Who would have thought that consumers would accept a surveillance state by absorbing the upfront costs?
Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent
291–300 of 532 posts
Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent
#292Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's totally uncalled for to call me a creep. I'm saying other people can point their cameras at my yard. When I point my camera I seriously consider that others don't share my values. And if they came over and asked nicely, I'd move the camera (it currently points at a neighbor's driveway). At least I'm open and honest about it.
>I think it's totally uncalled for to call me a creep. I'm saying other people No I think it is called for, you clearly aren't getting it. The things you are saying, the behavior you're outlining and the justifications you are giving for it make you a creep. >can point their cameras at my yard. When I point my camera I seriously consider >that others don't share my values. And if they came over and asked nicely, I'd…
That's a fairly extreme perspective and probably reading a lot more into my thoughts and intent then you really have any insight.
Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent
#293Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
We're talking about my front yard. I can go on street view and see exactly what everybody else driving by sees. The only change is that they scrub faces and license plates, which I could do using AgentDVR + DeepStack.cc and some scripting. If you tried pointing a camera over my fence into my backyard, then I start complaining.
> We're talking about my front yard. I can go on street view and see exactly what everybody else driving by sees. The only change is that they scrub faces and license plates, which I could do using AgentDVR + DeepStack.cc and some scripting.
I think a major difference is that a permanent camera allows documenting who is entering and leaving a house at which times, while street view or driving by do not. Even a nosy neighbour behind the curtains would most probably not be able to gather a complete history.
Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reasonable, but your position if taken to extremes can lead to oppressive conformism - eg if you choose not to have or share footage from a security camera, you become an object of suspicion yourself. Relying on 'common sense legislation' assumes a level of probity which is often sadly lacking.
So don't take my position to the extremes. Top level comment was a very general blanket statement. I'm saying there's a middle ground.
I dislike these beliefs that idealize a world with no trust or cooperation
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent
#295Earlier 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.
But do you enjoy that people in the US don't have this expectation of privacy? Do you believe those laws could change?
Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent
#296Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depending where you live this might be illegal. In the U.K. you have an obligation not to record your neighbour’s property, and not to record conversations of members of the public.
A related article appeared earlier, and I submitted it, Dystopian doorbells: how the humble door buzzer turned into mass surveillance network https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32079896 https://www.standard.co.uk/homesandproperty/property-news/vi... A very interesting piece of info is that «microphones that can pick up audio from up to 25 feet away». The Evening Standard is a British newspaper, and the article tack…
The ICO[1] and case law[2] corroborate that audio recording outside your property with CCTV is generally prohibited.
[1] https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/domestic-cctv-systems-g...
[2] https://www.icaew.com/library/subject-gateways/law/legal-ale...
Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent
#297Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
I am not really fine with with them, but that's another can of worms.
Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent
#298Earlier quoted context omitted.
I expect people who buy them haven't personally witnessed what it looks like to report property crime—even fairly major property crime—to the police. Which is to say, they don't realize that there's almost no chance they'll do anything about it at all except issue a report for insurance (if you want one, and probably for a fee just to add insult to injury) even if you come to them with all kinds of evidence, up to an…
My personal experience from a home invasion where the individual caused a not insignificant amount of damage to the home resulted in nothing more than the police merely filing in a form and handing me a receipt. My personal experience from coming home to a burgled also ended with the same situation. The police came, waited from crime lab to take prints, prints were not recoverable, no follow up. This was even after s…
Yep. I've seen (and personally experienced) individuals and small businesses suffer property crime ranging from low thousands to upper five figures. Not once has any amount of evidence, including the aforementioned faces-and-license-plates video evidence, or in another case multiple credit card transactions at places that assuredly have cameras covering both the register and parking lot (and at least once at a hotel, which means they made a copy of an ID, even though it may have been fake), convinced the cops to do anything whatsoever aside from offer to issue a report for insurance (for a fee, the assholes). I've even seen a case of this plainly being an ongoing spree with video placing the same people and vehicles multiple places. Cops didn't care, even though the criminals were still working and hitting places every day or two.
Middle-class white people in every case, just to eliminate any race angle. Maybe richer folks have a better time, IDK. This isn't even the allegedly-lawless-hellhole of San Francisco or anything remotely like that.
Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent
#299It blows my mind how quickly people put up home cameras with zero thought to * (1) what gets captured * (2) who gets what gets captured Walk down the street of any middle-class neighborhood in a major suburb: a healthy chunk have cameras. Let's say 60%. So, you and your family are being passively surveilled on a massive scale … for the benefit of someone who's not you preventing another someone from stealing their bi…
> Is this a reasonable tradeoff? Is it fair to others?
Devils advocate:
You word this in a way that implies it is negative, but the fact so many people do it suggests many or most people don’t agree with you. Maybe having cameras around makes the average person feel safe?
It sucks for you as a privacy minded individual, but ultimately who are you to tell your neighbors they can’t have cameras on their property? The street itself is public, there’s no implied right to privacy for what can be seen from the public road. Truthfully many American suburbs have only ever had privacy by chance, many places in more urban locales there’s always eyes from the public street. It’s just happened that because cars are efficient and convenient, nobody walks by or spends time on the sidewalk in the modern American suburb. That doesn’t mean they have no right to do so.
Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent
#300> “If there is the infrastructure, if there is the channel by which police can request footage without a warrant or consent of the user, under what circumstances they get it is out of our control. I worry that because it’s decided by the police and by somebody at Ring, there will be temptation to use that for increasingly less urgent situations.” Many people (I would argue anybody with common sense) predicted Ring wo…
My view on this is that we're not going back and it would be silly to try to do so. Once you have the technology to record, track, and ultimately apprehend criminals, simply not doing so in the name of ideological purity becomes increasingly obscene. What we need are courts that understand the technology, prosecutors who fear censure for overreach, and fair laws about standards of access to the data. It's here to sta…
This isn't about "ideological purity" nor technology: My home is literally the only place where my family and I still have some form of privacy, is it too hard to understand that we don't want random strangers having the power to lurk into our lives 24/7?