Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why can't society compensate this person fairly for his help?
It can. He should be able to invoice the DA for his time. The taxpayers (society) foots the bill.
[deleted]
Ring has partnered with 400 police forces
81–90 of 156 posts
Re: Ring has partnered with 400 police forces
#82My 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 don't see why this is necessary. If it's on camera why would it matter who it belongs to? Is some legal letter not sufficient? Something along the lines of "I, name, live at this address and own the device that captured said footage". It's not like it was a witness account or anything.
How does the defense question the circumstances around the video if it's just a letter they sent in? Or should they just take the prosecutors word that the video is what they say it is?
Re: Ring has partnered with 400 police forces
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
At the risk of being glib, your headache and frustrations seem trivial in the context of the crime you're mentioning.
At equal risk of being glib, I don't think the purchase of consumer electronics should put you on the hook for weeks of depositions for a crime you didn't personally witness. I believe that would the literal manifestation of "that's not what I signed up for". Here's the MP4 file, now go away.
What if you were a random witness? You didn't sign up for that either. You have certain civic obligations which are enforced by law. I assume in these types of cases, you could be held in contempt if you wouldn't respond voluntarily.
It's unfortunate for the person involved and the incentives in the system are such that no one is trying to make efficient use of their time. But that's pretty much the way it is.
It's not really that different from being seated on a multi-week jury trial much less a possibly multi-month grand jury.
Re: Ring has partnered with 400 police forces
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Stasi Did you know the Stasi was the largest spy organization in modern history? More than 50,000 people worked for them. In a group of 12 people, two to three are often informants.
In today's private free-market Stasi, you'd be lucky if a group of 12 people has two or three who are not informants.
Your hyperbole really undercuts your (reasonable) argument.
Re: Ring has partnered with 400 police forces
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see why this is necessary. If it's on camera why would it matter who it belongs to? Is some legal letter not sufficient? Something along the lines of "I, name, live at this address and own the device that captured said footage". It's not like it was a witness account or anything.
How does the defense question the circumstances around the video if it's just a letter they sent in? Or should they just take the prosecutors word that the video is what they say it is?
It's a video, it can speak for itself
Re: Ring has partnered with 400 police forces
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
>right not to have it watched by the police 24/7 I'm not aware of any legislation in the USA that would make a video feed of the exterior view of a property from one's own property illegal.
The person you are responding to never mentioned laws. I believe he or she would be referring to certain ethical rights we should have.
The right to privacy is the right to wear a mask, not the right to go around poking out other people's eyes.
There is no ethical distinction between installing a camera to record, and watching with one's own eyes and remembering what was seen.
We might, perhaps, have an ethical right to be informed when someone is watching us, that we might take reasonable privacy countermeasures if necessary. On the presumption that people may look in as easily as we look out, we typically put blinds and curtains in our windows. It is not so difficult to do similar things with sight-lines around the exterior of buildings. An umbrella here, an awning there, a fence around, planting some bamboo or arborvitaes--the further away the observer, the smaller their potential viewing angles, and the easier it is to block their view in without also blocking your own view out.
While it may be unsettling to think about our neighbors monitoring our comings and goings, it might also be comforting that they would notice any unusual activity around our property, and maybe also take action to interrupt it, or at least report it. If you put up a screen such that no one else can see it when you go in and out of your front door, likewise no one can see it when a housebreaker is patiently picking its lock. So you put up a camera that you control, to monitor your own threshold, and the surveillance/privacy arms race can stop there. Your neighbor can no longer either look out at you, or look out for you.
Re: Ring has partnered with 400 police forces
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do police have any obligation to be honest in these requests? Even if it’s opt-in, I’d be afraid of cops using the system to harass personal enemies by making requests that say they’re looking for an active serial killer or whatever.
Do police have any obligation to be honest in these requests? No. Infractions would have to be prosecuted by the district attorney, who has no interest to get on the bad side of the police because he needs them to be successful. Consider the case of Arlington police! Arlington cops were in bed with a drug dealer because he supplied the force with steroids. In return for the goodies, the police informed their supplier…
We really need checks and balances on police. Seems like such a fundamental underpinning of democracy eroded.
Re: Ring has partnered with 400 police forces
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
The police via Red Flag laws which are incredibly easy to abuse.
The police are using red flag laws to seize weapons because the 'private free-market Stasi' told them to? 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.
There is no due process. Due process would be (1) a hearing prior to your property being confiscated; and (2) the ability to face your accuser. None of these happen with any existing red flag laws and violate multiple items in the Bill of Rights. Additionally, in most states' implementations of these laws, there are no codified repercussions for false reportings. It's effectively legalized SWATting.
They have led to the death of one man in Maryland [0] and an erroneous confiscation of one man in Florida [1] so far.
[0]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/maryland-officers-serving-red-f...
[1]: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/08/19/red-fla...
Re: Ring has partnered with 400 police forces
#89The first product that popped into my mind when I read the subject's name in the title was Gnu Ring. My jaw dropped several inches before I remembered that Gnu Ring changed its name from Ring to Jami in Jan of this year.
> https://blog.savoirfairelinux.com/en-ca/card/ring-becomes-ja...
Re: Ring has partnered with 400 police forces
#90This 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…
> and homeowners can decline the requests
And is it opt-in or opt-out?