Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent • Hacker News Board

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#171

Post by wittyusername » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 5:27 PM UTC

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 wonder if this Ultrasound Directional Jammer would be the right mix of legal and proportionate.

https://www.tinytxs.com/products/ultrasonic-jammer

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#172

Post by arrrg » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 5:28 PM UTC

thegrimmest wrote: post #153

heywot wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a huge difference between casually overhearing a conversation because you also are outside versus having actions/words recorded for eternity, and potentially analyzed by a third party (Amazon, Google, etc).

I'm not sure I agree - if you have the right to observe, listen and record using your meat implements (eyes, ears, brain), then you should have the right to do so using a digital augmentation of the same (cameras, microphones, storage).

Why? Can you explain why the two should be treated the same?

That‘s not at all the case in many other legal contexts.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#173

Post by anigbrowl » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 5:28 PM UTC

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #148

kornhole wrote: post #141

I worry less about the police than I do about Amazon having this surveillance in the first place. The former head of the NSA sits on the board of directors and they have multi billion dollar contracts for services to the intelligence agencies. Please if you want to surveil your property and people nearby, choose devices that capture it locally or to your private cloud. You can then choose to hand it over to police wh…

>I worry less about the police than I do about Amazon having this surveillance in the first place. The former head of the NSA sits on the board of directors and they have multi billion dollar contracts for services to the intelligence agencies. That's just being worried about the police with extra steps. An F15 doesn't stand on a street corner and a surveillance dragnet doesn't kick in your door.

Those extra steps are important because they create legal deniability. For example, local jurisdictions (or judicial outcomes) tell police they can't do X, Y, or Z because it's government overreach. So police just look for corporations that engage in those activities and purchase the data from them, with your tax money. So instead of the Stasi you end up with Corpsec.com, but it's OK because there's a middleman making a dollar, good old capitalism.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#174

Post by jonnycomputer » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 5:28 PM UTC

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…

You made a reasonable request, and they should have complied with an 'oh yeah, sure, sorry.'

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#175

Post by jjulius » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 5:28 PM UTC

chickenpotpie wrote: post #142

buscoquadnary wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So moved into a newly built house, by default everyone gets a smart doorbell in this house. They looked at me like I was crazy when I said I didn't want it or any of the other the "smart" devices. This was the exact reason.

I live in a community like yours and IMO you're just hurting yourself. Your home is probably already covered by everyone else's cameras and they can just pull the footage from them. It seems like the only person that doesn't have access to recordings of their own home now is you.

OP already responded to your comment, but I'll bite and argue that, in your hypothetical, they're not hurting themselves.

First, they're taking a stand based on principal. That they're successful in doing so is a win for them. Second, to your point, they're still covered in case of theft because their "home is probably already covered by everyone else's cameras and they can just pull the footage from them". Assuming they're on good terms with their neighbors, this request should be pretty easy and quick to fulfill. If they're not, local PD can still get a warrant for the footage.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#176

Post by parineum » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 5:29 PM UTC

gpt5 wrote: post #152

gleenn wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depending on the state you live in, e.g. California has two party consent to record audio, meaning if you don't consent then what they're doing is illegal.

These only apply to private conversation, and not ones occurred in public (i.e. it's fair game to record the driveway, but not the backyard).

Is your front porch "public"? Usually things like this hinge on a reasonable expectation of privacy and I think a conversation at your front door can be expected to be relatively private.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#177

Post by jonnycomputer » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 5:29 PM UTC

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…

That said, my neighbors did catch a bike thief with one of those. Even got the bike back.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#178

Post by jonnycomputer » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 5:31 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #132

ls15 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I never would give a neighbor a hard time about a camera pointing at a publicly visible spot on my property In Germany people have successfully sued their neighbours for that and I fully agree with the courts. Filming others without consent is invasive.

In the US you don't have any expectation of privacy in public (or at least severely limited) and the courts have upheld again and again that recording public areas, even from a private area, is completely find. Some jurisdictions require notification or consent for audio recording, but not all.

Who would want to live next to someone after a lawsuit between you? This is a neighbor-relations issue first and foremost.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#179

Post by ironlake » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 5:31 PM UTC

thegrimmest wrote: post #153

heywot wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a huge difference between casually overhearing a conversation because you also are outside versus having actions/words recorded for eternity, and potentially analyzed by a third party (Amazon, Google, etc).

I'm not sure I agree - if you have the right to observe, listen and record using your meat implements (eyes, ears, brain), then you should have the right to do so using a digital augmentation of the same (cameras, microphones, storage).

And infringing on this imagined-from-first-principles right would cause serious repercussions. No regulation could ever be as beneficial as losing this imagined-from-first-principles right. We must let corporations and the police state that serve them have and use this data.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#180

Post by jonnycomputer » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 5:32 PM UTC

techdragon wrote: post #79

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 aga…

That really does sound like one of their incentives for having these... never thought about that.