals

We are each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts. -- Patrick Moynihan

Close