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

Post by gnicholas » Fri, Jun 07, 2019, 4:59 PM UTC

balls187 wrote: post #52

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…

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,…

Post by bdcravens » Fri, Jun 07, 2019, 5:10 PM UTC

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."

Post by geggam » Fri, Jun 07, 2019, 6:30 PM UTC

throwawayatty wrote: post #64

ppseafield wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is out of an abundance of caution, not necessarily because the law requires it. This explains it: https://www.quora.com/Does-the-Cops-TV-show-need-to-get-sign...

Post by Xylakant » Fri, Jun 07, 2019, 6:35 PM UTC

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.

Post by smacktoward » Fri, Jun 07, 2019, 6:55 PM UTC

awinder wrote: post #68

In the video, the woman’s face is clearly visible and there is no obvious criminal activity taking place. The Facebook post shows her passing between two cars. She pulls the door handle of one of the cars, but it is locked. Yeah that's pretty clearly attempting to steal vehicles / contents of vehicles, that's 100% what that looks like.