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

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#361

Post by mixmastamyk » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 9:02 PM UTC

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #28

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess if you don’t have prowler or package theft problems, they aren’t really necessary. I personally have found my Nest cameras indispensable. Ironically, if police would just do their job on property crime, they wouldn’t be so needed.

Where the hell do you all live where this is a common problem? Out of all of my friend and relatives, 100s of people, none of them have ever complained about vandalism/theft.

Bikes are stolen often here in Southern California. There is a camera system here, but thieves wear hoodies/hats/look-down, and in any case no one bothers chasing after them anyway.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#362

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 9:03 PM UTC

kelseyfrog wrote: post #241

mywittyname wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or that they are in cahoots with "The Government" and will gladly share any and all data through back channels because AWS has very freaking lucrative contracts with them.

Or if you live in a two-party consent state that you don't consent. That should be enough. Someone that doesn't respect your consent doesn't respect you.

The recording as I understand it would still be illegal in a one-party consent state. Conversations that OP has in their house with their guests and/or children are being recorded by none of: OP, OP's guests, or OP's children. It seems to be very sketchy what they're doing.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#363

Post by MengerSponge » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 9:04 PM UTC

CubsFan1060 wrote: post #55

MengerSponge wrote: post #40

I'll change my tune when news like this breaks about Apple, but I paid extra for a HomeKit video camera because Amazon's data policies give me heebie-jeebies. I get a notification and a live video on my TV when someone shows up on my doorstep, but not when someone walks by on the sidewalk. It's easy.

Do you use HomeKit cameras or HomeKit Secure Video cameras?

HomeKit Secure Video on a Logitech Circle View. It is decidedly aight. It's expensive, but it works well enough. The video was high enough quality that the local police could ID the guy who stole letters from my mailbox a few months ago.

But it's easy and reliable and notifies us when somebody drops a package on our doorstep.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#364

Post by Zak » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 9:07 PM UTC

ls15 wrote: post #128

dekhn wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The camera may be acting as a deterrent (if they didn't have any additional thefts) without it being obvious. I never would give a neighbor a hard time about a camera pointing at a publicly visible spot on my property- just into windows and other semi-private locations. That includes both audio and video. I ascribe to the "it's legal for journalists to go through your trash, so if you want privacy, shred your trash f…

> 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.

It's interesting that Germany makes a distinction between observing and recording images or video, while the US does not. The US does distinguish (typically in state law) between listening and recording. Recording is different from watching/listening. It's reasonably possible to know who is present at any given time, but not possible to know in advance who might hear/see a recording in the future.

I do, however think Germany's law goes a bit too far: as I understand it, use of surveillance cameras on private property without warning signs is illegal even if a person would have to be trespassing to be recorded. I do not think trespassers should enjoy a right to privacy with regard to their trespass.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#365

Post by woodruffw » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 9:08 PM UTC

TuringNYC wrote: post #354

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…

>> 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. What are you supposed to do really? I grew up in an urban environment (NYC) and embraced urban living. The reality was that it wasnt sustainable w/o being a multi-millionaire. I'll give real examples. I take a…

I am very definitely not a multi-millionaire, and I've lived in NYC nearly my entire life. It's a big city and things certainly vary by availability, but there's a pet store 4 blocks from my apartment (in a not especially dense, mostly residential neighborhood).

What you're describing is the pathological case. The similar pathological case for the suburbs is a 20 minute trip to Costco, only to get stuck in an extra hour of traffic, do your shopping and return home, only to realize you forgot the one thing you really needed. That, like yours, is a real example (from the few years I spent in college, in a suburban area).

(For what it's worth, I agree completely about disabilities, and it's shameful that NYC has continued to ignore basic accessibility needs in the subways. That being said, the NYCT buses are pretty great about accessibility, and serve a corresponding demographic.)

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#366

Post by deltree7 » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 9:13 PM UTC

antonymy wrote: post #321

mtalantikite wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's explainable by looking at polls for how Americans feel about major institutions. Gallup did one for various public and private institutions: https://news.gallup.com/poll/394283/confidence-institutions-... and what they found is the only two major institutions that maintain a universal (across political affiliation and other demos) positive trust rating are small businesses and the military. Everybody else either…

When Democrats think of Congress they think Lauren Bobert/Mitch McConnell.

When Republicans think of Congress they think Nancy Pelosi / AOC.

That's how congress gets low ratings

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#367

Post by yazaddaruvala » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 9:14 PM UTC

TuringNYC wrote: post #354

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…

>> 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. What are you supposed to do really? I grew up in an urban environment (NYC) and embraced urban living. The reality was that it wasnt sustainable w/o being a multi-millionaire. I'll give real examples. I take a…

The reality is all mid-big US cities need:

- 100x more livable sqft, so it can be affordable for everyone.

- 3000sqft condos that rival lux family homes in the suburbs for space.

- All building should become mixed use. Parking underground, retail on street level, offices on the first N floors of the building, and residential higher up for the views.

- More vertical green space on the buildings.

- More horizontal green space between the buildings.

I'm also partial to building walk/bike ways above current roads such that roads are covered / "underground" i.e. don't cause noise or pedestrian deaths. Retail would be located where people walk.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#368

Post by abeppu » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 9:15 PM UTC

I get that privacy vs law and order issues get people worked up because they probe at a difference in values. And perhaps in many contexts reasonable people can take different abstract positions.

But with Ring etc, I think society gets a really poor law and order benefit in exchange for the privacy cost. We should at least be demanding that if our privacy is invaded we get something out of it.

I live in a dense city where minor property crimes are notoriously common. Last year, after multiple package thefts, one neighbor bought a blink camera for the building entrance. It recorded every time me or my neighbors entered or exited, and it recorded when later my neighbor had yet more packages stolen (thieves easily got through a locked gate and front door). But what do you do then? The cops aren't going to do anything with a video of a guy in a hoodie stealing $200 worth of goods. That stuff is never going to be recovered. Nextdoor in our area has tons of these videos. My neighbor still had to learn to be proactive and defensive. A cost in privacy was paid, but no reduction in crime was enjoyed.

Here are some proposals for potentially more equitable arrangements:

- if the police can have at-will access to our cameras, we should get at-will access to their bodycams. No more of this "10 days after a shooting, family members of the deceased were able to watch key clips of footage selected by the PD"

- if the police claim that having access to our cameras makes them more efficient in solving crimes, then let them put numbers on that efficiency so we can reduce police budgets accordingly

- if the police claim that having access to our cameras makes lets them solve more crimes, then anyone coming forward with footage of a crime should be able to demand that the police make a credible effort to investigate. Oh, not enough resources? My city is in the top 10 in per-capita police spending in the US, and I see _so many_ cops doing absolutely nothing all the time. If I'm going to live in a creepy surveillance state we could at least have an industrious and effective police force.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#369

Post by heavyset_go » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 9:16 PM UTC

themitigating wrote: post #356

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that one of those things has a benefit. When there's a mysterious box that does some vague thing that you don't care about, it's safe to hate it. It's not helping you in any observable way, so opposing its existence is a safe, easy decision. But the Ring camera is providing him with a benefit, so evaluating whether to oppose it requires putting a cost on "spying on us" and weighing that against the…

"When there's a mysterious box that does some vague thing that you don't care about, it's safe to hate it. It's not helping you in any observable way, so opposing its existence is a safe, easy decision" This sounds like the justification of stupidity. If you don't know what it does it ignoring may or may not be safe. If you can't observe a benefit to you (I assume you mean obvious and causual observation) doesn't mea…

Maybe I'm wrong, but it sounds like the OP is not justifying such a view, but explaining how others tend to see things in general.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#370

Post by Jenk » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 9:18 PM UTC

themitigating wrote: post #356

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that one of those things has a benefit. When there's a mysterious box that does some vague thing that you don't care about, it's safe to hate it. It's not helping you in any observable way, so opposing its existence is a safe, easy decision. But the Ring camera is providing him with a benefit, so evaluating whether to oppose it requires putting a cost on "spying on us" and weighing that against the…

"When there's a mysterious box that does some vague thing that you don't care about, it's safe to hate it. It's not helping you in any observable way, so opposing its existence is a safe, easy decision" This sounds like the justification of stupidity. If you don't know what it does it ignoring may or may not be safe. If you can't observe a benefit to you (I assume you mean obvious and causual observation) doesn't mea…

> This sounds like the justification of stupidity.

Doesn't read that way at all to me. Reads like a very accurate depiction of reality.