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

51–60 of 169 posts

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

#51

Post by throwawayatty »

gnicholas wrote: post #38
throwawayatty wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Former attorney here. I'd guess it would be a claim like defamation or false light. These laws aren't typically used in this way, but I could see them being applied here. For defamation, for example, the claim would be that by including someone's face in an advertisement about home security videos, Amazon is implying that the person pictured is someone whom you would not want snooping around your house because he's a…

If others similarly situated could prevail on similar theories, TV shows like "COPS" and the like wouldn't be possible. The fact that they've been successfully running for over 20 years suggests that this is not the case.

Second, there's no "false light" if the recording shows the plaintiff plainly performing a criminal act.

Finally, a disclaimer of innocence until proven guilty would likely tend to negate such a defamation claim.

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

#52

Post by balls187 »

gnicholas wrote: post #38
throwawayatty wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Former attorney here. I'd guess it would be a claim like defamation or false light. These laws aren't typically used in this way, but I could see them being applied here. For defamation, for example, the claim would be that by including someone's face in an advertisement about home security videos, Amazon is implying that the person pictured is someone whom you would not want snooping around your house because he's a…

That person is on camera attempting to open a car that is (presumably) not theirs, on (presumably) private property. Unless the recording was edited or taken out of context, proving that statement is false is going to be difficult.

There is an additional nuance as to whether a sponsored post is an ad or not. They are paid for posts to reach a larger audience, but not necessarily to advertise a product. In this case, the police are asking for more information about this person, and Ring has paid Facebook to reach a larger audience.

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

#53

Post by balls187 »

dontbenebby wrote: post #49
raverbashing wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

It fits the definition of marketing, but not advertising.

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

#54

Post by [deleted] »

rolltiide wrote: post #47
Xylakant wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

[deleted]

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

#55

Post by stronglikedan »

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)

I see this all the time too, but it's people of all skin colors. Basically, anyone walking up to the door of some houses for any reason gets reported and accused. I'd be interested to see the data that supports the "but his skin tone is wrong" part of your statement, because it doesn't seem to be applicable or relevant in my experience with the app. (Although, I'm sure if anyone could manufacture that data, it would be Vice.)

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

#56

Post by jjulius »

throwawayatty wrote: post #51
gnicholas wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Former attorney here. I'd guess it would be a claim like defamation or false light. These laws aren't typically used in this way, but I could see them being applied here. For defamation, for example, the claim would be that by including someone's face in an advertisement about home security videos, Amazon is implying that the person pictured is someone whom you would not want snooping around your house because he's a…

If others similarly situated could prevail on similar theories, TV shows like "COPS" and the like wouldn't be possible. The fact that they've been successfully running for over 20 years suggests that this is not the case. Second, there's no "false light" if the recording shows the plaintiff plainly performing a criminal act. Finally, a disclaimer of innocence until proven guilty would likely tend to negate such a def…

>If others similarly situated could prevail on similar theories, TV shows like "COPS" and the like wouldn't be possible. The fact that they've been successfully running for over 20 years suggests that this is not the case.

I haven't seen an episode of COPS in almost two decades, when I was a kid, but if I recall correctly, a lot of suspects faces on the show were blurred out so that they wouldn't be identified. I don't know if that is because they didn't sign a consent form from the show (or if the show even needed that), or what, but a lot of faces we're definitely censored.

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

#57

Post by mrkstu »

throwawayatty wrote: post #51
gnicholas wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Former attorney here. I'd guess it would be a claim like defamation or false light. These laws aren't typically used in this way, but I could see them being applied here. For defamation, for example, the claim would be that by including someone's face in an advertisement about home security videos, Amazon is implying that the person pictured is someone whom you would not want snooping around your house because he's a…

If others similarly situated could prevail on similar theories, TV shows like "COPS" and the like wouldn't be possible. The fact that they've been successfully running for over 20 years suggests that this is not the case. Second, there's no "false light" if the recording shows the plaintiff plainly performing a criminal act. Finally, a disclaimer of innocence until proven guilty would likely tend to negate such a def…

I think you'd have to hit an edge case like a repo-man who the ring owner has falsely identified as someone trying to steal their car.

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

#58

Post by dTal »

therealgranton wrote: post #30
isoskeles wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 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 still served them?!

That kind of language and treatment of staff should result in ejection from the premises and a permanent ban, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Not indulgence!

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

#59

Post by dsfyu404ed »

therealgranton wrote: post #30
isoskeles wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 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.

It's the affluent areas that tend to be the worst about this, except maybe the ultra liberal ones around certain cities where the racists dare not let their opinions be known so they tend to focus on social class instead.

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

#60

Post by dsfyu404ed »

jjulius wrote: post #56
throwawayatty wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If others similarly situated could prevail on similar theories, TV shows like "COPS" and the like wouldn't be possible. The fact that they've been successfully running for over 20 years suggests that this is not the case. Second, there's no "false light" if the recording shows the plaintiff plainly performing a criminal act. Finally, a disclaimer of innocence until proven guilty would likely tend to negate such a def…

>If others similarly situated could prevail on similar theories, TV shows like "COPS" and the like wouldn't be possible. The fact that they've been successfully running for over 20 years suggests that this is not the case. I haven't seen an episode of COPS in almost two decades, when I was a kid, but if I recall correctly, a lot of suspects faces on the show were blurred out so that they wouldn't be identified. I don…

>I haven't seen an episode of COPS in almost two decades, when I was a kid, but if I recall correctly, a lot of suspects faces on the show were blurred out so that they wouldn't be identified

Yup. Faces of suspects were often blurred. Victim/witnesses would also have their faces blurred sometimes, I assume they were offered some compensation in exchange for showing their face.

Post reply on HN