Amazon’s Ring Is Putting Suspected Petty Thieves in Its Advertisements
1–10 of 169 posts
Re: Amazon’s Ring Is Putting Suspected Petty Thieves in Its Advertisements
#2I see no issue with this. It is a public space capturing a crime. Fuck thievery. And fuck people who clutch their pearls at make-believe issues.
Re: Amazon’s Ring Is Putting Suspected Petty Thieves in Its Advertisements
#3I don't see a problem. The police department posted the same video.
Re: Amazon’s Ring Is Putting Suspected Petty Thieves in Its Advertisements
#4I don't see a problem. The police department posted the same video.
The difference is this is an ad. Commercial speech is subject to more regulation than private speech in America.
For example, California has a right of publicity law. It's my understanding that even photos taken "in public" can't necessarily be used for commercial purposes:
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-right-publicity-l...
Re: Amazon’s Ring Is Putting Suspected Petty Thieves in Its Advertisements
#5I don't see a problem. The police department posted the same video.
The police department stated that she was a suspect; Amazon identified her as a thief, breaking the presumption of innocence that is a bedrock of American society.
If the video is fine, the post wording still isn't.
Re: Amazon’s Ring Is Putting Suspected Petty Thieves in Its Advertisements
#6I smell a lawsuit coming. How can Amazon think it's ok to use people's faces in an advertisement when those people haven't been convicted of a crime?
The case of Ring is particularly disturbing. When its inventor appeared on Shark Tank, he said he wanted to create a way to hear his doorbell from the garage. Since Amazon bought the company for $1B, it's pivoted to a surveillance tool that's being offered to police as a way to freely record and review neighborhood camera views.
It's sad to see that unicorn companies today believe that surveillance capitalism is the way forward. Personally, I long for a return to old-fashioned values in business, namely making a product or service that people care about and want to pay for rather than pandering to fear and courting easy money from our soon-to-be robot overlords.
Re: Amazon’s Ring Is Putting Suspected Petty Thieves in Its Advertisements
#7Posted this yesterday with same source, same headline: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20117905
Re: Amazon’s Ring Is Putting Suspected Petty Thieves in Its Advertisements
#8I don't see a problem. The police department posted the same video.
The difference is this is an ad. Commercial speech is subject to more regulation than private speech in America. For example, California has a right of publicity law. It's my understanding that even photos taken "in public" can't necessarily be used for commercial purposes: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-right-publicity-l...
Amazon should have instead paid an actor, created a fake video and then use that as an ad. Might have even gone viral like this one did.
Re: Amazon’s Ring Is Putting Suspected Petty Thieves in Its Advertisements
#9I smell a lawsuit coming. How can Amazon think it's ok to use people's faces in an advertisement when those people haven't been convicted of a crime? The case of Ring is particularly disturbing. When its inventor appeared on Shark Tank, he said he wanted to create a way to hear his doorbell from the garage. Since Amazon bought the company for $1B, it's pivoted to a surveillance tool that's being offered to police as…
Additionally: why would it be ok to use people's faces in an advertisement even if those people HAD been convicted of a crime?
(I agree with your main point.)
Re: Amazon’s Ring Is Putting Suspected Petty Thieves in Its Advertisements
#10I don't see a problem. The police department posted the same video.
The difference is this is an ad. Commercial speech is subject to more regulation than private speech in America. For example, California has a right of publicity law. It's my understanding that even photos taken "in public" can't necessarily be used for commercial purposes: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-right-publicity-l...
Yes, the tweet is promoted. But I'm not sure if it would fit the definition of an "ad"
(And what's the definition of an ad you ask? Good question, I'm not sure if the FTC has a specific definition)
Think like this: what if Amazon was putting the same information into a newspaper?