5 ms·

Can’t say why this feels strange, but’s it’s also not as sensational as the title. Ring Users have to choose to share the information. As someone who has a Ring

Can’t say why this feels strange, but’s it’s also not as sensational as the title. Ring Users have to choose to share the information. As someone who has a Ring device, I find the neighborhood feature more a nuisance than anything. It’s mostly people posting videos from their doorbell cams asking if anyone knows why’s the guy with a clipboard was at their door, or posting videos of “suspicious” people in their neighborhood without any crime to report. Not hard to guess what the “suspicious” people shared usually look like. Before these cameras lots of people knocked on your door while you were at work at you never knew.

jaxtellerSoA 8y ago
> Ring Users have to choose to share the information. According to user emcarey: >There is no encryption If /u/emcarey is correct (haven't verified this), then the fact that you have "choose to share" is a moot point, the data is out there for anyone to see.
zepto 8y ago
Did you miss the part about facial recognition and suspicious activity detection?
- alphabettsy 8y ago
  Where? The OP combines a Amazon Facial Recognition controversy with Ring Video, which they did just acquire, but provides nothing to support the claim that the information is somehow connected. The OP also makes the inflated claim saying it will offer facial recognition, when the video actually says person recognition. This is something Nest and other systems have offered for years. Person recognition ensures your system isn’t recording pets or squirrels in your yard and instead records actions by actual people. If you want something to worry about, Nest is actually offering the ability to recognize different people, powered by Google of course.
  - zepto 8y ago
    I agree that Nest is similarly worrying, and has been providing surveillance footage to law enforcement too.
java_script 8y ago
Ah, good thing users can deny the request. American police are famous for their willingness to take no for an answer (insert world's biggest "/s").
- alphabettsy 8y ago
  At a local business the police went in to request surveillance footage of an incident that took place off their property, but in view of the camera. This isn’t much different, except that the police now have a map of where Ring cameras might be located. The business owner could comply or the police get a subpoena.
  - pavel_lishin 8y ago
    This is very different, because a) the police no longer have to bother to ask as long as the camera's owner has opted in, therefore this can scale much more quickly, b) the police can offload "assessments" to some neural network, and c) as far as I'm aware, you may not be able to control or even be aware of which footage is viewed by the police. The police absolutely do not have a sufficient reason to know every person who has come over to my house in the past X weeks.
    - lostsock 8y ago
      That's just not true. The police can send a request to certain cameras recording at certain times with an explination of why they want that video. The owner then gets notified of the requet and can grant or deny it.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - pavel_lishin 8y ago
        Interesting, you're right.
  - neuralRiot 8y ago

jaxtellerSoA 8y ago

> Ring Users have to choose to share the information. According to user emcarey: >There is no encryption If /u/emcarey is correct (haven't verified this), then the fact that you have "choose to share" is a moot point, the data is out there for anyone to see.

zepto 8y ago

Did you miss the part about facial recognition and suspicious activity detection?

alphabettsy 8y ago
Where? The OP combines a Amazon Facial Recognition controversy with Ring Video, which they did just acquire, but provides nothing to support the claim that the information is somehow connected. The OP also makes the inflated claim saying it will offer facial recognition, when the video actually says person recognition. This is something Nest and other systems have offered for years. Person recognition ensures your system isn’t recording pets or squirrels in your yard and instead records actions by actual people. If you want something to worry about, Nest is actually offering the ability to recognize different people, powered by Google of course.
- zepto 8y ago
  I agree that Nest is similarly worrying, and has been providing surveillance footage to law enforcement too.

java_script 8y ago

Ah, good thing users can deny the request. American police are famous for their willingness to take no for an answer (insert world's biggest "/s").

alphabettsy 8y ago
At a local business the police went in to request surveillance footage of an incident that took place off their property, but in view of the camera. This isn’t much different, except that the police now have a map of where Ring cameras might be located. The business owner could comply or the police get a subpoena.
- pavel_lishin 8y ago
  This is very different, because a) the police no longer have to bother to ask as long as the camera's owner has opted in, therefore this can scale much more quickly, b) the police can offload "assessments" to some neural network, and c) as far as I'm aware, you may not be able to control or even be aware of which footage is viewed by the police. The police absolutely do not have a sufficient reason to know every person who has come over to my house in the past X weeks.
  - lostsock 8y ago
    That's just not true. The police can send a request to certain cameras recording at certain times with an explination of why they want that video. The owner then gets notified of the requet and can grant or deny it.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - pavel_lishin 8y ago
      Interesting, you're right.
- neuralRiot 8y ago