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

251–260 of 532 posts

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#251

Post by borissk »

ls15 wrote: post #159
pc86 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I find it really unfortunate that the US is so blatantly disregarding data privacy. In a world of eroding freedom, lack of data privacy can become a severe safety risk. The return of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the reversal of Roe v. Wade and Russia's recent moves give me an idea of dynamics that can turn dark quickly.

People and companies in US don't know what 'privacy' means. All software companies (maybe except Apple), car companies (especially Tesla), telecoms, etc. just collect huge amounts of customer data not giving a damn about consent.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#253

Post by orthecreedence »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #43

They don't need your consent to give police their footage.

Right, this is the issue. Don't install surveillance devices on behalf of a megacorporation and get butthurt when they use the footage for something you don't approve of.

How the fuck did people go this insane?

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#254

Post by KennyBlanken »

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.

This is not true; rules vary state to state. In Massachusetts, for example, you cannot "secretly" record others, in public or private.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#255

Post by woodruffw »

mlyle wrote: post #247
woodruffw wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hume showed us you can't get to the normative statement through positive observations. Hume and I disagree :-) The original comment was a normative one: I think our current scheme is wrong , in a moral sense. I think it's also wrong in an economic sense, but that's just a cherry on top.

> I think our current scheme is wrong, in a moral sense If we had, say, 1000x the resources that could be used without too adverse of consequences, would it still be wrong in your eyes? Or are you saying that you don't believe that the resource use is justified within our current constraints?

The latter. But that's one among many sufficient reasons: I also think it's indicative of an economic and social policy that encourages civic alienation and delocalization.

The more snappy way of saying it: we're maximizing short term advantages (any plastic crap I want in 48 hours, shareholder value) at the cost of long term advantages (cities and towns worth living in, a sense of community rooted in part in supporting local businesses, not needing surveillance in every aspect of our lives because we've automated out the tacit security of being around other humans.)

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#256

Post by naasking »

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.

> In the US you don't have any expectation of privacy in public

It's not clear that "on your property" counts as "in public" in all cases.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#257

Post by dekhn »

kelnos wrote: post #239
dekhn wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

I don't think we're arguing with you anymore about whether or not you could be bothered, just that you somehow seem to think that there's no (or only a minor or incremental) difference between a human watching your property and a camera recording it, which is objectively false. And of course no one can resist trying to correct someone who is Wrong On The Internet. Also I think it's because it sounds like you're refus…

I dunno, I think I explained my position, my reasoning, my priors, and came to a reasonable conclusion. I'm certainly not insisting I'm right. But what I know I can do is install a camera in a visible location and be open to people approaching me and asking for changes.

I've also read the relevant california and federal laws (not in detail) and concluded what I'm doing is not a violation, in letter or intent. I'm not looking into people's windows, or their backyards.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#258

Post by odysseus »

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 have a non-Ring doorbell camera and while I can't prove it has deterred theft, it's pretty useful in at least:

* Getting a partial face/partial vehicle ID of someone who stole our package

* Seeing the sneaky method in which they stole the package (allowing me to talk to neighbors warning them about the method used)

* Getting a private instant announcement of who exactly is at the door (if they've been here before and they're in my contacts)

* Notifying us while on vacation that someone out of the ordinary is at the door (and being able to speak to them as if we were home)

* Deterring raccoons (bright light on the front of the camera)

Not-so-useful things:

* Seeing the large number of cars that like to use our driveway to make a U-turn

There is an option to turn off audio recording and all footage is encrypted.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#259

Post by dekhn »

kelnos wrote: post #232
jonnycomputer wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Sounds like relations between these two neighbors is already pretty bad -- the guy crosses the street to walk on the other side? Because he was asked not to point his security camera at someone else's property? Some people are just... children.

Wait til you see two neighbors arguing about property lines.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#260

Post by Pakdef »

eth0up wrote: post #119

I tend to drop a link to Motion when such subjects arise. It's been a stalwart companion for years and is usually in Linux repositories. https://motion-project.github.io/

My favorite one.

I run a script on_event_end to make a backup on my VPS and also, on_event_start, I record audio:

on_event_start ffmpeg -nostdin -f alsa -i pulse -c:a libmp3lame -ar 44100 -b:a 128k -ac 1 -f mp3 /home/user/motion/%Y%m%d%H%M%S.mp3 &

I just wish they would have chosen a different name, it can be hard to find in a web search.

Post reply on HN