Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ring has partnered with 400 police forces

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 156 posts

Re: Ring has partnered with 400 police forces

#131

Post by dang »

Dirlewanger wrote: post #92
refurb wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your hyperbole really undercuts your (reasonable) argument.

Absolutely nothing hyperbole about it. You haven't been paying attention if you think it is. Our phones have numerous parties (besides the telcos) all slurping up their own version of data about our lives. We have 0 ability to opt out of any of it. Retorting with "just don't use a mobile phone" is fine, but it's also not practical. Why should we be subject to all this surveillance? Go ahead and continue to downvote m…

> Go ahead and continue to downvote me, you fucking corporate shills. The truth hurts, I know.

We've had to ask you multiple times before to stop breaking the site guidelines. If you keep doing it, we're going to have to ban you. I don't want to ban you, so would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and post in the intended spirit?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Ring has partnered with 400 police forces

#132

Post by DEADBEEFC0FFEE »

vorpalhex wrote: post #17

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 doubt the resident get to learn what the request is for. So that footage might incriminate the resident, a family member,betc. Awks.

Also, how might a corrupt officer abuse this system?

How might criminals exploit this system?

How might Ring stuff up, and provide unauthorised access?

How might a secret court demand Ring provide access?

Re: Ring has partnered with 400 police forces

#133

Post by notJim »

ghaff wrote: post #106
ixtli wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe we shouldn't construct a society where your obligations to your employer are at odds with you helping society find justice for a murder victim. This is a great example of how atomized our society has become.

I'm honestly not sure what that means. Many large companies tend to be pretty flexible with respect to things like jury duty. But, to say that even a small business needs to keep paying full salary for someone who is out for weeks or longer (and even if they have to hire a temporary replacement) is probably not realistic. Per diems for things like jury duty should arguably be higher. But there's no world in which, sa…

> But there's no world in which, say, a Silicon Valley software developer is going to be paid their regular daily salary with benefits.

Why not? The proportion of people involved in a trial at any given time must be so small that replacing their salaries would be a relatively minor drag on companies if it was distributed well.

Re: Ring has partnered with 400 police forces

#134

Post by notJim »

loteck wrote: post #51
vgoh1 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what country you are in, but that's called civic duty, and helps society work.

Why can't society compensate this person fairly for his help?

As others say, society does to some degree, but isn't the real compensation for such things living in a society where people help each other in these circumstances? Not everything has to be a financial transaction.

Re: Ring has partnered with 400 police forces

#135

Post by notJim »

wolco wrote: post #125
solotronics wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it was a family member of yours that was murdered wouldn't you want someone to help catch the person who did it?

Just to extend the discussion. What does a murdered family member entitle you to? Should all homes be able to be searched in America because someone was murdered and the crime not solved? Should all other rights disappear in the hunt for your family member. There has to be limits to the extremes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Re: Ring has partnered with 400 police forces

#136

Post by chrisdhoover »

vgoh1 wrote: post #38
5440 wrote: post #24

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.

Not sure what country you are in, but that's called civic duty, and helps society work.

Except the civic institutions are corrupt and therefore the duty is voided.

Re: Ring has partnered with 400 police forces

#137

Post by LorenPechtel »

throwaway_law wrote: post #69
Faaak wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>How is them going to court a civic duty ? 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 tes…

The idea of cross-examining the person who introduces security camera video doesn't really make much sense. If the camera actually witnessed the crime what could the installation possibly have to do with it? The only time it could be relevant is if the camera simply showed when/where the suspect was.

I would like to see the system modified somewhat--in criminal trials everyone has to disclose what they are going to present anyway. The other side should be required to indicate if and in what way they are going to challenge the evidence. If there's no dispute about where the camera is then nobody need be available to testify to where it is. (As it's cloud there's no issue of when.)

Re: Ring has partnered with 400 police forces

#138

Post by LorenPechtel »

inscionent wrote: post #67
cc439 wrote: post #29

Earlier 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.

You have fallen for the hype. Red flag laws are a very bad implementation of a good idea.

Re: Ring has partnered with 400 police forces

#139

Post by LorenPechtel »

rbritton wrote: post #88
inscionent wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That first one sounds like someone that should have been red flagged--I wouldn't call that a failure of the system. The police were there, he had put the gun down and then picked it up again.

Yeah, family members said he wouldn't hurt anyone. It's very common for family members to side with abusers over victims.

The second, however, is the sort of problem that plague red flag laws.

Re: Ring has partnered with 400 police forces

#140

Post by opwieurposiu »

logfromblammo wrote: post #68
opwieurposiu wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Make sure you use exactly that argument in the civil suit against you for the willful destruction of someone else's property. 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, anyw…

I agree 100%, In a public space, any one has the right to capture any photons I may emit. And I have the right to choose the quantity and wavelength of photons I want to emit(1st amendment in USA, natural right everywhere).

I can do this by wearing a white or black shirt for example.

If your image sensor can't hang with the big boys, don't bring it to the playground.

Post reply on HN