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

71–80 of 169 posts

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

#71

Post by dzhiurgis »

paulgb wrote: post #24
mc32 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is “selling electricity doir-to-door?” Is that offering solar on roof services? Cuz I can’t imagine actually selling electricity door to door.

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.

US really need to deregulate (btw I find this word an oxymoron, but english is not my first language) their ISP's and most countries really need to deregulate their wireless providers.

Imagine single shared spectrum easy to setup eSIM, easy to terminate contracts. Unfortunately most countries want your ID nowadays when you sign up for internet...

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

#72

Post by pwinnski »

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…

Every person whose face appears on COPS has signed a release allowing this.

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

#73

Post by jvolkman »

geggam wrote: post #66
shiven wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Habeas corpus called & would like to be thawed from deep freeze. The presumption of innocence in American society died a long time ago, with Gitmo, CIA black sites & NSLs. What little was still left, is being killed every day with asylum seeker kids being abused in border ‘shelters’. Long live habeas corpus & the American conscience.

This is codified in law and society has adjusted to it. Example : Driving used to be considered a right, it has since been reduced to a privilege that gets revoked simply by accusation

When was driving considered a right?

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

#74

Post by bluedino »

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…

What part of Alabama do you live in?

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

#75

Post by emusan »

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.

For a few years my only vehicle was an old, beat up Volvo station wagon. The door locks were damaged and would only lock ~50% of the time. Since I parked the car on the street I would always check to ensure that the doors were locked by pulling on a door handle.

One time I did this as a car passed by and a number of people started yelling out of the car at me accusing me of breaking into my own car and even threatening me if I continued.

Just because a small, cut down clip "looks like" attempted robbery does not mean that it is.

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

#76

Post by kelnos »

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…

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

While pulling on the handle of a locked car door and then moving on is certainly shady, I expect it's not a criminal act, right?

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

#77

Post by chocolatebunny »

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…

Probably not going to generate any lawsuits but kind of shows how complicit the general public is about constructing a surveillance state. We bitch when the government spies on us. But with this we're effectively making it so that the we spy on each other for the government.

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

#78

Post by joezydeco »

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.

So perhaps this is a suspect due to other factors that aren't mentioned. Maybe the location of this video is near other documented break-ins and it fits a profile.

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

#79

Post by mosselman »

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.

Is it?

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

#80

Post by throwawayatty »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #60
jjulius wrote: post #56

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. 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.

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...

I'm sure the attorneys at Ring have already been through this discussion to decide whether similar actions were warranted, and concluded otherwise.

Also, a big difference between COPS and the instant case is that in the TV shows, law enforcement have already identified the suspect, while here, the suspect is at large. I think it would be difficult to convince a court that you were the intentional target of defamation when the defendant hasn't identified you yet.

Post reply on HN