I'm shocked I tell you. Shocked that they would collaborate with the growing police state and just enable dragnet surveillance.
Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent
421–430 of 532 posts
Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent
#422My 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'm pretty sure its against the law to have a camera pointed at someone else's property like that.
Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent
#423Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you saying that the movie studios don't own their movies?
They own it legally, and they are absolutely unsuccessful in stopping unauthorized copies. Same with the Ring videos, no? The owner of camera owns the recordings, maybe, but they can't really control disclosure.
> Same with the Ring videos, no?
I wonder if they could sue using copyright laws
Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent
#424My 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…
Depending on where you live you might have recourse since they are recording audio.I would look into wiretapping laws for your state.
Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent
#425Earlier 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…
I didn't read it as justifying the stupidity, but explaining why people feel OK engaging in it. It came across as a good explanation of why so many people are so happily thoughtless.
“Thinking is hard work. That may be the reason so few engage in it.”—Henry Ford
Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent
#426Earlier 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.
My front door is not a 'public area', not really
Mine is; amazon drivers take a snapshot every time they deliver a package (I guess this is proof it's been delivered?). Many people can easily walk up to it, unimpeded. Hell, neighborhood kids run onto my front yard and sit in my trees (get off my lawn!!!). It meets every necessary definition of "public", while still being property that belongs to you.
Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent
#427Do you wonder if the SWAT team ever needs to bulldoze your wall in (rightly or wrongly), whether they might get a warrant to disable your cloud-based security camera(s) just beforehand?
Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent
#428Earlier 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…
[deleted]
Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent
#429Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why wait? host your own...
If I host my own, I know how to get openCV to only get notifications when a particular feature is detected, but can I get a live preview as a picture-in-picture on my TV while I'm watching NBA basketball? Or while my girlfriend is watching college basketball? I don't think there's a reasonable solution for that. Buying a HomeKit hosted camera, and AppleTV, and the prerequisite WiFi network upgrade costs about two hou…
Sorry I can't help you, I'm not always in front of my TV (I don't even own a TV)... but there are probably easy solution to cast it to your phone or computer...
But to tell you the truth, I hate looking at the camera footage... I just keep a month worth in my archive and never look at it unless something important happened.
Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent
#430Earlier 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.
I heard that when cameras were first invented, some cultures rejected them because they believed they were stealing their souls. Sounds like some silly superstition but I have a feeling that what both them and you are really worried about is the fact that people looking at a photo of you are only seeing a small slice of your "soul" or personhood disconnected from the social interactions that would normally occur if they were looking at you in real life. So it's more a worry about losing control of your influence over how other people perceive you, which is a major part of being human.