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

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#211

Post by woodruffw » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 6:02 PM UTC

mlyle wrote: post #202

woodruffw wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This will maybe be too snide, but I want to say it: what an utterly ridiculous system we've contrived for ourselves. People want to live in suburbs, where their residences are separated from commercial areas. This starves city and town centers, leaving only big businesses that are capable of thriving on high volume sales. But we still want the convenience of walking down to their neighborhood store, so we've construc…

> But we still want the convenience of walking down to their neighborhood store, so we've constructed an entire economic system built on shipping things in disposable boxes around the globe and getting them to people's doorsteps within two business days. 1. Generally they don't come from across the globe to your doorstep after your order, but from a nearby fulfillment center. 2. Getting things quickly from online sho…

Where, pray tell, does the fulfillment center receive them from? Shipping happens regardless (I know my local hardware store doesn't make vacuum cleaners), but the waste of individual boxes and delivery for every single item on demand is obscene.

You're right that it's just as nice in cities, if not nicer. But that doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make it not a maladaptation within our economic system.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#212

Post by mlyle » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 6:04 PM UTC

woofyman wrote: post #195

Miner49er wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's probably illegal too. It's illegal in most states to record conversations unless you have consent from one or all parties in the conversation.

Single party recording is legal in 38 states. https://fireflies.ai/blog/call-recording-laws-in-50-states-3...

First-- this is a summary of statutes for recording phone calls; the laws are not always the same in each jurisdiction for making an audio recording in public.

And we're in a thread where someone is describing a scenario where neighbor A records person B talking to child C. Neighbor A is not a party to the conversation. Whether a state has a one party or two party statute, this behavior would likely violate it.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#213

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 6:04 PM UTC

dekhn wrote: post #205

hoorible wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your trash analogy doesn’t hold up because trash becomes “public” once it’s on the street which isn’t part of your property. “Publicly visible spot on my property” is a meaningless phrase; it’s still my property, and I’m legally (here at least) allowed to raise an objection to the recording of it. I can’t and wouldn’t object to someone recoding the sidewalk in front of my house. I can, and absolutely will, object to…

I can't ask the people who drop their kids at the school across the street not to look at my yard, so why would I complain about a camera? Because it's always on and recording? Still not convincing to me. My exterior yard (the part not surrounded by a tall fence) is for everybody to look at. In fact lots of people stop by my house to look at our amazing maple tree and start conversations with us.

I think main differentiator is that an individual human is unlikely to stand in one place just watching for an extended period of time. It actually was very expensive to do that kind of surveillance not that long ago, which is why it was not deployed without a good reason. Camera, on the other hand, is cheap. Individual creep is preferable to a panopticon.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#214

Post by uoaei » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 6:07 PM UTC

dekhn wrote: post #201

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.

I live across from a school; hundreds of people see my house exterior for days. I wouldn't apply a different rule to a security camera. I understand some folks have different privacy standards than me. I'm not asking you to follow my privacy rules, as they are a bit more open about public spaces than many people enjoy. If somebody wanted me to not point my camera at their driveway, a legal threat would be the absolut…

There is a difference between a camera from across the street and a camera from across the driveway.

And obviously a legal threat is a last resort after good-faith questioning.

I am not really sure what your objection is to the comment above yours, because these concerns seem misplaced.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#215

Post by Terry_Roll » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 6:07 PM UTC

ls15 wrote: post #186

libria wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A US law is shaped by what we think is 1) acceptable behavior 2) enforceable, practically I think video recording laws are largely influenced by 2). I can angle my Ring camera to my smoking hot neighbor so I can record her doing yardwork. Creepy AF (breaks rule 1) but at what angle is it not obviously deliberate? Turned 10 degrees toward her lawn? 30? Point being, I think US recording laws are too liberal but we need…

A physical mask that blocks the view to the hot neighbour, but not to your areas of interest would give them some reassurance.

What about the satellites mimicking God watching over everyone?

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#216

Post by dekhn » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 6:08 PM UTC

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #213

dekhn wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't ask the people who drop their kids at the school across the street not to look at my yard, so why would I complain about a camera? Because it's always on and recording? Still not convincing to me. My exterior yard (the part not surrounded by a tall fence) is for everybody to look at. In fact lots of people stop by my house to look at our amazing maple tree and start conversations with us.

I think main differentiator is that an individual human is unlikely to stand in one place just watching for an extended period of time. It actually was very expensive to do that kind of surveillance not that long ago, which is why it was not deployed without a good reason. Camera, on the other hand, is cheap. Individual creep is preferable to a panopticon.

None of these things really bother/worry me. This is mainly a threshold argument- a thing that was hard got easier, but didn't fundamentally change what is possible for a dedicated adversary.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#217

Post by thegrimmest » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 6:08 PM UTC

arrrg wrote: post #172

thegrimmest wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because there is no clear distinction between the two. You're certainly entitled to listen with your ears and write things down aren't you? Can you use a hearing aid to help you listen? What about binoculars to help you see?

Clearly it's impolite to peer into your neighbours windows with binoculars, and gossip about all the conversations you overhear with your hearing aids, but you've got the right to do so, don't you?

What about observing your neighbours through a peep hole in your door (or wall)? What about setting up a camera instead of a peep hole? And what if you want to see the camera feed from your phone? Reference it for later? Where is the line? All of these, including pens and paper, are technological augmentations to our innate capabilities. I'm not against banning them per se, I'd just like a clear idea of why we ban some and not others.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#218

Post by dm319 » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 6:09 PM UTC

vorpalhex wrote: post #58

dm319 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am also no fan of Ring or similar, though the reasons are slightly different. We lost our cat recently, and I went round my neighbourhood knocking/ringing on every door to ask around. It was a strange experience as around 30% had these ring doorbells. It was unpleasant to know I was being recorded and judged, and often as a result, not answered. I vowed at that point we would never consider one, if only because I d…

I had two suspicious people come to my door (separate incidents) which resulted in me getting a video doorbell (I'm going to migrate from a cloud one to a closed circuit one). I've also had two cases of salespeople who didn't understand the phrase "not interested". One escalated to me threatening a trespass call before he left. (This is with No Soliciting signs clearly visible) I worry my wife would not get the same…

How do you judge how suspicious someone is through a video feed?

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#219

Post by uoaei » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 6:09 PM UTC

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #213

dekhn wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't ask the people who drop their kids at the school across the street not to look at my yard, so why would I complain about a camera? Because it's always on and recording? Still not convincing to me. My exterior yard (the part not surrounded by a tall fence) is for everybody to look at. In fact lots of people stop by my house to look at our amazing maple tree and start conversations with us.

I think main differentiator is that an individual human is unlikely to stand in one place just watching for an extended period of time. It actually was very expensive to do that kind of surveillance not that long ago, which is why it was not deployed without a good reason. Camera, on the other hand, is cheap. Individual creep is preferable to a panopticon.

Exactly. The high cost of human eyeballs trained on a specific target for long periods of time introduces a negative feedback loop which tames the overreach. Cheap, ubiquitous cameras with virtually unlimited storage eliminates that self-regulating mechanism and degrades the trust between members of a society.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#220

Post by JadeNB » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 6:10 PM UTC

dekhn wrote: post #201

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.

I live across from a school; hundreds of people see my house exterior for days. I wouldn't apply a different rule to a security camera. I understand some folks have different privacy standards than me. I'm not asking you to follow my privacy rules, as they are a bit more open about public spaces than many people enjoy. If somebody wanted me to not point my camera at their driveway, a legal threat would be the absolut…

> I understand some folks have different privacy standards than me. I'm not asking you to follow my privacy rules, as they are a bit more open about public spaces than many people enjoy.

Private spaces that are publicly visible do not automatically become public spaces, though.