4 ms·
> There is no encryption. There is no 2FA. There is no legal protection for privacy of citizens face's caught in these cameras and added to their facial recogni
by joering2 8y ago
> There is no encryption. There is no 2FA. There is no legal protection for privacy of citizens face's caught in these cameras and added to their facial recognition algorithms.
Yes and no lawsuit will be won either. Every judge will strike it based on being in public assumption of lack of privacy. If you walk on public street, don't assume your privacy is protected :(
- monocasa 8y agoIt's way more complex than that. For instance here the evidence from a webcam filming from a public vantage point was struck down. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/cops-illegally-nailed-webcam-to-utility-pole-for-6-weeks-to-spy-on-house/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/cops-illegally-n... I've also seen SCOTUS rulings that they see a difference between public ancillary recordings, and mass surveillance of all public actions.
- joering2 8y agoGreat example +1; however in this example cops assumed Mr. Vargas to commit crime and hence setup cam to watch aka surveillance his property 24/7. Very difference from situation where average citizens records their front yard 24/7 not expecting or assuming a crime will occur, and then having that video being obtained when the crime happens. In other words, this case is about active surveillance, versus Ring cams are more passive (record everything all the time for no specific reason)
- balls187 8y agoThese are cameras installed in doorbells on private property, there wouldn't be any expectation of privacy.
- ringolet 8y agoExcept that my house is across the street and the Ring camera points into my windows and can record my private actions inside my own home without my permission.
- balls187 8y agoAre you in the US, do you live on a public street, and does your state have Peeping Tom laws? It's not cut and dry, but if what you're doing is in clear view of a public street, then it's unlikely you will win an argument based on having a reasonable expectation of privacy. You of course can bring this argument in front of the courts, but my non-legal opinion is that you wouldn't prevail. There are a few contrived examples: A cop walks by and sees you assault someone in your house through the window. That's enough PC to enter without a warrant. You can try to argue your privacy was violated and , but it was in clear view of the public. You perform a lewd act in your home in front of the window, that is in clear view of a school bus stop where children are awaiting the bus. It would be doubtful that you could use privacy as a defense against indecent exposure laws. If the ring camera was somehow zoomed in to ONLY film your actions through the window, then perhaps you may have cause.
- ryanmarsh 8y agoIf you walk on public street No, this is not public property, it's if you walk on private property. Ring cams are placed on private property and are targeted at homeowners. They usually don't record or activate outside of a range of 30 feet or so. So if someone drives by my house the ring cam doesn't capture it but if someone walks by my door it does.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> They usually don't record or activate outside of a range of 30 feet or so. 30 feet is often more than the distance from the front door to a sidewalk, and often well into the actual street.
- justizin 8y ago30 feet is often across the street.
- reaperducer 8y agoThey usually don't record or activate outside of a range of 30 feet or so. The Ring videos my neighbors post show their yards, the sidewalk, and all the way to the cars on the other side of the street. It seems to be all about how your doorbell is positioned, though.