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

Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

theintercept.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 532 posts

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#71

Post by RektBoy »

unfocused wrote: post #31

My next door neighbor (we share a wall) had their bicycles stolen twice, so they installed Ring (floodlight) cameras in both the backyard and the front porch. After a year, the cameras have yielded no added security, or caught any "bad guys" as far as I can tell and from what they told me. What I realized, is they use it to keep track of their kids, funny cat videos that trigger the recording, and most importantly, a…

Wild, don't you have any laws against this? Here in CZ(EU), you can't put camera facing public property just like that, I don't even mention facing private property of somebody else, lol. Even camera facing your property and like corner of view is public property, I can send formal complaint to "GDPR" bureau, they will warn the property owner, if nothing happens, fine incoming which can be pretty huge.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#72

Post by bckygldstn »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #38
unfocused wrote: post #31

My next door neighbor (we share a wall) had their bicycles stolen twice, so they installed Ring (floodlight) cameras in both the backyard and the front porch. After a year, the cameras have yielded no added security, or caught any "bad guys" as far as I can tell and from what they told me. What I realized, is they use it to keep track of their kids, funny cat videos that trigger the recording, and most importantly, a…

If your houses are close together I don't think it's reasonable to have an expectation of privacy on the driveway or front porch. After all sound at normal speaking volume can easily travel 100 feet on a quiet day, if there's nothing in-between.

That’s probably legally true in the US, but is that the best we can do?

It’s valid to question the value of laws. Sometimes I wish I did have more privacy in public.

But more importantly, technology has completely changed what non-privacy looks like and is tragic to me that laws haven’t caught up.

There’s a huge practical difference between “someone within 100ft, probably a neighbour who I know, might hear me and probably instantly forget what I said, but 99% of the time no one is there” and “100% of your conversations are recorded, transcribed, and stored forever by a profit-maximising behemoth with various other unavoidable tentacles into my life, and also they might sell or give that data to other companies also the police”.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#73

Post by jrumbut »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #38
unfocused wrote: post #31

My next door neighbor (we share a wall) had their bicycles stolen twice, so they installed Ring (floodlight) cameras in both the backyard and the front porch. After a year, the cameras have yielded no added security, or caught any "bad guys" as far as I can tell and from what they told me. What I realized, is they use it to keep track of their kids, funny cat videos that trigger the recording, and most importantly, a…

If your houses are close together I don't think it's reasonable to have an expectation of privacy on the driveway or front porch. After all sound at normal speaking volume can easily travel 100 feet on a quiet day, if there's nothing in-between.

Incidentally overhearing a conversation and recording 24/7 then uploading anything interesting to a third party's servers for them to do who knows what with it feels very different.

I'm curious what others think of the ethics of a non-internet connected camera? Does that really resolve the issue or do you still consider it wrong to have residential security cameras that capture the sidewalk/street outside the house?

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#74

Post by kcb »

vorpalhex wrote: post #49
unfocused wrote: post #31

My next door neighbor (we share a wall) had their bicycles stolen twice, so they installed Ring (floodlight) cameras in both the backyard and the front porch. After a year, the cameras have yielded no added security, or caught any "bad guys" as far as I can tell and from what they told me. What I realized, is they use it to keep track of their kids, funny cat videos that trigger the recording, and most importantly, a…

It would be a crime for you to use an air pellet rifle and sabotage the device. It would also be a crime if you used spray paint for the same end. I suspect the cameras are sensitive to IR light blinding them, but again, any kind of sabotage could be criminal.

Ring will gladly send them a free replacement.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#75

Post by jimmaswell »

RektBoy wrote: post #71
unfocused wrote: post #31

My next door neighbor (we share a wall) had their bicycles stolen twice, so they installed Ring (floodlight) cameras in both the backyard and the front porch. After a year, the cameras have yielded no added security, or caught any "bad guys" as far as I can tell and from what they told me. What I realized, is they use it to keep track of their kids, funny cat videos that trigger the recording, and most importantly, a…

Wild, don't you have any laws against this? Here in CZ(EU), you can't put camera facing public property just like that, I don't even mention facing private property of somebody else, lol. Even camera facing your property and like corner of view is public property, I can send formal complaint to "GDPR" bureau, they will warn the property owner, if nothing happens, fine incoming which can be pretty huge.

Absurd. The right to record in public, which this is, should be respected.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#76

Post by BeetleB »

doublerabbit wrote: post #50
MichaelZuo wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your houses are close together I don't think it's reasonable to have an expectation of privacy on the driveway or front porch. After all sound at normal speaking volume can easily travel 100 feet on a quiet day, if there's nothing in-between.

Its more than reasonable. It's called respect. Their house and their drive and just because voice could travel 100-feet sill doesn't mean they have the right to record it. If the speed limit is twenty and someone is driving thirty, does that give you the right to drive thirty too?

You're comparing apples and oranges. One is legal and the other isn't.

They absolutely have the right to record audio that is audible on their property. It used to be the norm that if you don't want your neighbors hearing you the onus is on you to speak quietly in a private place. With the increase in such devices the norm too will shift to "know that a device is recording audio in certain zones"

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#77

Post by cyral »

unfocused wrote: post #31

My next door neighbor (we share a wall) had their bicycles stolen twice, so they installed Ring (floodlight) cameras in both the backyard and the front porch. After a year, the cameras have yielded no added security, or caught any "bad guys" as far as I can tell and from what they told me. What I realized, is they use it to keep track of their kids, funny cat videos that trigger the recording, and most importantly, a…

I just got a Ring cam and during setup it asks if you'd like to black out any regions to prevent recording neighbors, so that may be an option they just aren't aware of. Doesn't solve the audio issue if they aren't willing to disable it though.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#78

Post by gist »

unfocused wrote: post #31

My next door neighbor (we share a wall) had their bicycles stolen twice, so they installed Ring (floodlight) cameras in both the backyard and the front porch. After a year, the cameras have yielded no added security, or caught any "bad guys" as far as I can tell and from what they told me. What I realized, is they use it to keep track of their kids, funny cat videos that trigger the recording, and most importantly, a…

> I believe these cameras haven't decreased crime. They also don't really add more security. It's a shame though they are everywhere, with disregard for privacy right on people's property. So yes, I'm biased. I have no love for Ring.

Impossible to believe with the ubiquity that they haven't decreased crime. Or at least certain types of crimes.

Prior to this type of video only a small amount of people had security cameras and generally they were easily spotted.

Today anyone committing (again a certain type of) crime knows that if they drive into a neighborhood or walk around they will be on a camera somewhere and multiple times. That has to have an impact even if there isn't data to prove it.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#79

Post by techdragon »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #67

IMO the primary utility of Ring is for Amazon to surveil their delivery contractors, without a doorbell cam it’s trivial for a delivery person to set the package on the porch, photograph it as “proof of delivery”, and then walk away with said package. So the deterrent effect is good for the consumer in that it prevents theft, and good for Amazon because they can contract out to just about anyone to deliver packages,…

For bonus points they can then point the finger at the local thieves that happily try to identify and then shadow Amazon delivery contractors and steal valuable looking parcels based on whatever gut instinct they have for value based on size/shape/weight of the packages.

Amazon proves the delivery and now it’s the local Polive Department’s problem.

They are literally selling customers an excuse they can use later against the very customer that buys it.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#80

Post by kcb »

remflight wrote: post #26
bob1029 wrote: post #22

I fear for the day when someone comes knocking on my door because my government-approved surveillance doorbell has been offline for too long. The very first thing I did when I moved into my new house was completely disconnect/disable all networked security & "smart" home systems. I have a Ring doorbell, but it is not receiving any power. I figure the simple sight of it may still serve as a deterrent. Most of the "sma…

Burglars are not deterred by cameras or alarm systems, especially in the age of face masks. They know they will only be in the house for 5 mins or less and face masks make it harder to identify them.

Many ring devices have sirens that I would think would be quite deterent when set off. The Ring Alarm can even act as a proper monitored alarm system.
Post reply on HN