61–70 of 156 posts
My ring camera caught a murderer breaking a door down last year and it's been a headache for me ever since. Even though I didnt actually see the murder,I've been called to several depositions and had to take three unpaid weeks off of work because of trial stuff. It's so frustrating. All I say everytime, is "Yes, I own the camera" I regret ever buying it at this point.
This headline leaves out an important detail from the article: > Officers don’t receive ongoing or live-video access, and homeowners can decline the requests, which Ring sends via email It's not as if the police are pulling a Batman and watching every ring simultaneously, but instead they can do the digital equivalent of going door-to-door and asking "Hey, did you catch footage of your neighbors house being broken in…
The result of that is the random citizens won't have much leverage to say no, because the police can likely figure out a way to get the video from Ring directly.
This headline leaves out an important detail from the article: > Officers don’t receive ongoing or live-video access, and homeowners can decline the requests, which Ring sends via email It's not as if the police are pulling a Batman and watching every ring simultaneously, but instead they can do the digital equivalent of going door-to-door and asking "Hey, did you catch footage of your neighbors house being broken in…
I have serious doubts this can't happen with a keystroke if deemed necessary to protect citizens from imminent danger or terrorism. It's cynical but we also thought there was no chance the government was spying on all Americans telecommunications either.
My ring camera caught a murderer breaking a door down last year and it's been a headache for me ever since. Even though I didnt actually see the murder,I've been called to several depositions and had to take three unpaid weeks off of work because of trial stuff. It's so frustrating. All I say everytime, is "Yes, I own the camera" I regret ever buying it at this point.
I imagine if you saw the person enter the house and not your camera, the results would be similar: depositions, time away from work, etc? The question is, in this particular case, did the camera help identify an otherwise unknown suspect?
In the other case, the camera caught it on a digital format thats accessible by literally anyone living in the 21st century.
At the time of this posting, the link above this one was "China’s CCTV network took just 7 minutes to capture BBC reporter (2017)." I find that very ironic, especially because the comments inside are calling China a surveillance state.
It's completely different. /s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who is confiscating weapons?
The police via Red Flag laws which are incredibly easy to abuse.
Red flag laws are mostly used to prevent suicides and domestic violence. They are formal proceedings and due process of law. If the problem is with the law, organize and change it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great. You pointed that camera directly at my house and are now infringing on my right not to have it watched by the police 24/7. Please explain why your rights are greater than mine.
When someone films you, they are implicitly consenting to use their image sensor to receive any photons you may emit. Should you choose to emit a few extra photons, say with a 5 watt laser pointer, it is their problem if said image sensor becomes less responsive to photons in the future.
You have no reasonable expectation of [visual] privacy anywhere that is plainly visible from ground level on the public right-of-way. Erect an opaque privacy barrier if you're worried about snooping cameras. Remember to have the utility lines marked before you dig your post holes.
Anyone, anywhere in the US, is free to photograph or video-record anything they can see, from any place they have a legal right to stand.
If you don't want your emitted photons captured by someone else, capture them yourself before they leave your property.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure what country you are in, but that's called civic duty, and helps society work.
How is them going to court a civic duty ? You could testify once that this is your camera and here are the mp4 files (and their sha sum). And that would be it. Equally, technically they didn't see anything as the video caught by the camera could actually be made up.
Imagine if it was you or a loved one that was murdered and a neighbor's camera caught the suspect breaking into the house.
>You could testify once that this is your camera and here are the mp4 files (and their sha sum). And that would be it.
This is just how the rules of evidence work (also equal protection and due process), you can't just submit video, there needs to be testimony to introduce the video into evidence. Further, the defendant has a constitutional right to cross examine the person who introduces the video into evidence.
>Equally, technically they didn't see anything as the video caught by the camera could actually be made up.
Yes, and the Defense will hammer this point home. You didn't see the murder right? If the video actually shows what it alleges to show, the defendant breaking into the home, you have no evidence the defendant actually killed the homeowner right? You have no evidence the defendant even confronted the deceased correct? Of course there are other questions about handling the video and chain of custody, but the obvious being was the video edited (by you or the police after turning it over to them)? Do you have a copy of the original video you turned over to police (is there a difference between the copies, etc...).
As another commented said there is no difference between the video and if you eye-witnessed the suspect entering the home, you would still testify one way or the other (including acknowledging you didn't see the suspect commit the murder and have no knowledge if the suspect committed the murder, its possible someone else could have broke in when you weren't watching, or around back, etc...)
Is "half a square mile wide" supposed to mean a square that's half a mile on each side?