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

141–150 of 156 posts

Re: Ring has partnered with 400 police forces

#141

Post by MaupitiBlue »

dooglius wrote: post #44
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…

> Ring said it would not provide user video footage in response to a subpoena, but would comply if company officials were presented with a search warrant or felt they had a legal obligation to produce the content . [Emphasis mine]

In what jurisdiction is a subpoena not a legal obligation?

Re: Ring has partnered with 400 police forces

#142

Post by MaupitiBlue »

authoritarian wrote: post #108
ghaff wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In which case, you would probably be found in contempt of court and fined or arrested if a judge wanted to push the point.

Fine with me, they can compensate me for my time or contact my attorney. In reality, knowing how scummy the local criminal "justice" system is, I would never have reported or handed over the video anyway knowing they'd try to pull some nonsense like making me miss a month of work unpaid. When my mother was robbed she waited an hour in the rain and the police (Seattle PD) didn't even send a unit out to make a report.…

I remember being 14.

Re: Ring has partnered with 400 police forces

#143

Post by threwawasy1228 »

authoritarian wrote: post #95
threwawasy1228 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who just served Jury Duty in the USA. I can tell you the 'bill' for my services was barely minimum wage.

Fortunately it's incredibly easy to get eliminated during the selection process if you know how to answer the questions

I purposefully decided not to attempt to use a bunch of excuses to get out of it actually, because I was interested in the experience.

Re: Ring has partnered with 400 police forces

#144

Post by fibbery »

derefr wrote: post #74
ProAm wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not as if the police are pulling a Batman and watching every ring simultaneously 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.

I mean, yeah, probably, but on the scale that organizations like the NSA operate on, making deals with smaller IoT manufacturers like Ring is pretty inefficient. They’d probably rather just use that keystroke to pull the video straight out of whatever cloud object storage Ring relies on, in a way that’s generic to many IoT video-capture devices by many manufacturers, such that their software can pull all those assets…

Smaller iot manufacturers like... Amazon

Re: Ring has partnered with 400 police forces

#145

Post by throwaway_law »

LorenPechtel wrote: post #137
throwaway_law wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 p…

>The idea of cross-examining the person who introduces security camera video doesn't really make much sense.

Well interestingly this is a major issue in red light camera cases. Initially as cities were implementing red light cameras, the ticket and court case were all essentially automated.

In many jurisdictions this was challenged on multiple grounds, but one of the biggest issues (which most courts tending to agree with) is violation of the defendants rights to cross examine the State's witness and improperly introducing the video into evidence (generally it was introduced by affidavit from some record keeper in the camera company).

Its really a fundamental rights issue.

Re: Ring has partnered with 400 police forces

#146

Post by homonculus1 »

logfromblammo wrote: post #86
gameswithgo wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>There is no ethical distinction between installing a camera to record, and watching with one's own eyes and remembering what was seen.

Yes there is, simply by the fact that you can't stand in multiple places and remember everything all the time. The problem with mass surveillance is the scale.

Re: Ring has partnered with 400 police forces

#147

Post by logfromblammo »

homonculus1 wrote: post #146
logfromblammo wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>There is no ethical distinction between installing a camera to record, and watching with one's own eyes and remembering what was seen. Yes there is, simply by the fact that you can't stand in multiple places and remember everything all the time. The problem with mass surveillance is the scale.

Where is the cutoff point, then? At what number of cameras, or cameras per square meter, is it no longer ethical to record what is visible from your property? Exactly one camera? Can you multiplex multiples, so the video feed simulates a person walking around the property?

Are the ethics limited by human capabilities, or by human intent? Or it strictly a matter of outcomes?

Re: Ring has partnered with 400 police forces

#148

Post by logfromblammo »

opwieurposiu wrote: post #140
logfromblammo wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you think is acceptable to emit a damaging level of photons in public, you are also espousing shining blinding green lasers into other people's eyeballs, or setting off EMP devices, or radio jammers, or even just using reflecting mirrors to shine bright sunlight into other people's faces. And if it is acceptable for you to do it to others, it is equally acceptable for others to do it to you.

Perhaps you could think of people as Part 15 devices, with limits on emitted power and a commitment to not interfere with other users of the spectrum? Your right to flail your fists around wildly stops at the end of my nose.

Re: Ring has partnered with 400 police forces

#149

Post by MaupitiBlue »

sixothree wrote: post #87
HarryHirsch wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are many.

Fellow officers can be a check.

The police internal affairs are a check.

In most cities there is a police board that acts as a check.

The local DA can be a check.

The US Attorney for the state can be a check.

The defense attorney can be a check.

The judge can be a check.

Re: Ring has partnered with 400 police forces

#150

Post by homonculus1 »

logfromblammo wrote: post #147
homonculus1 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There is no ethical distinction between installing a camera to record, and watching with one's own eyes and remembering what was seen. Yes there is, simply by the fact that you can't stand in multiple places and remember everything all the time. The problem with mass surveillance is the scale.

Where is the cutoff point, then? At what number of cameras, or cameras per square meter, is it no longer ethical to record what is visible from your property? Exactly one camera? Can you multiplex multiples, so the video feed simulates a person walking around the property? Are the ethics limited by human capabilities, or by human intent? Or it strictly a matter of outcomes?

If you were to stand on your porch with phone in hand, on the line with the police, and narrate aloud that your neighbor is out getting the paper, and what he looks like, and that he has a strange car in his driveway from the night before, etc. it would be immediately obvious how socially inappropriate and unacceptable this degree of surveillance is. The fact that we have not already codified a specific right or social norm against it is an accident of the fact that nobody has the time to do this manually, and most people don't know or fully realize that their neighbors' doorbells are doing so electronically. Any networked camera continuously filming a field of view off your own property is bad.
Post reply on HN