3 ms·
Ok so I'm not following the argument that this is for "mass surveillance" as if this is some gov't intrusion. I understand you might not want to be recorded wal
by ryanmarsh 8y ago
Ok so I'm not following the argument that this is for "mass surveillance" as if this is some gov't intrusion. I understand you might not want to be recorded walking through my neighborhood but hear me out...
I have several ring cams and their home security system, I'm also part of "ring neighborhoods". I live in a city with a lot of home break ins (we're number 11 in the US for robberies). With the neighborhoods feature I get alerts from my neighbors when they share videos from their ring cams. I haven't yet shared anything but I do comment on shared videos. I have an entirely different camera system on my property which records everything that happens outside my home because I have that right in this state. What I don't understand about this is how is me sharing video clips from my secondary camera system any different than this portal for ring neighborhoods?
I'm not seeing the problem here.
Lets take it to the extreme...
Assuming every home in my neighborhood had ring cams, and you wandered on to someone's personal property, and you were recorded, and they chose to share that video, why is that a problem? This is individual property owners choosing to surveil their property and share that video. We have that right.
Furthermore I hope ring is indexing the faces. There's several videos from my neighborhood of people casing homes. They ring the doorbell and when they see no one is home they jiggle the door handle (criminals are stupid, there's a Ring cam right there). Thieves have been recorded breaking into cars and homes but police struggle to identify the individuals. How is us, as home owners and renters, banding together to identify criminals in our neighborhood and willingly sharing that data with police a problem?
I'm confused.
- nepeckman 8y ago> Furthermore I hope ring is indexing the faces. There's several videos from my neighborhood of people casing homes. They ring the doorbell and when they see no one is home they jiggle the door handle (criminals are stupid, there's a Ring cam right there). Thieves have been recorded breaking into cars and homes but police struggle to identify the individuals. How is us, as home owners and renters, banding together to identify criminals in our neighborhood and willingly sharing that data with police a problem? Can you really not see the potential for issues here? Especially when it will be software making the determination for what constitutes "casing" and "suspicious behavior"? What happens if: I go to visit my friend and get mistakenly labeled as "suspicious" in the Ring network. Later I'm seen walking near the scene of a crime. I'm now a person of interest for no reason. And this is a pretty tame example that doesn't touch on deliberate misuse, ex Ring compiling and selling data on a persons movements throughout the day. There are so many ways this can accidentally and deliberately be misused.
- bdamm 8y agoThe local uses are not the problem. The problem is that neither Ring nor you can really protect against the larger abuses enabled by this: * Racial profiling: Anybody of incorrect race can be automatically reported, then harassment drone can be deployed. * Government directed assassinations are made much easier. If your government wants you dead, you literally cannot go anywhere. For places with well functioning governments this is all mostly alright. But for places without well functioning governments the expansion of the surveillance sphere becomes pretty much everywhere. Is there a happy ending here? Not likely. But that's not your fault, I totally understand the desire to deploy Ring and kick home intruders and package thieves to the curb.