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

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

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 169 posts

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

#91

Post by ppseafield »

throwawayatty wrote: post #64
ppseafield wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

COPS like any TV show blurs people's faces unless they sign a release.

This is out of an abundance of caution, not necessarily because the law requires it. This explains it: https://www.quora.com/Does-the-Cops-TV-show-need-to-get-sign...

Sure, I get that, because they don't want to be sued.

You asked what the difference was with the social media post vs. TV: The difference is that COPS, etc., don't want to be sued, so they get releases, because they realize that they could potentially be sued (and sometimes for good reason!) I sincerely doubt the person in the post signed a release from Amazon.

If you argue that it's technically legal, the OP wasn't specifically arguing that either.

> Even if one claims the video is fine (and I'd disagree), it's still a very very very bad idea for Amazon, or any large company, to be enforcing the law and conducting mass shaming via advertising.

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

#92

Post by ceejayoz »

darkpuma wrote: post #22
mc32 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is “selling electricity doir-to-door?” Is that offering solar on roof services? Cuz I can’t imagine actually selling electricity door to door.

Yeah, if somebody came to my front door to "sell me electricity" I'd be on high alert, regardless of his race. Where I come from it's a known scheme where one guy gets you distracted at the front door with some semi-plausible sales pitch like re-sealing your driveway while his accomplice goes behind the house and robs you blind. Of course, even when the apparent salesman is a genuine salesman, that doesn't mean he's…

> Where I come from it's a known scheme where one guy gets you distracted at the front door with some semi-plausible sales pitch like re-sealing your driveway while his accomplice goes behind the house and robs you blind.

This sounds like precisely the sort of pearl-clutching urban legend the parent comment is describing. The wealthy neighborhood I grew up in had all sorts of stories along these lines - "be on the lookout for gypsies" etc., despite a vanishingly small crime rate.

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

#93

Post by [deleted] »

pwinnski wrote: post #5
lern_too_spel wrote: post #3

I don't see a problem. The police department posted the same video.

The police department stated that she was a suspect; Amazon identified her as a thief, breaking the presumption of innocence that is a bedrock of American society. If the video is fine, the post wording still isn't.

[deleted]

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

#94

Post by Balgair »

awinder wrote: post #68

In the video, the woman’s face is clearly visible and there is no obvious criminal activity taking place. The Facebook post shows her passing between two cars. She pulls the door handle of one of the cars, but it is locked. Yeah that's pretty clearly attempting to steal vehicles / contents of vehicles, that's 100% what that looks like.

Time out.

Despite it being VICE News (who do not quote Sgt. Tim Dahl in the article for some reason), and despite one video of some person we know nothing about and lack all context for, the article is actually a good dive into some strange stuff that is occuring between Amazon, FB, and MVPD.

Everyone should actually read the article and go look at the FB post by MVPD.

The VICE headline is pure clickbait.

That said, yeah, that looks shady.

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

#95

Post by throwawayatty »

Xylakant wrote: post #40
throwawayatty wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Attorney here, but this is not legal advice.) It would be a very unusual circumstance for a person caught on camera performing a criminal act to incriminate him/herself by admitting guilt for the purpose of prevailing on a right-to-publicity action. Moreover, every case involving right to publicity/right of likeness thus far has had a "famous" person as the plaintiff, where there's a sort of "brand goodwill" in the…

> It would be a very unusual circumstance for a person caught on camera performing a criminal act But the person wasn’t caught on camera performing a criminal act afaics. She was caught walking between two cars and pulling at a door handle, the car was locked, person continued. Is this criminal? Kids do that all the time. It’s alleged that the person did perform a criminal act elsewhere but was not caught on camera.

Attempted burglary is a crime.

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

#96

Post by colejohnson66 »

geggam wrote: post #65
throwawayatty wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is out of an abundance of caution, not necessarily because the law requires it. This explains it: https://www.quora.com/Does-the-Cops-TV-show-need-to-get-sign...

As an atty I am sure you are aware folks can sue and typically he with the most money wins, regardless of law (see:OJ)

OJ is an interesting case. Basically though, the prosecution messed up enough that OJ’s team was able to instill enough doubt to avoid the “without a doubt” part needed for a jury

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

#97

Post by jmsflknr »

dang wrote: post #19
jmsflknr wrote: post #7

Posted this yesterday with same source, same headline: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20117905

Reposts are fine on HN if a story hasn't had significant attention yet. There's a lot of randomness in what gets traction, and allowing reposts is a way to mitigate that. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html

Oh I see. Did not know that. All good.

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

#98

Post by ceejayoz »

geggam wrote: post #84
jvolkman wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When was driving considered a right?

Given the fact the constitution limits the govt and not the people. Given the fact the constitution says the govt cannot limit the freedom of movement. The govt cannot make laws limiting freedom of movement regardless of the method as they were not given that right by the constitution. Therefore driving as a form of movement cannot be regulated. There are also precedents discussing it Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11…

> Given the fact the constitution limits the govt and not the people.

Well, sorta.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

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

#99

Post by allannienhuis »

stronglikedan wrote: post #55
bdcravens wrote: post #16

On the Ring Neighbors app, you see all sorts of videos where the posters are making criminal accusations all the time. (usually it's a guy selling electricity door to door, but his skin tone is wrong, so they assume he's there to rob the house)

I see this all the time too, but it's people of all skin colors. Basically, anyone walking up to the door of some houses for any reason gets reported and accused. I'd be interested to see the data that supports the "but his skin tone is wrong" part of your statement, because it doesn't seem to be applicable or relevant in my experience with the app. (Although, I'm sure if anyone could manufacture that data, it would…

I know people in the retail door-to-door canvassing business (home renovations), and it's very obvious to them that there is a strong racial bias towards non-white door-to-door canvassers. Fewer people answer the door, more belligerence at the door, etc. It's consistent and it's sad, but that's reality in a lot of places.

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

#100

Post by byset »

pwinnski wrote: post #5
lern_too_spel wrote: post #3

I don't see a problem. The police department posted the same video.

The police department stated that she was a suspect; Amazon identified her as a thief, breaking the presumption of innocence that is a bedrock of American society. If the video is fine, the post wording still isn't.

The presumption of innocence is a legal presumption. Anyone is free to make private judgments about someone's innocence or guilt without waiting for a criminal verdict. That said, Amazon's phrasing ("this woman was caught on camera breaking into a vehicle") does seem a bit reckless. If the person in the video is innocent, she can and should sue Amazon for defamation.
Post reply on HN