Amazon’s Ring Is Putting Suspected Petty Thieves in Its Advertisements • Hacker News Board

Re: Amazon’s Ring Is Putting Suspected Petty Thieves in Its Advertisements

#161

Post by dzhiurgis » Sat, Jun 08, 2019, 5:39 PM UTC

delfinom wrote: post #86

dzhiurgis wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US really need to deregulate (btw I find this word an oxymoron, but english is not my first language) their ISP's and most countries really need to deregulate their wireless providers. Imagine single shared spectrum easy to setup eSIM, easy to terminate contracts. Unfortunately most countries want your ID nowadays when you sign up for internet...

The problem is its not so easy to share spectrum. In reality you can only have a single transmitter/receiver on a given frequency band in a given area.

You don't share per-se, you operate network same way many MVNO's do.

There's one network (ran by one gov agency) and rest of the players are basically MVNO's, doing customer support, marketing and negotiating peering. Just like traditional ISPs work in many western countries.

Re: Amazon’s Ring Is Putting Suspected Petty Thieves in Its Advertisements

#162

Post by pmiller2 » Sat, Jun 08, 2019, 5:43 PM UTC

mruts wrote: post #160

jliptzin wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never open the door unless it is for someone I am expecting, no exceptions whatsoever. It is a textbook case of something that has marginal upside and unlimited downside.

I mean, having someone die on your doorstep because you didn’t help them seems like a large downside to me.

Multiply that by the probability of it happening to get the risk, though.

Re: Amazon’s Ring Is Putting Suspected Petty Thieves in Its Advertisements

#163

Post by DoctorOetker » Sat, Jun 08, 2019, 5:45 PM UTC

booleandilemma wrote: post #130

smacktoward wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a surveillance state, all behavior is by definition suspicious behavior.

It wouldn’t have been suspicious if she had just walked between the 2 cars, but she tried to break into one of them, and at about 8 seconds in you can clearly see her scanning the parking lot to see if anyone is watching her.

I've had embarassing situations where an outsider might misinterpret my behaviour such that I would scan around for a good moment, good in the sense of not being bothered needlessly:

1. one time I lost the key to my bicycle lock, so I had to cut it free, ... obviously I looked around for a calmer moment, even though it simply was my bike.

2. another time I (or a friend, I can't remember) threw my frisbee on the roof of a small entrance building with elevator to the underground parking lot under a public square. Although the height could be scaled by climbing some structure besides it, we didn't because it was too busy... then I told my brother about what happened without asking him to get it... the next day I decide to get it, but there was a police car doing a patrol and passing every 7 minutes, ... so I doubt for a while, then stop the police car on its next tour, ask the cops if I can go fetch my frisbee from the roof,... very hesitant to give any explicit permission they subtextually indicate they don't care, as long as I do it quickly while they are there... so climb the structure, then the roof, ... no frisbee! later I would learn my brother had already retrieved it...

Re: Amazon’s Ring Is Putting Suspected Petty Thieves in Its Advertisements

#164

Post by mruts » Sat, Jun 08, 2019, 6:22 PM UTC

pmiller2 wrote: post #162

mruts wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, having someone die on your doorstep because you didn’t help them seems like a large downside to me.

Multiply that by the probability of it happening to get the risk, though.

You could make the same argument about helping someone change their tire on the side of the road. Or helping a blind person cross the road. Life is full of risks but constantly worrying about them isn’t worth it, especially if it comes at the expense of actually helping someone who is in danger.

If you see someone getting abused or needs help, I think you should do the right thing and try and help them, because everyone helping each other reduces risk for everyone and makes a better society.

Re: Amazon’s Ring Is Putting Suspected Petty Thieves in Its Advertisements

#165

Post by pmiller2 » Sat, Jun 08, 2019, 7:34 PM UTC

mruts wrote: post #164

pmiller2 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Multiply that by the probability of it happening to get the risk, though.

You could make the same argument about helping someone change their tire on the side of the road. Or helping a blind person cross the road. Life is full of risks but constantly worrying about them isn’t worth it, especially if it comes at the expense of actually helping someone who is in danger. If you see someone getting abused or needs help, I think you should do the right thing and try and help them, because every…

Ok, also factor in the probability that the person at your door isn’t dying or in desperate need of help, but is actually out to take advantage of you (or, at least waste your time).

Re: Amazon’s Ring Is Putting Suspected Petty Thieves in Its Advertisements

#166

Post by CamperBob2 » Sat, Jun 08, 2019, 7:58 PM UTC

madengr wrote: post #156

CamperBob2 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say it was a free lunch. ~99% of a free lunch, which is what proper spreading codes buy you, is good enough. Point being, the obstacles are regulatory, not technical.

They are still technical. The spreading doesn’t buy you anything in terms of channel capacity, just processing gain over narrow band interference, and the downside is now you need precise power control to keep all those codes at the same noise level. 4G & 5G uses OFDM, essentially distributing the data over slow, narrow band channels to get around the multi-path issues with trying to use even wider band CDMA. Then MI…

Dude, your entire post history calls to mind the question, "What am I doing on a site called 'Hacker News'?"

Channel capacity is not the problem. Do you own a radio capable of VHF/UHF reception? Turn it on. Tune it to a randomly-chosen frequency between, say, 600 and 1000 MHz. What do you hear? Now, repeat this exercise 5,000 times, and let me know how many of those iterations yield anything but white noise from your receiver's own front end and IF strip.

There's your "channel capacity."

This problem is purely regulatory. Everything should be frequency-agile at this point in time, but it's not. Never mind CDMA or TDMA, we haven't even picked the lowest of the low-hanging FDMA fruit yet.

Re: Amazon’s Ring Is Putting Suspected Petty Thieves in Its Advertisements

#167

Post by mruts » Sun, Jun 09, 2019, 7:13 PM UTC

pmiller2 wrote: post #165

mruts wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could make the same argument about helping someone change their tire on the side of the road. Or helping a blind person cross the road. Life is full of risks but constantly worrying about them isn’t worth it, especially if it comes at the expense of actually helping someone who is in danger. If you see someone getting abused or needs help, I think you should do the right thing and try and help them, because every…

Ok, also factor in the probability that the person at your door isn’t dying or in desperate need of help, but is actually out to take advantage of you (or, at least waste your time).

Well, fortunately, doors have peepholes.

Re: Amazon’s Ring Is Putting Suspected Petty Thieves in Its Advertisements

#168

Post by lern_too_spel » Mon, Jun 10, 2019, 1:38 AM UTC

will_brown wrote: post #159

lern_too_spel wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The standard for winning a civil case (preponderance of evidence) is lower than the standard for winning a criminal case (beyond a reasonable doubt), so the two are not comparable.

What does that have anything to do with the point being made of the OJ Simpson case as an example of money winning cases? In both the civil and criminal case the parties with more money/resources lost respectively.

The party with less money had the easier side in both cases. GGGP's point is that even though the party with less money had the easier case in the OJ trial, they had enough money to win what somebody with less money would have certainly lost. Though the state has more money, it could not afford OJ's lawyers. Similarly, at the time of the civil trial, OJ could not afford the lawyers he had in the criminal trial.

Re: Amazon’s Ring Is Putting Suspected Petty Thieves in Its Advertisements

#169

Post by dtagames » Tue, Jun 11, 2019, 5:35 PM UTC

relaunched wrote: post #13

dtagames wrote: post #6

I smell a lawsuit coming. How can Amazon think it's ok to use people's faces in an advertisement when those people haven't been convicted of a crime? The case of Ring is particularly disturbing. When its inventor appeared on Shark Tank, he said he wanted to create a way to hear his doorbell from the garage. Since Amazon bought the company for $1B, it's pivoted to a surveillance tool that's being offered to police as…

Ring's mission is all about safety. Jamie has talked extensively about how they actively rejected ideas to just build connected things for the home, to focus on & foster a sense of safe homes and safe communities. The floodlight is a great example of a pre-acquisition product that piggybacks on that mission.

That "mission" came from Amazon. It wasn't any part of the pitch Jamie gave on Shark Tank. This is just another example of surveillance capitalism and it's pretty sickening.