Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon's Ring Police Portal For Mass Surveillance

dropbox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 180 posts

Re: Amazon's Ring Police Portal For Mass Surveillance

#21

Post by ynniv »

ggggtez wrote: post #18
happyringuser wrote: post #14

I use the Ring security system at home and own a couple of the cameras. The security "history" feature is dirt simple but very cool -- I can trivially see when I use different doors in my house. The Ring smartphone app also shows me the Neighbors view for my area, which is very similar to this product being advertised here (a feed of locations, comments, and videos posted by smart device owners and others). I think p…

Nice shill account. You make it sound like this company is the only company that sells cameras.

Not a very good shill:

Ring's cameras automatically record audio and cannot be configured to disable the audio recording.

Re: Amazon's Ring Police Portal For Mass Surveillance

#22

Post by rayvy »

secabeen wrote: post #7

This seems fairly reasonable, as long as they keep the commitment that officers have to request videos from camera owners. Now, in theory, the PD could subpoena videos from ring without permission, but that's a higher bar than this.

Your statement reads in a pretty funny way:

> This seems fairly reasonable...

> ...as long as they keep the commitment...

I mean, I feel as if everything seems reasonable as long as the original commitment is kept. Thing is, the original commitment is rarely if ever kept at all. This is nothing more than a problem waiting to happen, as are most things where large bureaucracies involve themselves.

Once I read that the data is completely unencrypted (oh, I can do a man-in-the middle and just send my own backend a copy of this video stream? awesome!) and anyone's face (i.e., those simply walking by) could potentially be recorded, I pretty much gave up any hope of this working responsibly.

But hey, just read another comment about Walmart apparently sending surveillance video to the Feds (which sounds like a very Walmart thing to do actually), so apparently we have larger issues to deal with.

Re: Amazon's Ring Police Portal For Mass Surveillance

#23

Post by fixermark »

fromthestart wrote: post #8
Kocrachon wrote: post #5

Isn't this an opt in feature? I understand free reign police surveillance is bad, but if a customer opts in, I don't see the issue?

My neighbor has such a doorbell. My facial data is captured every time I come over or walk by with my dog. When was I given an opportunity to consent to this?

When were you given an opportunity to consent to your relatives uploading their own DNA to ancestry.com?

Ownership of one's own DNA information is not quite as blurry as surveillance camera footage, but if it's capturing activity happening in a public place or on the camera owner's property? Yeah, ownership of that information is still pretty blurry.

Re: Amazon's Ring Police Portal For Mass Surveillance

#24

Post by lmz »

happyringuser wrote: post #14

I use the Ring security system at home and own a couple of the cameras. The security "history" feature is dirt simple but very cool -- I can trivially see when I use different doors in my house. The Ring smartphone app also shows me the Neighbors view for my area, which is very similar to this product being advertised here (a feed of locations, comments, and videos posted by smart device owners and others). I think p…

Can't you just block the mic somehow?

Re: Amazon's Ring Police Portal For Mass Surveillance

#25

Post by alphabettsy »

Can’t say why this feels strange, but’s it’s also not as sensational as the title. Ring Users have to choose to share the information. As someone who has a Ring device, I find the neighborhood feature more a nuisance than anything. It’s mostly people posting videos from their doorbell cams asking if anyone knows why’s the guy with a clipboard was at their door, or posting videos of “suspicious” people in their neighborhood without any crime to report. Not hard to guess what the “suspicious” people shared usually look like.

Before these cameras lots of people knocked on your door while you were at work at you never knew.

Re: Amazon's Ring Police Portal For Mass Surveillance

#26

Post by fixermark »

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #19
chrisfosterelli wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it looks like: 1. Users opt to share video clips 2. Police can't view unshared videos without requesting 3. The whole thing is opt-in I don't see an issue here. It's a technical framework around something that already exists: police going door-to-door and asking for video clips. Why not make this more efficient? I can see the potential for abuse, as it is all centralized. But I think "portal for mass surveillan…

Right on time. I’ll take “bootlicking fascist apologist” for $10 Alex. Notice you didn’t even discuss encryption. Shows how little thought you’ve put in. And that’s ignoring the ethical side entirely. Why do so many of the people I interact with seem to have absolutely no fear of government abuse, despite 10,000 years of evidence to the contrary? It boggles the mind

Probably because they also see 10,000 years of governments and citizens generally muddling along okay, most of the time?

Re: Amazon's Ring Police Portal For Mass Surveillance

#27

Post by arbie »

eeZah7Ux wrote: post #20
15155 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the United States, your consent is not needed to film you in places with no expectation of privacy.

False. It depends on how invasive the recording was, how recognizable you are and how the recording is used (e.g. using it for advertising).

Is there a source for this claim?

In major cities, there are multiple cameras at every traffic light intersection, and some even focus on the pedestrian crossing.

Re: Amazon's Ring Police Portal For Mass Surveillance

#28

Post by shiftpgdn »

eeZah7Ux wrote: post #20
15155 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the United States, your consent is not needed to film you in places with no expectation of privacy.

False. It depends on how invasive the recording was, how recognizable you are and how the recording is used (e.g. using it for advertising).

That's misleading. It's only if you're famous and the image is being used for profit. And even then it's pretty nebulous.

Re: Amazon's Ring Police Portal For Mass Surveillance

#29

Post by fixermark »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #15
chrisfosterelli wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it looks like: 1. Users opt to share video clips 2. Police can't view unshared videos without requesting 3. The whole thing is opt-in I don't see an issue here. It's a technical framework around something that already exists: police going door-to-door and asking for video clips. Why not make this more efficient? I can see the potential for abuse, as it is all centralized. But I think "portal for mass surveillan…

> I can see the potential for abuse But that is the problem. The potential exists, and without proper governance and oversight, you don't have the ability as a citizen to walk back abuse when it begins to occur. You only have the options of submitting to continued abuse, moving to a more sane locale, or the uphill political battle of defending your rights. Authoritarianism is a slow boil, and doesn't happen overnight…

However, are we throwing the baby of crowd-sourced neighborhood policing opted into by residents (essentially, a digitally-assisted neighborhood watch) with the bathwater of potential for abuse?

What are the actual abuse scenarios that we would fear could occur?

These technologies aren't either-or; they're a tradeoff of possible benefits and drawbacks. What concrete drawbacks should we be concerned with here?

Re: Amazon's Ring Police Portal For Mass Surveillance

#30

Post by epicide »

gjmarsh wrote: post #9
fromthestart wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My neighbor has such a doorbell. My facial data is captured every time I come over or walk by with my dog. When was I given an opportunity to consent to this?

You effectively consent to the possibility of surveillance every time you go outside your home, office, or anywhere with a "reasonable expectation of privacy".

Surveillance is not always mass surveillance.

CCTVs are one thing. Giant companies and government entities automating the tracking of people in other countries is another.

Post reply on HN