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

161–170 of 180 posts

Re: Amazon's Ring Police Portal For Mass Surveillance

#161

Post by strictnein »

happyringuser wrote: post #89
strictnein wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A shill account that talks about how the product violates local laws and that feature cannot be disabled? That's definitely a new one.

I'm a semi frequent user here. I registered a new account for this comment thread because my username is easily tied to my identity and I mentioned in my comment there's someone we're afraid of who has threatened to harass us in the past. That person has used my web presence for harassment before and I don't want to give them more ammo.

Yeah, I totally get setting up another account for sensitive things.

Re: Amazon's Ring Police Portal For Mass Surveillance

#162

Post by qmr »

ndespres wrote: post #87

I can not imagine developing this and thinking that it is Good. This type of product and platform completely ignores the reality of how it will be used and how police behave in American society. In the demo video, their example has someone sharing a photo of "suspicious people" walking around outside their house, and has neighbors commenting "oh no!" on it. Now the police are alerted to this "crime" which may not eve…

I can't stand nextdoor. Bunch of idiots scared of their own shadow sharing photos and videos of "suspicious" people and dumbasses asking about "gunshots" any time a car backfires or a firecracker is set off.

Ridiculous.

Re: Amazon's Ring Police Portal For Mass Surveillance

#163

Post by zepto »

alphabettsy wrote: post #121
zepto wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you miss the part about facial recognition and suspicious activity detection?

Where? The OP combines a Amazon Facial Recognition controversy with Ring Video, which they did just acquire, but provides nothing to support the claim that the information is somehow connected. The OP also makes the inflated claim saying it will offer facial recognition, when the video actually says person recognition. This is something Nest and other systems have offered for years. Person recognition ensures your sy…

I agree that Nest is similarly worrying, and has been providing surveillance footage to law enforcement too.

Re: Amazon's Ring Police Portal For Mass Surveillance

#164

Post by reaperducer »

chaostheory wrote: post #153
reaperducer wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a Ring customer. The Ring Portal is optional and opt-in. I'm not a Ring owner, but several of my neighbors are. Two have told me that they have been pressured by police officers — in person — to join some kind of surveillance program. I'm not sure if it's this one, or something else. I also don't know how the cops found out that they had Ring devices, but the local PD advocates for it heavily on my neighborhood's…

Were they forced to join? Was it compulsory? You do know even after you join, you choose what clips to share right?

All I know is that they were creeped out that the police asked them directly.

I didn't ask if they signed up or not. But the average person isn't some internet pretend lawyer, and will go along with anything someone with a badge says. Just the request is intimidation enough for most people.

even after you join, you choose what clips to share right?

You choose what you want to voluntarily share. But since the videos are on Ring's server, when the homeowner says "no," the courts say, "yes."

Re: Amazon's Ring Police Portal For Mass Surveillance

#165

Post by sixothree »

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…

What if the camera field of view was strictly confined to a neighbor's front door and facial recognition was used to log every visitor; all of which was freely available on the internet to any person?

Re: Amazon's Ring Police Portal For Mass Surveillance

#166

Post by ragequitta »

reaperducer wrote: post #164
chaostheory wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Were they forced to join? Was it compulsory? You do know even after you join, you choose what clips to share right?

All I know is that they were creeped out that the police asked them directly. I didn't ask if they signed up or not. But the average person isn't some internet pretend lawyer, and will go along with anything someone with a badge says. Just the request is intimidation enough for most people. even after you join, you choose what clips to share right? You choose what you want to voluntarily share. But since the videos a…

If the courts are saying yes there has to be a justifiable reason. A crime has to have happened. It isn't the 'if you don't have anything to hide...' argument at that point, it's 'if you don't have a crime to hide'. That said I'm avoiding such technology as long as possible for other reasons.

I say as I type this on my phone with a camera and microphone pointed at me.

Re: Amazon's Ring Police Portal For Mass Surveillance

#167

Post by chaostheory »

reaperducer wrote: post #164
chaostheory wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Were they forced to join? Was it compulsory? You do know even after you join, you choose what clips to share right?

All I know is that they were creeped out that the police asked them directly. I didn't ask if they signed up or not. But the average person isn't some internet pretend lawyer, and will go along with anything someone with a badge says. Just the request is intimidation enough for most people. even after you join, you choose what clips to share right? You choose what you want to voluntarily share. But since the videos a…

> You choose what you want to voluntarily share. But since the videos are on Ring's server, when the homeowner says "no," the courts say, "yes."

1. If this is true, then it applies to all data in the cloud, including stuff everyone already stores from their smartphone. Are you going to stop using your smart phone? Are you going to stop using Waze and online maps? Do you maintain your own personal email server? Do you use IM? Law enforcement would also have to make a formal request for the data. They don’t have instant access to it.

2. Again, this is completely opt-in and you can leave when you want.

3. To keep your video clips longer than a few hours, you need to pay for a Ring subscription. Again this is optional.

4. no one is forced to buy Ring devices

5. Mass surveillance has been here for years now. It doesn’t matter if you use Facebook or not. As long as your friends, family, and coworkers use it; they will have data on you. Is it possible to avoid? Of course but it would require such as drastic change in life that it would be impractical for most techies

Re: Amazon's Ring Police Portal For Mass Surveillance

#168

Post by conanbatt »

_r3e4 wrote: post #2

I found this dropbox link to Ring's marketing video for Police Departments to use their smart video cameras for mass surveillance. This was made before Amazon acquired them. At the end of the demo the CEO states that their facial recognition search feature will be available soon. This software is made in Ukraine and the hardware is manufactured in China. There was no private company contract bid - Ring is just giving…

No encryption? You can siphon the videos from the ring device by just connecting on the same wifi?

The concerns of allowing a surveillance state are real. I hope Jamie addresses all these concerns.

Re: Amazon's Ring Police Portal For Mass Surveillance

#169

Post by ndespres »

qmr wrote: post #162
ndespres wrote: post #87

I can not imagine developing this and thinking that it is Good. This type of product and platform completely ignores the reality of how it will be used and how police behave in American society. In the demo video, their example has someone sharing a photo of "suspicious people" walking around outside their house, and has neighbors commenting "oh no!" on it. Now the police are alerted to this "crime" which may not eve…

I can't stand nextdoor. Bunch of idiots scared of their own shadow sharing photos and videos of "suspicious" people and dumbasses asking about "gunshots" any time a car backfires or a firecracker is set off. Ridiculous.

Now imagine someone's Ring camera takes a snapshot of the person with the backfiring car and sends it to the police as having fired a gun! Who would build this?

Re: Amazon's Ring Police Portal For Mass Surveillance

#170

Post by will_brown »

dragonwriter wrote: post #157
will_brown wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I have been, twice, once with overwhelming evidence and once where the perpetrator openly admitted the offense, where the police wouldn't even send someone out, much less pursue the case. Now I see why you’re so bitter. Still others shouldn’t have to face the same fate as you. Did you take your own advice and file a civil suit? If not why, is that a shitty solution also? You didn’t care about the damages so much as…

> Now I see why you’re so bitter. I'm not the one that is expressing bitterness about this reality. > Still others shouldn’t have to face the same fate as you. Sure, in a perfect world there would be no resource constraints. Of course, property crime (and even property itself ) probably would be a lot less of an issue in that case. Scarce resources require tradeoffs. Some property crimes not being pursued is not any…

>I'm not the one that is expressing bitterness about this reality.

Proposing a solution (a crowdsourced public platform for investigating crimes for/with law enforcement) is not bitter. Your response of shitting on the idea and saying civil courts already exist...is seemly bitter about your own experience.

I noticed you didn’t answer my question about your own cases, which makes me think you didn’t follow your own legal advice and pursue anything in civil court. That’s very telling.

>Because, where criminal prosecution already serves the public interest

This is where you begin to sound like a troll...I know you’re not for the record...but what you are doing in this thread is telling victims of crimes, that persecuting these cases doesn’t serve the public interest. Who are you to make that determination?

It would appear you are using a self fulfilling definition...that is if your case isn’t prosecuted then there either aren’t resources or it’s not in the public interest. But that’s not true. First you don’t know what happened factually so you have no idea if it’s in the public interest, and second you have no idea whether there are resources for this crime in this jurisdiction.

And you keep bringing up restitution...that’s the least of my concerns. Can you even set forth a standard for what cases are in the public interest? And can you distinguish why my case isn’t in the public interest? Why weren’t your cases in the public interest?

Post reply on HN