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

341–350 of 532 posts

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#341

Post by ClumsyPilot »

dekhn wrote: post #257
kelnos wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we're arguing with you anymore about whether or not you could be bothered, just that you somehow seem to think that there's no (or only a minor or incremental) difference between a human watching your property and a camera recording it, which is objectively false. And of course no one can resist trying to correct someone who is Wrong On The Internet. Also I think it's because it sounds like you're refus…

I dunno, I think I explained my position, my reasoning, my priors, and came to a reasonable conclusion. I'm certainly not insisting I'm right. But what I know I can do is install a camera in a visible location and be open to people approaching me and asking for changes. I've also read the relevant california and federal laws (not in detail) and concluded what I'm doing is not a violation, in letter or intent. I'm not…

> came to a reasonable conclusion

[D]idn't Aristarchus and the Pythagoreans propose heliocentrism in ancient times? If only they had prevailed, we might have had Real Science millennia sooner. What was their evidence? Well, you see, fire is nobler than earth and the center is a nobler position. So fire has to be in the center. QED. There are many names for this sort of thinking, but "scientific" is not one of them.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#342

Post by jjulius »

chickenpotpie wrote: post #338
jjulius wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That means they're life is worse. It doesn't, though. If they are aware of the tradeoff (that in order to have the privacy they want, it will take longer to get any footage they may need), and they find that the tradeoff is worth it, then their life is not "worse". After all, that's why they made the decision to begin with - because they believe that their life is worse with them than without.

But it's not more privacy, that's the entire basis of what I'm saying. In this hypothetical, you're already monitored by cameras. The only difference is that the subject doesn't own them. The privacy is the exact same in both.

By not taking part in it, they are not contributing to something they oppose. It's a moral choice for them. My fault for not making that clearer.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#343

Post by AlwaysRock »

BurningFrog wrote: post #105
NegativeLatency wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also if it’s really an “emergency” then they should be able to use the existing warrant process

Getting a warrant from a judge typically takes a few hours. It can be faster in emergencies, but in the “cases involving imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to any person” this is about, I don't know that it's practical.

In what situation does previously recorded footage on a ring camera need to be accessed as evidence in sooner than a few hours? This footage isnt being used in crime prevention.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#344

Post by AlwaysRock »

ensignavenger wrote: post #24
AlwaysRock wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair... If you carry around a smart phone or have a smart watch or a laptop you're at just as much risk. The ring is just one more device.

My smart phone is not recording video all the time and uploading it to somebody else's computer. It does send location pings to the cell tower when turned on... However, I can easily turn my smart phone off, or leave it home or somewhere else. Security cameras and thermostats and refrigerators aren't so easy to just turn off.

It's listening and recording audio at all time.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#345

Post by dekhn »

sdoering wrote: post #331
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…

I can only second this. If this were my neighbor I would get a restraining order against them. Recording your neighbors kids in the yard to me sounds borderline problematic. I just can't find any sane justification for behavior like that.

If you tried to get a restraining order for my camera which incidentally overlooks the neighbor's driveway (no kids playing there), you would be laughed at. I'm not breaking any law, nor do I have any ill intent. The kids I incidentally tape are in a school yard across the street from me, and after Uvalde, both the cops and the school admins would welcome another source of information to help them prevent school killings.

Think of it this way- before any of this happened, the cops came to my door and asked politely if we had a video camera facing our neighbor's yard, which would have provided some useful evidence on a car breakin. They didn't say "oh, hey, it's creepy to videotape your neighbor's front yard which is in plain view and has no fence." Combined with the laws of my state, it's clear that videotaping my yard and the neighbor's front yard is not illegal, and in general, seems to be non-creepy.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#346

Post by MikeFez »

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…

Rolling your own is probably your best bet as being able to check remotely typically means your camera streams are running through a company's servers.

Personally, I moved from BlueIris and I've been incredibly happy with Frigate which is configured to pull from my local IP cameras - none of which have direct access to the internet: https://github.com/blakeblackshear/frigate

You can check in via browser assuming you have some method of accessing your local network. Paired with a google coral device (or a beefy CPU) alongside local storage, it also has the ability to detect objects in real-time which often is a feature that requires video processing on a company's server.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#347

Post by MacsHeadroom »

alanh wrote: post #330
pc86 wrote: post #132

Earlier 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

You don't have a legal expectation of privacy anywhere visible from public property, including even the inside of your house viewable from a public easement/street.

Because of this, it's legal for someone to point a camera right inside your window or front door. It's also illegal (public indecency) for you to be naked in your own window or open door.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#348

Post by dekhn »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #341
dekhn wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno, I think I explained my position, my reasoning, my priors, and came to a reasonable conclusion. I'm certainly not insisting I'm right. But what I know I can do is install a camera in a visible location and be open to people approaching me and asking for changes. I've also read the relevant california and federal laws (not in detail) and concluded what I'm doing is not a violation, in letter or intent. I'm not…

> came to a reasonable conclusion [D]idn't Aristarchus and the Pythagoreans propose heliocentrism in ancient times? If only they had prevailed, we might have had Real Science millennia sooner. What was their evidence? Well, you see, fire is nobler than earth and the center is a nobler position. So fire has to be in the center. QED. There are many names for this sort of thinking, but "scientific" is not one of them.

Wat? I didn't say scientific, I said reasonable. In the legal meaning of the term ("just, rational, appropriate"). I'm not making a scientific argument.

Keep your criticisms high quality.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#349

Post by dekhn »

brewdad wrote: post #270
naasking wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the US you don't have any expectation of privacy in public It's not clear that "on your property" counts as "in public" in all cases.

Front yard, visible from the street, probably "public" in most jurisdictions. Backyard, or somewhere shielded from view without entering yours or someone else's private property? I would argue that is "private" space that should be protected but it would probably come down to the specific circumstances to be certain.

This is the operational definition I'm working from.

Re: Amazon admits giving police Ring camera footage without consent

#350

Post by abeppu »

dekhn wrote: post #107
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…

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…

It's not illegal for journalists to go through your trash, but can't we have a bar for treating our neighbors that's higher than not being criminals?
Post reply on HN