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

Amazon’s Ring Is Putting Suspected Petty Thieves in Its Advertisements

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 169 posts

Re: Amazon’s Ring Is Putting Suspected Petty Thieves in Its Advertisements

#41

Post by ppseafield »

throwawayatty wrote: post #18
dtagames wrote: post #6

I 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…

As an attorney (this is not legal advice), I would like to know what law might be violated by publishing these videos. They're owned by the person who recorded the video; and presumably they gave Ring a license to use them for such purposes. The subject of the video, as far as I can tell, has no rights that might be recognized in law. There's no privacy right, as there's no reasonable expectation of privacy under suc…

Perhaps defamation? If this person isn't actually guilty of their suspected crime, especially since no conviction has been made, couldn't this post ruin the person's reputation?

Re: Amazon’s Ring Is Putting Suspected Petty Thieves in Its Advertisements

#42

Post by spraak »

isoskeles wrote: post #21
bdcravens wrote: post #16

On the Ring Neighbors app, you see all sorts of videos where the posters are making criminal accusations all the time. (usually it's a guy selling electricity door to door, but his skin tone is wrong, so they assume he's there to rob the house)

> his skin tone is wrong I'm happy this is pretty close to the extent of "racism" in our society at this point. Really grasping at straws if you have to keep reminding people about the horrors of racism when it comes out as, "Some people are upset that a wrong-colored stranger showed up at their door."

That's a very naive and limited view, definitely not the extent of racism in the US. You're seeing it as the upper bound, when it's really more of the lower bound, and it's indicative of much deeper and serious problems.

Re: Amazon’s Ring Is Putting Suspected Petty Thieves in Its Advertisements

#43

Post by therealgranton »

isoskeles wrote: post #36
therealgranton wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's nowhere near "the extent of 'racism' in our society at this point". You must be from a pretty affluent area if you believe racism is a non-issue. Racism is fucking disgusting, coming from a white dude. I've had to pick up tables as a server because certain (infrequent) people "don't want a nigger to touch their food". I bought my co-worker lunch that day. He felt completely destroyed by not being able to make…

> You must be from a pretty affluent area if you believe racism is a non-issue. I'm not, and I'm also not white. But hey, keep your eyes on the prize and focus on the actual racism out there, rather than diversion tactics like people complaining about other people complaining about strangers coming to their door.

I apologise for assuming anything about you. Sincerely. I just wanted to remind people how vitriolic real racism can be, even in just day-to-day interactions.

The "racism discussion" keeps being skimmed on by these sorts of articles/observations, rather than directly confronting the issues, and it's upsetting.

Re: Amazon’s Ring Is Putting Suspected Petty Thieves in Its Advertisements

#44

Post by rolltiide »

from linked tweet:

> is it legal for ring/amazon to use faces of people, suspected BY THEIR CUSTOMERS to have done crimes, in an advertisement? especially given they haven't consented or been convicted or anything. seems uhhh not right

This really comes down to the consequences.

"A calculated risk betting that the people shown allegedly committing crimes won't risk identifying themselves to sue"

or a paid actor.

generally a win for everyone

Re: Amazon’s Ring Is Putting Suspected Petty Thieves in Its Advertisements

#45

Post by ppseafield »

throwawayatty wrote: post #32
Bud wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if one claims the video is fine (and I'd disagree), it's still a very very very bad idea for Amazon, or any large company, to be enforcing the law and conducting mass shaming via advertising. That's practically a Black Mirror episode, and I would hope that everyone can see this, but judging from this comment thread, that's clearly not the case. Disturbing.

What's the practical difference between a TV show like "COPS" (or any of its various descendants), which features police recordings of its interactions in public with possibly-innocent suspects, and what's happening here? Is it merely the association with a commercial product?

COPS like any TV show blurs people's faces unless they sign a release.

Re: Amazon’s Ring Is Putting Suspected Petty Thieves in Its Advertisements

#47

Post by rolltiide »

Xylakant wrote: post #40
throwawayatty wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Attorney here, but this is not legal advice.) It would be a very unusual circumstance for a person caught on camera performing a criminal act to incriminate him/herself by admitting guilt for the purpose of prevailing on a right-to-publicity action. Moreover, every case involving right to publicity/right of likeness thus far has had a "famous" person as the plaintiff, where there's a sort of "brand goodwill" in the…

> It would be a very unusual circumstance for a person caught on camera performing a criminal act But the person wasn’t caught on camera performing a criminal act afaics. She was caught walking between two cars and pulling at a door handle, the car was locked, person continued. Is this criminal? Kids do that all the time. It’s alleged that the person did perform a criminal act elsewhere but was not caught on camera.

The point is that this person would have to sue. There is no district attorney or third party that would sue Amazon for this action.

So it is a calculated risk that they won't sue, absolving Amazon of any actual negative consequence.

Re: Amazon’s Ring Is Putting Suspected Petty Thieves in Its Advertisements

#48

Post by cwal37 »

mc32 wrote: post #26
paulgb wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In some states (including NY and CA) electricity is partially deregulated so you can choose from different providers, even though it all goes through the same grid. There are actually sales people who go door to door or set up booths to encourage people to switch, usually pitching it as cleaner energy and/or cost-saving.

Thanks for the reply. I only have PG&E. No alternative that I know of, so that sounded off kilter. But glad to know what that is all about.

It's a bit more complicated. The door-to-door thing is retail choice, typically when people talk about "deregulated" electricity markets they're often referring to stuff at the generation/transmission level (wholesale markets), where a regional transmission operator is the balancing authority and offers a variety of market products that utilities and merchant generators participate in. Generally this has been perceived as more efficient than the traditional integrated utility and lowered costs for consumers in general. Since you're on PG&E, you're probably in California ISO's territory[1].

"Retail choice" is the ability of individual households to buy directly from retail suppliers[2], and the history there is a bit spottier and less conclusive. It's not as widespread and participation has actually declined[3].

[1] http://www.caiso.com/Pages/default.aspx

[2] https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/68993.pdf

[3] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37452

Re: Amazon’s Ring Is Putting Suspected Petty Thieves in Its Advertisements

#49

Post by dontbenebby »

raverbashing wrote: post #10
dontbenebby wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Yes, the tweet is promoted. But I'm not sure if it would fit the definition of an "ad"

It's posted by a corporation to sell a product. I think it's disingenuous to claim it's not an ad, though whether the content of the ad is illegal is admittedly debatable.

(As an aside, it's my understanding the "Promoted" tag is added specifically to comply with FTC guidelines that paid content be labeled.)

Re: Amazon’s Ring Is Putting Suspected Petty Thieves in Its Advertisements

#50

Post by lojack »

throwawayatty wrote: post #18
dtagames wrote: post #6

I 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…

As an attorney (this is not legal advice), I would like to know what law might be violated by publishing these videos. They're owned by the person who recorded the video; and presumably they gave Ring a license to use them for such purposes. The subject of the video, as far as I can tell, has no rights that might be recognized in law. There's no privacy right, as there's no reasonable expectation of privacy under suc…

Not a lawyer, but to me this sounds like libel to me. There's an implication that the people are committing a crime despite not being convicted. Doesn't sound like a clear cut case because it doesn't outright say they're a criminal. That said, I could be missing some of the nuances with these laws.
Post reply on HN