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

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#331

Post by sdoering » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 8:07 PM UTC

always2slow wrote: post #277

dekhn wrote: post #240

Earlier 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…

I can only second this. If this were my neighbor I would get a restraining order against them. Recording your neighbors kids in the yard to me sounds borderline problematic.

I just can't find any sane justification for behavior like that.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#332

Post by jjulius » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 8:08 PM UTC

chickenpotpie wrote: post #266

jjulius wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> First, they're taking a stand based on principal. I'm all for that, but taking a stand doesn't benefit the individual. Taking a stand is for the benefit of society and requires the collaboration of society > 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. yes and that process is just objec…

>That means they're life is worse.

It doesn't, though. If they are aware of the tradeoff (that in order to have the privacy they want, it will take longer to get any footage they may need), and they find that the tradeoff is worth it, then their life is not "worse". After all, that's why they made the decision to begin with - because they believe that their life is worse with them than without.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#333

Post by paxys » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 8:09 PM UTC

mtalantikite wrote: post #68

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 live in a block-long grouping of condos in Brooklyn. Every so often the management company sends out exterminators and one day as I was talking to him he pointed to these environmental monitors installed on a lamppost on our block. He says “what’s with that, the government spying on us?” and I explained it’s just some environmental data collectors, but pointed to my neighbor’s Ring and mentioned “although that thin…

I feel the same way whenever people freak out about smart speakers, laptop webcams and doorbells – but have had a smartphone (with microphone, camera, GPS, OTA updates and unrestricted up/down connectivity) on them 24x7 since 2008.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#334

Post by at_a_remove » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 8:10 PM UTC

darknavi wrote: post #317

at_a_remove wrote: post #303

Looking at most Ring videos, they don't seem very useful for tracking anyone down, more of a "yes, a porch pirate stole your stuff." Their position is such that the license plate -- assuming they even come in via a vehicle -- is visible. Plate readers need to be in a different place, with a different aim. Plus, Rings are wireless, and too many thieves are just using a wireless jammer.

> too many thieves are just using a wireless jammer. Is this actually that wide spread? I hardwire all of my cameras but I've never heard of wide-spread wireless jamming in house-hold crime.

Around here, I have seen a few clips of it.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#335

Post by nedwin » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 8:13 PM UTC

encryptluks2 wrote: post #314

nedwin wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Def sounds like shitty behaviour from your neighbours. In terms of decreasing crime I live in Oakland in a duplex. Downstairs was empty and crooks broke in and stole a bunch of stuff over several hours earlier this year. We only had a camera doorbell for our upstairs unit and I have footage of one of the crooks walking around the corner with a crowbar, seeing the camera and immediately turning around and walking away…

Shitty behavior how? There is nothing illegal about recordings your neighbors driveway.

There's a difference between illegal and shitty.

Shitty = you ask your neighbour not to point their cameras at your house, and they ignore you. Seems unnecessary.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#336

Post by ClumsyPilot » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 8:14 PM UTC

sixothree wrote: post #203

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.

Police capture a tremendous amount of data using this theory. But citizens don't have access to that data because it's considered confidential.

this post reads luke a paradox

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#337

Post by zrail » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 8:14 PM UTC

KevinGlass wrote: post #116

RNAlfons wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you recommend some?

UniFi cameras are amazing. Superb video quality (better then so called "professional" cameras from the regular security companies), easy to setup (but still an order of magnitude more work then a Ring), self hostable, and from my experience highly reliable.

Agreed. I have a UniFi Protect setup and almost all of the equipment is top notch. I don't appreciate the lock-in inherent in the system (Protect NVR only works with Protect cameras, cameras only work with their NVR, and you can't self-host the NVR on your own hardware), but I'll gladly take it in trade for excellent spousal-approval-factor.

The one exception I've found so far is that the UNVR-4 system software in older models is stored on a very cheap USB flash drive, and I believe they write logs to it too. Mine failed a few months before warranty expired so I just replaced it with an SSD and SATA->USB 3 adapter I had laying around. Works great, is snappy, and should hopefully last quite a bit longer.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#338

Post by chickenpotpie » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 8:16 PM UTC

jjulius wrote: post #332

chickenpotpie wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First, they're taking a stand based on principal. I'm all for that, but taking a stand doesn't benefit the individual. Taking a stand is for the benefit of society and requires the collaboration of society > 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. yes and that process is just objec…

>That means they're life is worse. It doesn't, though. If they are aware of the tradeoff (that in order to have the privacy they want, it will take longer to get any footage they may need), and they find that the tradeoff is worth it, then their life is not "worse". After all, that's why they made the decision to begin with - because they believe that their life is worse with them than without.

But it's not more privacy, that's the entire basis of what I'm saying. In this hypothetical, you're already monitored by cameras. The only difference is that the subject doesn't own them. The privacy is the exact same in both.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#339

Post by int_19h » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 8:20 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #183

helen___keller wrote: post #2

TLDR: > Although Ring publicizes its policy of handing over camera footage only if the owner agrees — or if judge signs a search warrant — the company says it also reserves the right to supply police with footage in “emergencies,” defined broadly as “cases involving imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to any person.” (…) > it has provided police with user footage 11 times this year alone. I would actu…

I would actually be okay with this if it was more public when the standard was met. For example, there’s an armed shooter at the local elementary school in front of my house? Sure, scoop up my Ring footage. As we saw recently, police/local government will often fight against the release of surveillance footage to the public in cases where it makes them look bad. The Austin Statesman had to fight in court for a month…

Police will fight the release of basically any information that sheds a light on their activities. In many states, there are no publicly available statistics on things like how much SWAT teams are used, and what for. When some states tried passing laws to require PDs to capture such stats, police unions pushed back hard.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#340

Post by jwagenet » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 8:26 PM UTC

libria wrote: post #165

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.

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…

From the street photography articles I've read; if you can see it from a public space then its fair game, which I think is reasonable. But in your scenario the camera is on your private home, so most people would expect reasonable privacy from being recorded.