Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ring owners are returning their cameras

msn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 314 posts

Re: Ring owners are returning their cameras

#281

Post by mrguyorama »

theodric wrote: post #85
lifestyleguru wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Poland some moron in surveillance center visually profiled a random guy as one wanted person (by jacket color), then police took the guy to the police station and beat him to death. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Igor_Stachowiak

Wow. What an infuriating case, again and again. Only 2 years in prison for the perps because the court decided that "excited delirium" killed the guy and not being beaten and tased 4 times.

The guys who beat Rodney King faced zero justice, American prison guards pretty regularly do horrific things and face little repercussion, and the guys who executed Pretti were working the next day, until that led to backlash and now they are being systemically protected.

In some states in the US, it is not illegal for a cop to have sex with someone they have arrested. Ain't that just dandy.

The Polish situation could be an upgrade.

Re: Ring owners are returning their cameras

#282

Post by reaperducer »

ChoGGi wrote: post #174
reaperducer wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will this prevent crime? Maybe No. Unless your camera is being held by a human being who can take action. Cameras do not prevent crime. That's just marketing. All they do is let people watch crimes after they've happened, and share the videos to spread fear to other people, which then sells more cameras. If doorbell cameras prevented crime, the internet would be full of videos of people trying to steal packages, then…

My garage was broken into twice within three years, cameras up two years ago, and nothing yet. I may also have a nice rock for sale, we'll see how it goes.

My garage was broken into twice within three years, cameras up two years ago, and nothing yet.

Maybe your thief moved away.

Most burglars work in their own neighborhoods.

Re: Ring owners are returning their cameras

#283

Post by CWuestefeld »

slumberlust wrote: post #276
CWuestefeld wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary. It appears that Bud Light sales continued to fall. https://sherwood.news/business/beer-bud-light-market-share-b... Budweiser stock did recover, but they haven't (afaik) repeated the behavior that got them boycotted in the first place. It appears that this boycott achieved exactly what was sought. I'd agree that this is a rare exception, and that boycotts are almost never successful. But this really i…

Alcohol across all verticals is down. How can we attribute this fall to their issues specifically?

The important point is that those doing the boycott have achieved their aim. A-B is no longer marketing in the way that those people disagreed with.

Re: Ring owners are returning their cameras

#284

Post by mrguyorama »

assimpleaspossi wrote: post #277
mingus88 wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody looks at them. It’s 2026. In the U.S., municipal vehicles have ALPR scanners on them. They go into a database Cop cars will ping if a flagged plate is seen (even if the front and back plates don’t match) and the officer will pull you over. Literally happens every day.

>Nobody looks at them. Exactly my point but most of the comments here would have you believe you're going to be stupid up against a wall at any moment.

They exist so that when someone wants to put you up against the wall, all they have to do is craft the right SQL query. That's the product of dragnet surveillance. The chilling effect is the point.

Re: Ring owners are returning their cameras

#285

Post by ajam1507 »

nindalf wrote: post #155

This news article boils down to "a few people on reddit did something", which is interesting. But we know reddit and HN are definitely not mainstream. Is this hurting Amazon? No, it is not. As long as they're honouring return requests freely, you know that the number of returns is within their accepted levels of distressed inventory. If it's getting into uncomfortable territory, they'll start rate limiting people by…

> But we know reddit and HN are definitely not mainstream.

Reddit is one of the most visited websites on the planet, not sure how you can say it isn't mainstream.

> Is this hurting Amazon? No, it is not.

Depends on your definition of hurting Amazon, but regardless Ring is a tiny portion of Amazon's revenue so even if every single Ring owner returned it wouldn't "hurt Amazon"

> This may go the way of #deleteUber, #deleteFacebook and similar boycott campaigns - minor blips at best.

Not sure about Uber, but #deleteFacebook absolutely did have a long term impact in certain demographics.

Re: Ring owners are returning their cameras

#286

Post by asdff »

kakacik wrote: post #78
asdff wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just an example of what a prosumer camera could do 12 years ago from a Sony A7s: https://philipbloom.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/SONY... This camera is capable of iso 409,600, 4 stops higher than this image. I mean this is turning night into day.

We talk about video here with requirement to have as many FPS as possible, not static pics from camera with huge sensor and lenses, fixed on tripod like in your link. Try making a night video of the same scene with that same camera, it will be grainy useless crap that any newish cheap phone can triumph easily. Actually most real cameras had/have subpar videos to normal phones. Small volumes so hard to develop good op…

It is probably pretty decent since these things are effectively video cameras to utilize the eletronic view finder. Probably not high framerate but its at sensor resolution and they let you pixel peep a live view image to confirm focus.

Re: Ring owners are returning their cameras

#287

Post by Gud »

ericmay wrote: post #180
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The power of a few seconds of video is why TikTok had to be brought under control Didn't USA's current regime take over TikTok in order to use it for propaganda? Twitter-X was used so successfully that they're expanding their psyops.

Well we took it from a communist, anti-American regime executing their psyop and made it our own. Either way just stop using it and nobody gets to psyop you. It’s very straightforward.

Why do you believe your interests are aligned with Larry Ellisons?

Re: Ring owners are returning their cameras

#288

Post by SanjayMehta »

master-lincoln wrote: post #225
SanjayMehta wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Whataboutism. Parent referred to that specific law for public filming not being enforced. Also what would one case of a law being followed like in your shared article mean? Nothing. I thus assume you are acting in bad faith.

No, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of the collective West and its "rules based order." No different from a Idi Amin or any authoritarian gangster regime with multi tier justice.

Whining "WhatAboutism" is the last resort of the hypocrite.

Re: Ring owners are returning their cameras

#289

Post by drnick1 »

rob wrote: post #187
philipallstar wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook alone is far more mainstream than Reddit, I would say. Thousands of times more.

We can just look at both's recent reports: Reddit: 121 million "daily active unique users" Source: https://investor.redditinc.com/news-events/news-releases/new... Facebook: 3.58 billion "family daily active people" Source: https://investor.atmeta.com/investor-news/press-release-deta... --- I'd definitely consider both "mainstream". (I know plenty non-tech and "normal" people who use reddit.)

I had no idea the Meta cancer spread that far.

Re: Ring owners are returning their cameras

#290

Post by tialaramex »

dwedge wrote: post #210
tialaramex wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ordinarily the police investigating a major crime don't care whether you broke the law in small ways. "Hmm, should we solve the murder, or, maybe get somebody fined $100 for having an unauthorised video" ?

I got hit by an Uber once as a pedestrian, he drove away, I phoned the police and they spent the whole time trying to decide if I can cross the road there or not, decided that it was a legal technicality and let me off with a warning for jaywalking. So in summary: > "Hmm, should we solve the murder, or, maybe get somebody fined $100 for having an unauthorised video" ? Don't be surprised to find out the answer is both…

It doesn't sound like that was a major crime. I mean, arguably it should be, but given you live somewhere with jaywalking laws I don't sense that.
Post reply on HN