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

61–70 of 180 posts

Re: Amazon's Ring Police Portal For Mass Surveillance

#61

Post by openasocket »

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…

What jurisdiction is this? Generally two-party consent laws have an explicit exemption for places where you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and exemptions for recording on your own private property. There can also be different standards depending on whether you are taking the pictures for commercial use or not. I'm curious what jurisdiction has a blanket ban on audio recordings without consent, no exceptions.

Re: Amazon's Ring Police Portal For Mass Surveillance

#62

Post by ncallaway »

15155 wrote: post #13
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?

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

While technically true, this doctrine came from a time when cameras were far less common than they are today (by orders of magnitude), and when facial recognition software didn't even exist as a concept (outside of science fiction).

Given those two very significant changes, it's probably worth re-evaluating the doctrine itself.

Re: Amazon's Ring Police Portal For Mass Surveillance

#63

Post by ncallaway »

logfromblammo wrote: post #54
eeZah7Ux wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Also in the United States, you have the right to video-record anything you can see from where you are if you have the right to be present. You have the right to record any happenings on or in your dwelling and its curtilage. There is no question whatsoever that everyone has the right to mount a doorbell camera and do whatever they like with the recordings. The only exception is that if you are not in a single-party c…

But what if we changed those laws?

We could, for example, make it such that you can continue to record, but that those recordings couldn't be used as input to facial recognition software without the consent of the person being recorded.

Just because you _currently_ can do something legally does not mean that it _must_ be that way.

Re: Amazon's Ring Police Portal For Mass Surveillance

#64

Post by tossimba »

ncallaway wrote: post #62
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.

While technically true, this doctrine came from a time when cameras were far less common than they are today (by orders of magnitude), and when facial recognition software didn't even exist as a concept (outside of science fiction). Given those two very significant changes, it's probably worth re-evaluating the doctrine itself.

snip

Re: Amazon's Ring Police Portal For Mass Surveillance

#65

Post by will_brown »

There is significant room for private policing in this space.

This past Saturday I went for my run at approximately 9:45AM, on my run I got a text from my bank of suspicious activity on both my credit and debit card for a total of $1,000. When I got back to my car it all made sense as my passenger window was smashed and my “run bag” with my keys and wallet stolen.

By the time I the cops got there for the report, I spoke to the bank located the time/store (footlocker) the cards were used, I had spoken with the store manager and confirmed 2 men used multiple cards that were declined and confirmed the store had video but the request must be made through HQ.

The cops dont follow up on this and request the video and footlocker won’t give it to me. I know I could go to the store and grease the wheel to get a copy of the video (which I may do). It’s so crazy because no one care more than the victim of crimes to see the criminals face justice, and the technology is in place for things like stolen credit cards or stolen phones but then corporate America gets in the way.

I’d love to have a public platform where victims of crimes could force corporations to playall and publish the facts of these cases and crowdsource the identity of the criminals. Any advice?

Re: Amazon's Ring Police Portal For Mass Surveillance

#66

Post by fixermark »

_r3e4 wrote: post #4

Here is an example of Ring partnering with a police department - Orlando - to offer discounted video surveillance IoT devices to citizens, with caveat that they can share their videos with cops to fight crime. Orlando police department was called out for civil rights violations when they partnered with Amazon's facial recognition technology. The thing about Ring is it's marketed to consumers as a cheap camera....not…

So you mean the discount is for the hardware under the assumption that the users will consent, not actually direct compensation for sending data to the police?

Re: Amazon's Ring Police Portal For Mass Surveillance

#67

Post by fixermark »

will_brown wrote: post #65

There is significant room for private policing in this space. This past Saturday I went for my run at approximately 9:45AM, on my run I got a text from my bank of suspicious activity on both my credit and debit card for a total of $1,000. When I got back to my car it all made sense as my passenger window was smashed and my “run bag” with my keys and wallet stolen. By the time I the cops got there for the report, I sp…

> I’d love to have a public platform where victims of crimes could force corporations to playall and publish the facts of these cases and crowdsource the identity of the criminals. Any advice?

I believe you're thinking of the "discovery" phase of a lawsuit.

Re: Amazon's Ring Police Portal For Mass Surveillance

#68

Post by ncallaway »

tossimba wrote: post #64
ncallaway wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While technically true, this doctrine came from a time when cameras were far less common than they are today (by orders of magnitude), and when facial recognition software didn't even exist as a concept (outside of science fiction). Given those two very significant changes, it's probably worth re-evaluating the doctrine itself.

snip

> You want to re-evaluate the first amendment?

I don't.

> You don't want freedom of press?

I do.

> Let me guess. You also want to abolish the second amendment.

I don't.

> Why don't you just move to somewhere they don't have those rights. Like in south america. They don't have guns, free speech, anything like that. Like brazil, venezuela, or ecuador.

It's almost like you deliberately chose the least charitable interpretation of my point to avoid rebutting the actual argument I was making.

Here's an example of a doctrine that likely wouldn't run afoul of the first amendment (impinging on neither freedom of speech, the press, or religion). These also likely wouldn't impinge on the second amendment, nor steer us towards economic disaster:

* You can record in a public place

* You cannot use facial recognition software on the recording without the consent of those that were recorded

* Provide some limited exceptions to the above for small-scale private purposes or academic research

Re: Amazon's Ring Police Portal For Mass Surveillance

#70

Post by alphabettsy »

arbie wrote: post #27
eeZah7Ux wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In most places those cameras don’t record anything. They’re used for traffic signaling to avoid having to embed sensors in the roadway.

https://www.peektraffic.com/products_video_detection.php

Post reply on HN