5 ms·

I smell a lawsuit coming. How can Amazon think it's ok to use people's faces in an advertisement when those people haven't been convicted of a crime? The case

I smell a lawsuit coming. How can Amazon think it's ok to use people's faces in an advertisement when those people haven't been convicted of a crime? The case of Ring is particularly disturbing. When its inventor appeared on Shark Tank, he said he wanted to create a way to hear his doorbell from the garage. Since Amazon bought the company for $1B, it's pivoted to a surveillance tool that's being offered to police as a way to freely record and review neighborhood camera views. It's sad to see that unicorn companies today believe that surveillance capitalism is the way forward. Personally, I long for a return to old-fashioned values in business, namely making a product or service that people care about and want to pay for rather than pandering to fear and courting easy money from our soon-to-be robot overlords.

quacked 7y ago
Additionally: why would it be ok to use people's faces in an advertisement even if those people HAD been convicted of a crime? (I agree with your main point.)
relaunched 7y ago
Ring's mission is all about safety. Jamie has talked extensively about how they actively rejected ideas to just build connected things for the home, to focus on & foster a sense of safe homes and safe communities. The floodlight is a great example of a pre-acquisition product that piggybacks on that mission.
- mimixco 7y ago
  That "mission" came from Amazon. It wasn't any part of the pitch Jamie gave on Shark Tank. This is just another example of surveillance capitalism and it's pretty sickening.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
throwawayatty 7y ago
As an attorney (this is not legal advice), I would like to know what law might be violated by publishing these videos. They're owned by the person who recorded the video; and presumably they gave Ring a license to use them for such purposes. The subject of the video, as far as I can tell, has no rights that might be recognized in law. There's no privacy right, as there's no reasonable expectation of privacy under such circumstances. There's no right of publicity being violated AFAICT, as there's no "brand goodwill" in the person's likeness to misappropriate. So what, then?
- goobynight 7y ago
  Thank you for at least questioning this nonsense. Video recording law is probably the worst combination of misinformation and actually coming up in someone's life.
- teh_klev 7y ago
  Fortunately Amazon/Ring would get a rocket up their arse if they tried this in the UK (and presumably the rest of Europe covered by GDPR): https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/cctv/ https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/cctv/
- non_sequitur 7y ago
  GDPR?
- DanBC 7y ago
  Defamation seems the obvious one. Also, in Europe being in a public place doesn't mean you automatically lose your right to privacy.
- gnicholas 7y ago
  Former attorney here. I'd guess it would be a claim like defamation or false light. These laws aren't typically used in this way, but I could see them being applied here. For defamation, for example, the claim would be that by including someone's face in an advertisement about home security videos, Amazon is implying that the person pictured is someone whom you would not want snooping around your house because he's a criminal. This would tend to hurt that person's reputation, which is the legal test for defamation.
chocolatebunny 7y ago
Probably not going to generate any lawsuits but kind of shows how complicit the general public is about constructing a surveillance state. We bitch when the government spies on us. But with this we're effectively making it so that the we spy on each other for the government.
stickfigure 7y ago
I long for a return to old-fashioned values in human behavior, but since I live in the real world I'll just have to settle for security cameras.
m463 7y ago
Would you be ok with it if the video stayed local? The companies that insert themselves into every equation are the ones that make me upset. "Registation required to enable", "cloud based device", etc. Also, Telsa cars now have 8 cameras and users have access to the footage with Dashcam Mode (while driving) and Sentry Mode (while parked). Lots of youtube videos are showing up, showing interesting things like autopilot saving the car, or people keying parked cars.

quacked 7y ago

Additionally: why would it be ok to use people's faces in an advertisement even if those people HAD been convicted of a crime? (I agree with your main point.)

relaunched 7y ago

Ring's mission is all about safety. Jamie has talked extensively about how they actively rejected ideas to just build connected things for the home, to focus on & foster a sense of safe homes and safe communities. The floodlight is a great example of a pre-acquisition product that piggybacks on that mission.

mimixco 7y ago
That "mission" came from Amazon. It wasn't any part of the pitch Jamie gave on Shark Tank. This is just another example of surveillance capitalism and it's pretty sickening.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

throwawayatty 7y ago

As an attorney (this is not legal advice), I would like to know what law might be violated by publishing these videos. They're owned by the person who recorded the video; and presumably they gave Ring a license to use them for such purposes. The subject of the video, as far as I can tell, has no rights that might be recognized in law. There's no privacy right, as there's no reasonable expectation of privacy under such circumstances. There's no right of publicity being violated AFAICT, as there's no "brand goodwill" in the person's likeness to misappropriate. So what, then?

goobynight 7y ago
Thank you for at least questioning this nonsense. Video recording law is probably the worst combination of misinformation and actually coming up in someone's life.
teh_klev 7y ago
Fortunately Amazon/Ring would get a rocket up their arse if they tried this in the UK (and presumably the rest of Europe covered by GDPR): https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/cctv/ https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/cctv/
non_sequitur 7y ago
GDPR?
DanBC 7y ago
Defamation seems the obvious one. Also, in Europe being in a public place doesn't mean you automatically lose your right to privacy.
gnicholas 7y ago
Former attorney here. I'd guess it would be a claim like defamation or false light. These laws aren't typically used in this way, but I could see them being applied here. For defamation, for example, the claim would be that by including someone's face in an advertisement about home security videos, Amazon is implying that the person pictured is someone whom you would not want snooping around your house because he's a criminal. This would tend to hurt that person's reputation, which is the legal test for defamation.

chocolatebunny 7y ago

Probably not going to generate any lawsuits but kind of shows how complicit the general public is about constructing a surveillance state. We bitch when the government spies on us. But with this we're effectively making it so that the we spy on each other for the government.

stickfigure 7y ago

I long for a return to old-fashioned values in human behavior, but since I live in the real world I'll just have to settle for security cameras.

m463 7y ago

Would you be ok with it if the video stayed local? The companies that insert themselves into every equation are the ones that make me upset. "Registation required to enable", "cloud based device", etc. Also, Telsa cars now have 8 cameras and users have access to the footage with Dashcam Mode (while driving) and Sentry Mode (while parked). Lots of youtube videos are showing up, showing interesting things like autopilot saving the car, or people keying parked cars.