[HN Gopher] Amazon Ring's neighborhood watch app is making polic...
___________________________________________________________________
Amazon Ring's neighborhood watch app is making police requests
public
Author : underscore_ku
Score : 126 points
Date : 2021-06-03 11:14 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
| fasteddie31003 wrote:
| I like how technology is making crime harder to get away with.
| CCTV has probably lead to convictions in 100,000's of cases over
| its lifetime and deterred many more. I can't think of many
| negative outcomes to society from CCTV systems. My hope is that
| AirTags will make petty theft harder to get away with too.
| handrous wrote:
| Cops around here (a US city) routinely opt not to investigate
| property crime well into the five-figures, even when there's
| extensive video & other evidence. Like, they don't even give it
| a cursory attempt. I'm not sure adding more cameras will help.
| only_as_i_fall wrote:
| In my experience a lot of cops signed up for guns blazing
| action movie shit and are very reluctant to do their real
| job, which is mostly paperwork.
| twiddling wrote:
| Seattle? This has been a big problem. Even if you have video
| evidence, SPD, and the city attorney is not bothering.
|
| One cop told a buddy "You've got insurance for a reason..."
| irrational wrote:
| I've always wondered if they or one of their friends/family
| get robbed, would they actually investigate it? I'm just
| wondering to what extent their hypocrisy extends.
| handrous wrote:
| I'm pretty sure it's _most_ (US, at least) cities, really.
| It 's like if it's not hassling poor people or writing
| traffic tickets (the two things I actually see them do,
| regularly) the cops just don't care, at all. Catching
| speeders and driving off homeless people. That's about it.
| jgalt212 wrote:
| You mean IRL crime, cybercrime is easier than ever to pull off.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| CCTV only deters blue collar crime. White collar crime still
| has no equivalent deterrent. In a sense, CCTV helps us punish
| those who are already desperate. While not necessarily a
| negative in the abstract, in concrete terms one has to wonder
| why there's no CCTV cameras in executive offices, no screen
| recordings of everything they do on their computer.
| mediascreen wrote:
| Maybe not exactly the same thing, but there are tax auditors,
| tax audits, access logging (for some administrative systems),
| "know your customer" bank regulations and public insider
| registries for example.
| [deleted]
| becquerel wrote:
| But unfortunately, regulations only bind the weak:
| https://www.gq.com/story/no-irs-audits-for-the-rich
| klyrs wrote:
| If we imprison the lower class, we can get them to work for
| free. There's no downside for the upper class. Cracking down
| on white collar crime is rife with downsides for the upper
| class, so we defund the IRS, EPA, etc
| stretchwithme wrote:
| Desperation is just one reason people commit crimes.
|
| Such as wanting what other people have. Such as vengeance.
|
| If only we had to worry about people who were desperate,
| paying them off would actually work.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Just because something doesn't solve _all_ problems doesn 't
| mean it's still not incredibly useful for the problems it
| _does_ solve. And plenty of crimes aren 't out of class-based
| "desperation" at all -- e.g. rape or stalking.
|
| So I'm not sure why you're acting like there's some
| intentional effort to target the lower class but not upper
| class. The US goes after white collar crime heavily as well
| -- you'll find out quickly if you try to embezzle funds from
| your employer.
|
| Obviously, CCTV is effective against _physical_ crimes.
| White-collar tends to be caught with digital records like
| bank reporting, e-mails and texts, and so on.
|
| So I don't know what you mean when you say white collar crime
| has no equivalent deterrent. In a nutshell, databases are the
| equivalent.
| nucleogenesis wrote:
| Thank you for making this very important point.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Remember that what is considered criminal can change over time
| and not always in a good direction.
|
| A lot of people escape persecution from dictatorships by
| committing "crimes" and only get away with it because the
| system isn't perfect.
|
| China is a good example of nazi-like concentration camps but
| with modern technology.
| stevenicr wrote:
| I do not see this the same at all.
|
| Around my small city / burbs - crime is still rampant with cams
| everywhere. Many criminals now don hats/hoodies / masks.. but
| many do not.
|
| I've got video or a dozen different people breaking into cars
| in the neighborhood - cops don't care, DA ain't gonna do
| nothing if they are caught - now I know some of the thieves in
| the area on sight, but can't do anything to them.
|
| There are negative outcomes - they just aren't not in the news
| as much as they could be.
|
| When people are less free and feel like everything they do is
| being recorded, they act less free. Chilling effects ripple
| over the years and people forget when being non-chilled was
| like.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| > I can't think of many negative outcomes to society from CCTV
| systems.
|
| Uyghurs being arrested and sent to concentration camps after
| (western) facial recognition software singled them out from
| CCTV camera footage.
| prower wrote:
| I'm not sure I will ever understand the need or the advantage of
| linking my doorbell to an Amazon server.
|
| US such a bizarre place.
| cjensen wrote:
| Many people would like to be able to record snippets of people
| approaching their door. Good to know what's going on when
| you're not there so you can calibrate your fears with reality.
| Now you need to send the recording somewhere.
|
| You have two choices: maintain your own recording equipment, or
| upload. The former is a major hassle. Ring smartly found an
| opportunity to make a simple service people want.
|
| You say the "US is such a bizarre place" but that is simply
| untrue. Petty theft is a part of many cultures. For example,
| petty theft in the UK is far more common than the US.
| jxy wrote:
| Amazon knows exactly your credit cards, your names, your
| addresses, your front porch, your wifi SSIDs and pre-shared
| passwords, your purchases and their frequencies and amounts,
| your voices and accents, your photos, your music, your visitors
| and their frequencies ...
|
| It's difficult to find a thing Amazon doesn't know about you.
| barbazoo wrote:
| Everyone is different. Some people think that device and what
| it offers to them is useful. If you have a large house and get
| the occasional visitor that doesn't just come in anyway, I can
| see how this might be a convenient setup. And it's all about
| convenience. And non-tech people don't care about the "Amazon
| server" part at all.
| vmception wrote:
| the doors have eyes
| gnicholas wrote:
| I'm in the US and I agree. I was never a huge fan of Ring, and
| when they were acquired by Amazon that made it a deal-breaker.
| Amazon already knows enough about me.
|
| It's probably no accident that Amazon doesn't tout Ring devices
| as being Amazon-owned. I imagine there are others who would be
| less likely to purchase if they were aware of the connection.
| HPsquared wrote:
| If Amazon/Google/etc. already knows everything about the
| customer, they won't feel so uncomfortable handing over a
| little bit more to them.
|
| A small unknown company on the other hand, I'm more reticent
| to hand over my information to.
| stu2b50 wrote:
| No one buys a ring doorbell for the express purpose of being
| closer to Bezos or something. They do it because they want to
| be able to answer their door remotely - that it's on Amazon's
| server is a side effect of both not caring enough and not
| knowing how to host it locally.
| asdff wrote:
| What's hilarious about these ring/nest/etc products is you
| can find competent competitors, right on amazon, for like 1/5
| the price.
| coolspot wrote:
| > competent competitors
|
| Are you saying there are end-to-end encrypted home
| surveillance cameras for 1/5 of the price?
|
| Or that there are cheap cameras uploading your videos to
| some shady server?
| ysavir wrote:
| > that it's on Amazon's server is a side effect of both not
| caring enough and not knowing how to host it locally.
|
| Those situations happen, but I they're actually a significant
| minority. For most, how these things work is completely
| magic. It's not that they don't care, it's that they have no
| knowledge of how the tool works. They know that they press a
| button on their phone and their door unlocks, and so are
| satisfied that it works as intended. That there is anything
| more to consider isn't on their radar.
| anti-nazi wrote:
| need a lot more to be public tbh
| tokamak-teapot wrote:
| Is there a cheap alternative to Ring that is easy to set up ,
| cheap and can store on a local Linux server / but is also private
| and doesn't have any data leaving my network unless it's direct
| to an app on my phone?
| barbazoo wrote:
| I did a quick search for a doorbell solution for the home
| automation system of my choice and it seems like people came up
| with solutions [1]. It doesn't look trivial to set up but
| definitely possible.
|
| [1] https://kleypot.com/fully-offline-video-doorbell-for-home-
| as...
| endisneigh wrote:
| Amcres/Foscam with some configuration changes
| robotmay wrote:
| I now use a piece of software called Frigate, alongside Home
| Assistant, to do this. It works extremely well, surprisingly. I
| can watch clips and live streams via the Home Assistant apps on
| my phone, and for outside the house I have a Wireguard VPN to
| connect back. Works with any camera models with RTSP streams,
| which I put on a subnet with no internet access in case they
| phone home.
|
| I wrote a little about my switch to this setup, if it's useful:
| https://senryu.pub/afternoonrobot/articles/replacing-unifi-v...
|
| Edit: doorbell-wise there are a few models that would work with
| this setup but I don't have one at the moment - my doorbell
| wiring is a really weird voltage and I haven't gotten around to
| fixing it yet.
| josefresco wrote:
| Foscam http://foscam.us
|
| Years ago my extended family bought one to monitor a remote
| camp. I created a little PHP script that would grab the latest
| images uploaded via FTP and make a photo gallery. Set up was
| difficult but it worked reliably. They have a Ring now
| -\\_(tsu)_/-
| zulln wrote:
| Clicking that link I get a Chrome warning for malware with a
| reference to bfc.adsprofitnetwork.com.
| josefresco wrote:
| Sorry about that. That's the first result both DDG and
| Google are giving me. The website does look super old so
| maybe it's been neglected and compromised? No warnings for
| me.
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| You have to remember that Ring has outdoor battery-operated
| stickup cams. When you compare this with what else is available
| on the market, where often times you have to run a hard wire
| and have a proprietary NVR then Ring is a great option. Some
| devices like Swann will go on sale that are wireless or PoE and
| allow you to use open source applications, but running a wire
| through the wall in my apartment was a non-starter... the
| convenience/price of alternatives to Ring isn't that great.
| stevenicr wrote:
| "convenience/price of alternatives" - blinkxt is pretty great
| - but I think they also go to amazon's servers? so in the
| context of the discussion I guess it's not really
| alternative.
|
| Arlo does good from videos I've seen shared - I had the V1
| they came out with and the battery life was terrible - but I
| did notice some sort of open source license on the router
| thing. Not sure it's still a thing, and I think the price is
| higher, and the battery life is better, with newer versions -
| but may not be amazon servers?
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| I initially tried Blink, but video quality was
| substantially worse than the Ring cameras I ended up
| replacing them with and you couldn't view the videos on a
| desktop computer without removing the USB drive. I had to
| use a mobile app for Blink. Blink is also owned by Amazon
| as you noted so if you use their cloud service then the
| videos are stored on Amazon servers, but they do have an
| option to save to USB drive.
|
| Arlo looked good too but they were pretty pricey compared
| to Ring. I'm not that happy that Ring is associated with
| Amazon, but they do have quite a few privacy settings when
| configuring them. I download my videos from Ring almost
| daily and store them in my own encrypted cloud storage, so
| unless Ring keeps a copy after they are deleted then law
| enforcement would likely need to ask me for a copy.
|
| I've personally had a mostly good experience with Ring. If
| you want 4k videos and long-distance night mode then I
| would avoid them and go with Swann PoE 4k bullet cameras if
| you can find them on sale, or another brand since they are
| just re-branded cameras.
| lnxg33k1 wrote:
| I think I don't even have words anymore to describe the sense of
| repulsion and disgust that only reading the name of that company
| originates in me, I think it is a very good indicator of the
| shallowness and ignorance of our society the fact that it keeps
| growing, no matter how much taxes they dodge despite using the
| publicly paid for infrastructures (at least here in EU), not
| matter how they treat their employees and customers, we don't
| care "they offer a good service and low prices"
|
| We deserve the extinction and amazon was built to make humanity
| understand how much it's not worth existing
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| I feel a little less repulsed knowing that the (too petty to go
| through the legal channels and get a subpoena) requests made to
| view footage will be available to (and subject to audit and
| scrutiny by) the public.
| ccity88 wrote:
| I somewhat agree with this take, although this isn't the result
| of the shallowness and ignorance of our collective society, but
| rather the shallowness and ignorance of the people at the top
| of society. Most people just want to get by, we don't "allow"
| amazon to keep growing, they keep growing because of the
| monopolisation mechanics of our capitalist society. You can be
| repulsed by amazon all you like, but until there's a viable
| competitor they'll continue to do what they do. Perhaps we need
| to hit the reset button on capitalism altogether and reevaluate
| what it means to be a company, to have human centred capitalism
| rather than profit focused capitalism. Maybe we'll be forced to
| move in that direction anyway, because of the social and
| environmental affects that we see today.
| buffet_overflow wrote:
| Agreed that it's difficult to responsibility of these
| companies on the individual. There's a background assumption
| that "if they exist in this form, they are allowed",
| otherwise, what are the US government (regulatory functions)
| doing?
|
| Another reason it's difficult to impossible to collectively
| fight back is when you read articles about how Amazon
| strongarms companies into never undercutting the price on the
| Amazon storefront. It adds an insidious reason to "wow the
| manufacturer is so silly, it's cheaper on Amazon with free
| shipping than on their own website!" when in reality it's a
| dark pattern we don't control and a vast majority don't think
| about as they "get by".
| lnxg33k1 wrote:
| I agree with you on the part of the regulators allowing
| certain entities to exist in a determinate way. But I also
| feel the need to be responsible towards what Amazon does,
| if it is making employees pee in a bottle, it is making me
| pee in a bottle because I am part of this society. If its
| truck to transport stuff around are destroying the roads
| and not contributing back with taxes, it is destroying MY
| roads.
|
| So I make the choice to dodge anything that is even
| slightly related to that company, and it is a choice that
| doesn't take bravery, it is not that they are the only
| source of water and I can't live without it.
|
| I think we as individuals need to make the choices to
| detach ourselves from certain entities, without expecting
| third party to make the choice for us or protect us, which
| if it happens is good, and we should vote for it, but if it
| doesn't we are still responsible to hold ourselves
| accountable for our own choices and what those choice
| enable to exist
|
| And I would put the responsibility of certain things to
| exist on the individual, because it is the individual that
| makes these entities to exist and evolve, each one has to
| be true to its values and do things it feel are worthy to
| be true to itself
|
| Sorry for grammar I am italian and english is not my first
| language
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| While most of the comments are negative towards the general
| concept of internet connected doorbell/cam , I want to take a
| moment to congratulate Amazon on an uncharacteristic move towards
| the positive. Transparency for these kinds of requests will help
| give data for watchdogs. So just a +1 and thankyou from me today.
| bellyfullofbac wrote:
| Ha, coming soon: the local gang showing up at your door asking to
| see your logs to make sure you haven't snitched on them to the
| police.
|
| And the police harassing you because they know you have a Ring
| equipment but they never got footage from your camera's angle...
| jessehattabaugh wrote:
| My doorbell camera isn't even a Ring, but the local teens still
| make a point to flip it off every time they see it come on.
| Makes me want to put up a sign that says "not a snitch!"
| that_guy_iain wrote:
| Honestly, in the neighbourhood I grew up in, this would
| basically make having Amazon Ring a no-no. Noone in their right
| minds would want to have anything to do with it. You would be
| targetted and not just by the gangs.
| merpnderp wrote:
| Non-criminals would 'target' you for helping stop the
| criminals? What kind of bizarro place is that?
| that_guy_iain wrote:
| No, not all the criminals are in the gangs. Nearly everyone
| in the neighbourhood was a criminal of some sort. Everyone
| else just kept their mouth shut.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| "Everyone else" was probably a criminal too of some sort.
| They just hadn't received enough police scrutiny to make
| it official. It's basically impossible to follow all the
| laws (even ignoring the civil infraction stuff) all the
| time and live a reasonable life.
| OJFord wrote:
| Especially if you live in a country with the word
| 'jaywalking'...
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| Jaywalking is typically (i.e. I know of now jurisdiction
| in the west where it's not) a civil infraction. Though if
| the cops want to be dicks they can pretend not to know
| and arrest you but they can do that with any law or they
| can get you for a nebulous contempt of cop offense but
| they can do that anytime. It's on-par with a parking
| ticket, littering or not removing your trash bin from the
| street after trash day.
|
| If you don't pay the fine (and don't show up in court to
| tell them why you can't afford it) that's the criminal
| infraction and that's when they put a warrant out.
| MaxBarraclough wrote:
| I don't think jaywalking is considered a criminal offence
| in any country.
|
| _edit: This is mistaken._
| duckfang wrote:
| https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/jaywalking-arrest-
| black-...
|
| https://www.wxyz.com/news/local-
| news/investigations/stopped-...
|
| https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/reforming-
| poli...
|
| https://www.redmond-reporter.com/news/redmond-police-
| arrest-...
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| Nobody in those examples was arrested for jaywalking.
|
| All of them were arrested for bullshit "contempt of cop"
| type offenses. If they could arrest people for jaywalking
| they would have done that because arresting someone for
| something they've actually done makes for a much harder
| charge to beat. Jaywalking is just the pretext.
| MaxBarraclough wrote:
| I'm aware you can be arrested for it in the US (which is
| to say I'm mistaken, it does fall under criminal law),
| but can it get you a criminal record?
|
| Somewhat related: here in the UK, littering is
| technically a crime, but apparently [0] you'll only get a
| criminal record if you refuse to pay the fine.
|
| [0] https://www.redbridge.gov.uk/roads-and-
| pavements/fines-and-o...
| teachrdan wrote:
| Here in California, jaywalking is an infraction, not a
| crime. Jaywalkers (who are caught) have to pay a fine. It
| can basically be considered getting sued by the city for
| breaking the rules.
|
| If you can't pay the fine, it can turn into a warrant
| that can get you arrested. Thus jaywalking actually _is_
| a crime, but only for poor people.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > If you can't pay the fine, it can turn into a warrant
| that can get you arrested.
|
| Technically, _inability_ to pay does not have this
| effect, only refusal. But you have to actually show up to
| court (as specified in the ticket, which is a summons to
| appear with bail that can be forfeited in lieu of
| appearance) and assert hardship to get a different
| penalty or payment arrangement set if you are unable to
| pay; if you just ignore the summons and don't pay the
| bail set, then you are committing a crime.
| devmor wrote:
| And if you are significantly poor, missing a day's work
| to show up to court can cost you your rent, or your job,
| etc.
|
| So it's still a crime for poor people only.
| OJFord wrote:
| Then what is it, in any country that has the word? (Here
| we call it 'crossing the road'.)
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| A civil infraction (or some other word for the same
| thing).
|
| Like walking your dog in a park that has a no-dogs sign.
| jbjohns wrote:
| Where I live we have jaywalking laws but they only apply
| if you are within a reasonable distance to a cross walk.
| I think it's possible to have reasonable laws so long as
| you have relatively reasonable politicians. :)
| Jcowell wrote:
| A criminal is not some who allegedly breaks laws but
| someone who is convicted of breaking the law. Even if you
| were arrested by police you still aren't a criminal.
| stretchwithme wrote:
| If a person is committing crimes, they're a criminal.
| optimiz3 wrote:
| Allegedly. What is a transgression of the law and whether
| a law is just or valid can be open to interpretation,
| which is why we have juries.
| stretchwithme wrote:
| No. If I had said someone allegedly committed a crime,
| they allegedly are a criminal.
|
| If I see them murdering someone, I'm not going to say to
| myself "That person is allegedly a criminal".
|
| I am allowed to think, to have an opinion about reality.
|
| There's also no need to call them a suspect if you just
| saw a person committing a crime.
|
| When you haven't yet proved that a specific person did
| it, they're a suspect. The crime is alleged.
|
| But not when you KNOW it. I'm not saying newspapers
| should say that or a court should say that. I'm saying I
| have no problem describing what I see.
| sneak wrote:
| Surveillance has other effects than helping to impede
| criminals (note also that this effect is dependent wholly
| on police initiative and competence, as well, two things
| often lacking in minor crime investigations).
|
| Not everyone wants to be under surveillance 24/7, even if
| it does aid police sometimes in reducing crime, as it also
| aids police in doing the other things police do that are
| unrelated to law enforcement (harassment, theft,
| intimidation, extortion, et c).
| annoyingnoob wrote:
| There are streets in my neighborhood I don't walk down
| because almost everyone has a Ring camera. I don't want
| to be followed around by Ring when I walk the dog.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| well, let's suppose your Ring catches someone loitering in
| your neighborhood that looks like the 'wrong sort' and the
| police come out to check on the 'wrong sort' and they just
| happen to kill them - and then to explain why they had to
| kill the wrong sort of people they say they found some
| drugs on them...
|
| What kind of bizarro place is that?
| merpnderp wrote:
| If you think not having the police around is better than
| having the police around, I hope you never have to raise
| children in a place like the parent was describing.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| Spoken from a true position of privilege! There are many
| communities where the police and the criminals are both
| likely to cause you trouble somewhere between a mild
| hassle and a life-altering interaction. The only
| difference is why they might do it. Distrust of the
| police amount law-abiding populations is a thing for a
| reason.
| gruez wrote:
| or maybe he's talking about non gang criminals?
| madcow2 wrote:
| Places where kids sell crack to their parents because the
| alternative is the parents going to some unrelated crack
| dealer that will treat them much worse.
|
| And this is in the US.
|
| PS- feel free to replace "crack" with meth, heroine, etc
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| insulin
| Filligree wrote:
| Illegal smuggling of low-cost insulin is becoming a big
| issue, yes. Hopefully there's a crack-down on the way.
|
| /s
| [deleted]
| jellicle wrote:
| Seems to me that nearly every assertion in that Reuters story is
| wrong. Police agencies may be being given a new, additional way
| to request video data, but nothing Ring can do can prevent police
| agencies from using the old, legal methods of requesting video
| data. So now there are two separate data request systems:
|
| 1) "pretty please can people send videos"
|
| 2) subpoena, direct request, national security letters, etc.
| Anything built in to the legal system.
|
| 1) will be public and probably not too common - fishing
| expeditions by the police. 2) will not be public at all and will
| represent the bulk of data transfer from individuals to the
| police, and in general the public will never know it happened. 1)
| will be soft-represented as the totality of data transfer by
| Ring, if you (as an enterprising young reporter) happen to make
| the mistake of reporting it as the totality, Ring will definitely
| not call you up and correct the record.
|
| Specifically, these paragraphs are both complete bullshit:
|
| > "Public safety agencies such as police and fire departments now
| must request material from their communities through a new,
| publicly viewable type of post on the Neighbors app, Ring said in
| a blog."
|
| They certainly mustn't.
|
| > "It said no information would be shared with agencies without
| users choosing to do so and that requests can be issued only by
| verified agency profiles and that request history will be logged
| online, so users can see how their police force is using the
| posts."
|
| Complete bullshit as well. Ring doesn't make the rules.
| rantwasp wrote:
| 2 things: of course if there is a subpoena they will need to
| turn over the footage + ring supposedly has e2e encryption
| where they would actually have to get the footage from you.
|
| i have a ring camera and: 1) I did not let their app use gps
| and i did not give them an adress (ie ring does not know, in
| theory where the camera is) 2) i straight up disabled requests
| from law enforcement (yes there is a setting for that) 3) i
| opted out of the neighbors thing (you cannot be in a
| neighborhood if you don't have an address + explicitly opting
| out).
|
| it's sad that there isn't a product on the market that actually
| respects user's privacy
| vageli wrote:
| This was my reaction as well. Maybe it relies on redefining
| "sharing" information with agencies as distinct from furnishing
| information in compliance with a subpoena. The optimist in me
| sees this as a way to push departments to prefer the methods of
| the legal system to obtain this info, but then why even make it
| available without a court order in the first place?
| secabeen wrote:
| Amazon/Ring is certainly eliding over the subpoena path to
| getting information. However, that path does require a warrant,
| and a judge's sign-off. The "just ask" approach doesn't, so I
| think both have their place. Given the paucity of information
| about the latter, I don't think we can say which will
| "represent the bulk of data transfer from individuals to the
| police." There are certainly a lot of subpoenas issued each
| year, but there are also a lot of times a police officer stops
| at a business or home that has a security system with cameras,
| asks for copies of the footage, and gets it easily.
| OJFord wrote:
| > They certainly mustn't.
|
| Well, they _may_. (Hard to imagine they will, agreed.)
|
| i.e. if 'must' is the function m(x), then 'must not' is m(!x);
| not !m(x).
|
| Here it's 'not the case that they must', that is, !m(request
| through Ring app).
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _1) will be public and probably not too common - fishing
| expeditions by the police. 2) will not be public at all and
| will represent the bulk of data transfer_
|
| I don't think that's correct at all.
|
| To the contrary -- how often does a regular resident get a
| subpoena? Practically never.
|
| On the other hand, how often do cops check CCTV footage? _All
| the time_. If cops are trying to follow the path a suspect took
| to drive through a neighborhood and where they wound up, then
| this 1) option is amazing and will frequently be used.
|
| I can't imagine why you're perjoratively calling it "fishing
| expeditions". That's ridiculous, there's zero evidence police
| are using this, or want to use it, to catch petty crimes they
| don't know about in the first place. It's to track suspects'
| routes and confirm alibis, that type of thing. Both common and
| legitimate.
|
| > _They certainly mustn 't._
|
| The obvious context here is _Ring requests_. Not things like
| subpoenas.
|
| > _Complete bullshit as well. Ring doesn 't make the rules._
|
| You're wrong. Ring _does_ make all the rules of what Ring
| shares through this program.
|
| You're acting like the existence of subpoenas makes this all a
| bunch of song and dance, but they're entirely different things
| for entirely different purposes. Your pessimism and cynicism
| isn't just unwarranted, it's simply factually incorrect.
| swiley wrote:
| We're rapidly approaching the point where being near anyone that
| doesn't go out of their way to avoid these companies can get you
| in trouble.
|
| You've always had a responsibility to educate your friends about
| the dangers of closed software but now failing them can severely
| cost you.
| bob33212 wrote:
| The best use case for Amazon is having drivers put packages
| within view of the ring cameras. Then ring will know when someone
| steals the package. The home owner on their ring app would do the
| work of confirming the package was stolen.
| barbazoo wrote:
| > Then ring will know when someone steals the package.
|
| Except that no one other than the recipient and maybe Amazon
| care about that. Certainly not law enforcement.
| stu2b50 wrote:
| Yes, but the recipient is also the one who's installing the
| camera, so one of the two impacted parties has a vested
| interest in knowing and therefore it is useful.
|
| If you knew it was stolen, then you can immediately act with
| that knowledge in mind. You don't have to worry about whether
| or not the postman scanned your package with the wrong device
| (falsely showing that it has been delivered when it will be
| tomorrow), or if they plopped it down at your neighbor's
| driveway by accident, or if the delivery driver hid it from
| porch pirates but also yourself.
|
| It's just nice to know that yes, it was stolen, you're not
| getting it back, time to go to Amazon support/order a
| replacement/go to a physical store rather than being in a
| limbo state.
| [deleted]
| frockington1 wrote:
| I've seen it used in my neighborhood for that purpose. Package
| is stolen, call the police and alert neighbors with suspect
| description. Quickly noticed a drop in porch pirates
| afterwards.
| [deleted]
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| It would also ensure that the packages _actually get delivered_
| , instead of just being marked as so.
|
| Granted, sometimes this happens because the drivers are being
| held to an impossible standard for the deliveries they must
| make; Amazon gets to have someone to point a finger at.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-06-03 23:02 UTC)