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

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#401

Post by trelane » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 9:59 PM UTC

deltree7 wrote: post #366

antonymy wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And also how "my representative" consistently get scored highly on the same surveys.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#402

Post by alpaca128 » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 10:00 PM UTC

dekhn wrote: post #319

alpaca128 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you also be fine with people filming you through your windows? Why not, after all it's visible from a public space with the right angle. And windows are just part of another kind of "fence". In the end it's private property and that makes it private by default. Nobody can forbid you from looking at it, but imho filming is just as invasive as parking the car there while having greater potential for abuse. Filmin…

I use drapes and shapes to get privacy for my windows. My intent Here is to prevent school shootings and help investigate crimes that occur on my property or my neighbor's property. Definitely not my intent to stare at my neighbors in their private lives and they understand that completely.

How are cameras supposed to prevent school shootings? The best they can do is let you watch cops do nothing as we could see in Texas. Prevention is much more important and much cheaper but that's not done either.

And I don't know why I'd spend money in anticipation of a potential crime in front of my home, donating data to Amazon in the meantime. The police is already tracking phones and using other methods no single camera can match.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#403

Post by ImPostingOnHN » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 10:01 PM UTC

hoorible wrote: post #188

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…

Your trash analogy doesn’t hold up because trash becomes “public” once it’s on the street which isn’t part of your property. “Publicly visible spot on my property” is a meaningless phrase; it’s still my property, and I’m legally (here at least) allowed to raise an objection to the recording of it. I can’t and wouldn’t object to someone recoding the sidewalk in front of my house. I can, and absolutely will, object to…

> “Publicly visible spot on my property” is a meaningless phrase

Indeed, your property or not, it's still a "publicly visible spot", and the creep is legally (in the US at least) allowed to be creepy in this way over your objections

> I can, and absolutely will, object to someone recording my yard.

The creep can, and absolutely will, object to your objections, and be allowed to continue (in the US at least).

Privacy requires constant vigilance, in terms of electing lawmakers.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#404

Post by googlryas » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 10:02 PM UTC

dm319 wrote: post #47

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 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…

I find this viewpoint very strange. Why are you jumping to the idea that you're being treated as suspicious, and being judged, and being avoided as a result of that judgement?

What if people were just...doing something else? At work? At the movies? Driving? Pooping?

Do you feel judged when you walk up to doors with peepholes?

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#405

Post by Domenic_S » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 10:05 PM UTC

reaperducer wrote: post #124

Domenic_S wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The front porch is a "public" area, in the sense that there's no expectation of privacy. It's as legal as if you were taking an iphone video or live photo of your car in the driveway and happened to catch the neighbor in the background. Ring does have the ability to set "blackout zones" in the camera's FOV, and as a good neighbor the ring owner could have excluded the neighbor's driveway/porch with a few clicks.

The front porch is a "public" area, in the sense that there's no expectation of privacy. Parent commenter is correct. The laws in your area are not the laws in every area. Some states and cities have restrictions on recording, even in public areas. Illinois is one of the states with laws that prohibit many kinds of incidental audio recordings, while video is allowed. As was explained to me by a downstate communicatio…

No they aren't. Intent matters.

According to this article [0] by the senior counsel and ethics officer for the Illinois Department of Central Management Services,

> The threshold questions are whether the conversation is private, and whether the recording is done secretly. The law allows recording if the conversation is not private, that is, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy as defined above. Also, there is no violation unless the recording is “surreptitious,” defined as “obtained or made by stealth or deception, or executed through secrecy or concealment.”

[0] https://www.isba.org/committees/governmentlawyers/newsletter...

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#406

Post by always2slow » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 10:07 PM UTC

googlryas wrote: post #394

always2slow wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

That isn't what's being discussed here, but it's still a type of intimidation. Being law abiding really doesn't matter because pointing a camera at someone's property is a type of intimidation and harassment.

But to answer your question: >Would you label a gate or a lock as "intimidating" as well?

No I wouldn't, but that isn't to say I couldn't imagine a scenario where it could be used that way. For example, say you move to a new place and you're different from the locals. You notice your neighbor watching you with suspicion when you come home from work everyday and they make a show of watching you while putting a big padlock on their garage door or something. There's nothing illegal or even really wrong about doing that. It's just kind of crappy and not very neighborly. The behavior would be weird and creepy.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#407

Post by twothamendment » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 10:11 PM UTC

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…

It sounds like it is time for a white noise generator, right on the property line and make sure they don't hear anything.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#408

Post by twawaaay » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 10:17 PM UTC

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 this theory that cameras do not reduce crime because "amount" of crime depends on supply of people willing to do crime.

If you are a person that is willing to do crime and you see a camera, you do not stop doing crime. You find another target.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#409

Post by kornhole » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 10:18 PM UTC

phailhaus wrote: post #11

nomilk wrote: post #5

It's often overlooked that users get happiness from privacy, and the mere risk of a breach (however small) makes risk-averse people unhappy, even if a breach never eventuates. Law enforcement might catch some more bad guys with 11 extra ring videos, but now every ring user has to worry about local police sharing/laughing/perving at their home videos - is it worth it? It might have been well intentioned, but Amazon's…

> It's often overlooked that users get happiness from privacy That's not true though, at all. Users prefer convenience over privacy by far, just look at how much people still use Facebook, Google, TikTok, etc despite having terrible privacy practices. Those videos are too addicting. Being able to monitor your home is too convenient.

Many people like myself become quite agitated when they know they are under surveillance. I can't be happy when agitated.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#410

Post by ashwagary » Wed, Jul 13, 2022, 10:26 PM UTC

jwagenet wrote: post #340

libria wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, if it's in public it's fair game thanks to the 1st amendment.

The nextdoor homeowner probably has a right to setup a tripod, a laser pointer (or a similar bright spot light) and point it directly at the neighbor's Ring camera iris.