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

391–400 of 532 posts

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#391

Post by dieortin »

deltree7 wrote: post #378
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…

If you had a Ring, you would have most likely gotten clues about your cat. If you had asked your neighbors nicely to view their Ring history, you would have mostly likely gotten even more clues or even found your cat.

If he had a police squad patrolling in front of his house he would’ve also gotten clues about his cat I guess.

And it’s hard to ask something nicely to someone that doesn’t even answer based on your looks or whatever.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#392

Post by mlyle »

TuringNYC wrote: post #359
mlyle wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>> Whether a state has a one party or two party statute, this behavior would likely violate it. Fascinating. How does Ring get around this? Has no one tried to sue to force the issue?

It might be hard to sue Ring; they'd claim they were not responsible for capturing a neighbor conversation and it's intended for use on your own property.

And to sue the neighbor, well, you'd have to know that they actually were capturing your conversation and feel like suing your neighbor.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#393

Post by [deleted] »

dieortin wrote: post #386
jimmaswell wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have no right not to be recorded in public in my opinion. You're the one shooting photons onto their property (the camera) that they should be able to do what they want with.

So I should be able to peer through your bathroom’s window because you’re shooting photons outside?

[deleted]

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#394

Post by googlryas »

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…

Normal, law abiding citizens aren't intimidated by security cameras generally, which is why most people can go out to shops and stores which almost certainly are recording them and not give it a second thought.

Would you label a gate or a lock as "intimidating" as well?

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#395

Post by wilg »

soganess wrote: post #235
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.

Sorry you are not convinced, but looking and recording are different. If I hear my neighborhood talking - hearsay If I record my neighbors talking - admissible evidence

I believe they are both considered hearsay (in U.S. law), and both are admissible depending on the conditions

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#396

Post by googlryas »

heavyset_go wrote: post #320
MetaWhirledPeas wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like your real problem is your neighbor being a jerk. If they didn't have Ring that wouldn't stop them from calling the cops on a "suspicious" person.

I think there's a big difference between a busybody staring out the window sometimes and being upset with what they see versus a busybody with a 24/7 security system that pings them at all hours of the day with alerts and video clips about "suspicious" activity it detects, along with apps like Nextdoor, Citizen and the Ring Neighbors app that allow the paranoid to continuously share said clips and create local echo c…

In this case we have no idea whether that happened, or whether the crappy neighbor was just looking out their window at that moment. It is silly to blame a doorbell camera for this.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#397

Post by tekeous »

RosanaAnaDana wrote: post #327

Does any one know of a privacy focused security camera? I live in a rough neighborhood and am concerned about theft, but I have 0 faith or trust in companies like amazon. If I want a security camera that I can check remotely, but I want to own my data and have complete privacy (no snooping by the company, no ability for them to give my data to some one else). Do I have any options for this other than completely rolli…

If you believe what they say, Apple HomeKit Secure Video.

If you don’t, Ubiquiti makes a good remote system with on premise DVR.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#398

Post by wilg »

RosanaAnaDana wrote: post #327

Does any one know of a privacy focused security camera? I live in a rough neighborhood and am concerned about theft, but I have 0 faith or trust in companies like amazon. If I want a security camera that I can check remotely, but I want to own my data and have complete privacy (no snooping by the company, no ability for them to give my data to some one else). Do I have any options for this other than completely rolli…

I have a HomeKit doorbell camera which uses HomeKit Secure Video and is end-to-end encrypted.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#399

Post by dylan604 »

baskethead wrote: post #352
dylan604 wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm shocked that the police even took prints. When my house was burglarized, they looked around and then told us to file a report and left.

The crime lab said it was rare for them to make an appearance. He said if there had been a dead body, they'd have brought out all the toys to do forensics. I gently reminded him that I would have been the dead body in question, and the whole conversation was soured after that.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#400

Post by googlryas »

BeetleB wrote: post #387
bink wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not exactly true. Many states have laws outlawing recording "private" conversations without the consent of all parties. As far as I know that would even include recording someone having a private conversation with you on your own property. Whether or not someone talking on their own property and their voice carrying over their property line would qualify is up for debate.

That's actually a good point. I'd like to see if someone has done an analysis on this. Factors to consider: - Whether the recording was intentional (i.e. if I set up cameras for security, and it so happens to record all your conversations on your front porch, this is unintentional, but if I set up a microphone by the wall, it's intentional). - The type of communication - most resources I'm finding discuss phones and…

I wonder if these laws run afoul of the ADA - You can't do zero-party consent audio recordings - but you can record video, which could just as easily capture a deaf person's conversation using sign language. Basically, it sounds like this law affords protections to only certain, non-disabled citizens.
Post reply on HN