21 ms·

Ring has partnered with 400 police forces

139 points by catacombs 7y ago

darkcha0s 7y ago
At the time of this posting, the link above this one was "China’s CCTV network took just 7 minutes to capture BBC reporter (2017)." I find that very ironic, especially because the comments inside are calling China a surveillance state.
- rchaud 7y ago
  But we can split hairs about that forever because this isn't the action of an authoritarian government, but rather the invisible hand of the free market, which in this case is a company owned by American's richest industrialist working hand in hand with law enforcement to link together a network of surveillance systems. It's completely different. /s
danepowell 7y ago
The headline neglects to mention that the system is opt in and per-incident, which I think is a critical detail. It's not like police have 24/7 involuntary access to everyone's video.
- moate 7y ago
  Depends on what your problem with this arrangement is. IF you're worried about the use of your feed against your will, then yea this isn't a problem (you know, unless the police get a warrant and demand Nest turn it over to you) If your issue is that your neighbors are now helping expand the surveillance state by self-installing cameras to allow the police visibility of your home, then it's still a problem. Technically this was always a possibility, but the ease of which the police can now search for and find these cameras to request access to is what makes this scary.
  - pdkl95 7y ago
    > Technically this was always a possibility Even worse, as people normalize the use of a surveillance technology (a technology in general, NOT a specific product), eventually it will pass the "in general public use" test created by Kyllo v United States. When that happens, using that technology is no longer a search and thus the police no longer need a warrant to use it. The people normalizing surveillance tech are eroding our future 4th Amendment protection. (see my previous post[1] about this for references) [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20595358 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20595358
- inscionent 7y ago
  Remember you don't own or control anything you upload to a third party. From the ring privacy policy: > We also may disclose personal information about you (1) if we are required to do so by law or legal process (such as a court order or subpoena); (2) in response to requests by government agencies, such as law enforcement authorities; (3) to establish, exercise or defend our legal rights; (4) when we believe disclosure is necessary or appropriate to prevent physical or other harm or financial loss; (5) in connection with an investigation of suspected or actual illegal activity; or (6) otherwise with your consent. > We reserve the right to transfer any personal information we have about you in the event we sell or transfer all or a portion of our business or assets (including in the event of a merger, acquisition, joint venture, reorganization, divestiture, dissolution or liquidation).
  - vorpalhex 7y ago
    That's true for all companies. You still have to comply with subpoenas and can still be acquired. That's true whether you're the coffee shop down the street or Amazon full of cloud video from folks doorbells. (4) and (5) are the only ones with wording I see as a bit dubious, but I'm not a lawyer and don't know if those are normally required terms.
  - panarky 7y ago
    Imagine if the privacy policy simply said: We will disclose your personal information if it benefits us. Adding more words doesn't strengthen privacy one bit: We will disclose your personal information to comply with a court order, or to save someone's life, or if it benefits us.
- entropea 7y ago
  >It's not like police have 24/7 involuntary access to everyone's video. I can't tell you how many times I've heard this one since I started on the internet in '97. It's never true.
  - bradenb 7y ago
    I'm as paranoid about IoT devices being abused as anyone, but can you point out more than 1 or 2 examples of "It's never true?"
    - authoritarian 7y ago
      Police and the US government regularly abuse "legitimate" surveillance as well ass utilize illegal surveillance. There are a huge amount of examples. I have 0 faith that police cannot and will not abuse this https://thinkprogress.org/new-york-police-nypd-will-deploy-fleet-of-drones-4fb31537337f/ https://thinkprogress.org/new-york-police-nypd-will-deploy-f... https://www.npr.org/2018/02/01/578369420/report-alleges-police-use-secret-evidence-collected-by-feds-to-make-arrests https://www.npr.org/2018/02/01/578369420/report-alleges-poli... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/26/police-want-spy-without-oversight https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/26/police... https://theintercept.com/2018/01/09/dark-side-fbi-dea-illegal-searches-secret-evidence/ https://theintercept.com/2018/01/09/dark-side-fbi-dea-illega... https://ccrjustice.org/home/what-we-do/issues/government-surveillance https://ccrjustice.org/home/what-we-do/issues/government-sur... https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security/privacy-and-surveillance/warrantless-surveillance-under-section-702-fisa https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security/privacy-and-su... https://www.aclu.org/other/more-about-fbi-spying https://www.aclu.org/other/more-about-fbi-spying
- mikeash 7y ago
  Do police have any obligation to be honest in these requests? Even if it’s opt-in, I’d be afraid of cops using the system to harass personal enemies by making requests that say they’re looking for an active serial killer or whatever.
  - HarryHirsch 7y ago
    Do police have any obligation to be honest in these requests? No. Infractions would have to be prosecuted by the district attorney, who has no interest to get on the bad side of the police because he needs them to be successful. Consider the case of Arlington police! Arlington cops were in bed with a drug dealer because he supplied the force with steroids. In return for the goodies, the police informed their supplier about the competition. The maximum penalty for improper access of records would be 10 years in prison, but they gave the bent cop just 1 year. It really does wonders to restore trust in the system. https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2014/02/12/ex-arlington-officer-gets-1-year-prison-sentence-in-steroids-case https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2014/02/12/ex-arlingto...
    - sixothree 7y ago
      We really need checks and balances on police. Seems like such a fundamental underpinning of democracy eroded.
      - clairity 7y ago
        by design, the police concentrate force in a separate group of people who then specialize in that use of force. residents relinquish that (threat of) force voluntarily to the police to enjoy being a citizen of a (hopefully) more peaceful society in exchange. part of the problem is that we naturally conflate (1) knowing and enforcing rules and (2) the use of force. despite the similarity of the words, enforcement doesn't necessarily require direct force. such intertwined subtleties make your entreaty to "institute checks and balances" hard to realize. and this disjunction is problematic; i think it's better to have a little force spread widely throughout communities, rather than a lot of force concentrated in one sub-group, as its less risk of catastrophic use of force and a more even application all around (more fair). but that's a challenge in the increasingly specialized social groupings (and identities) we live in. even so, "police" is too much of an identity separate from the society to which they're enjoined. i think policemen/women should be community members first, and enforcers second, not the other way around.
panarky 7y ago
Welcome to the private free-market Stasi. You can try to opt out by not using Facebook or Ring cameras, but your friends and neighbors opt you in without your permission.
- yters 7y ago
  Indeed. Mass surveillance. Police brutality. Weapons confiscation. Seems to be a pattern. Both sides of the political spectrum are enabling different portions of this pattern.
  - inscionent 7y ago
    Who is confiscating weapons?
    - crazy1van 7y ago
      Sometimes it's called a "mandatory buy-back" like in Australia.
    - cc439 7y ago
      The police via Red Flag laws which are incredibly easy to abuse.
      - DiseasedBadger 7y ago
        It's worrying that Hacker News isn't mature enough to admit to the Dayton Ohio shooter's politics and affiliations. I don't think HN, as a population, are on the side of democracy, liberalism, or freedom.
      - inscionent 7y ago
        The police are using red flag laws to seize weapons because the 'private free-market Stasi' told them to? Red flag laws are mostly used to prevent suicides and domestic violence. They are formal proceedings and due process of law. If the problem is with the law, organize and change it.
rpmisms 7y ago
So, a capitalist surveillance state. Is it better if the Government forces surveillance, or if people are duped into buying it for themselves?
- gameswithgo 7y ago
  The libertarian flag as practiced in America: https://i.redd.it/fb6eejyt5em01.jpg https://i.redd.it/fb6eejyt5em01.jpg
  - rpmisms 7y ago
    At least it's somewhat possible to opt-out. I wish the libertarian ideal of government as protecting personal liberties, up to and including against corporate interests, was practiced.
- dole 7y ago
  Buying it for themselves? I don't know whether Ring is paying the various police departments for their "partnership", but it's been in the news locally here (an "at-risk", "high-crime" area, call it what you will) in the last few days that the local police department is giving away 50 Ring cameras and the winners are chosen by a lottery system. Ticks all the boxes: "free" and entertaining element of gaming for the public, good police PR, field data for Ring. Much like the supposed value (and tentacles) of the Red Light Camera industry. Nevermind the constant barrage of ads through Nextdoor and other channels.
option 7y ago
If I put a camera outside of my house I want police to be able to access/react to what it’s captured. Our PD even has an app where you can register a camera with them (not direct access though)
- moate 7y ago
  Great. You pointed that camera directly at my house and are now infringing on my right not to have it watched by the police 24/7. Please explain why your rights are greater than mine.
  - smileypete 7y ago
    It's the neighborhood equivalent of 'Five Eyes'!
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    >right not to have it watched by the police 24/7 I'm not aware of any legislation in the USA that would make a video feed of the exterior view of a property from one's own property illegal.
    - gameswithgo 7y ago
      The person you are responding to never mentioned laws. I believe he or she would be referring to certain ethical rights we should have.
      - logfromblammo 7y ago
        The right to privacy is the right to wear a mask, not the right to go around poking out other people's eyes. There is no ethical distinction between installing a camera to record, and watching with one's own eyes and remembering what was seen. We might, perhaps, have an ethical right to be informed when someone is watching us, that we might take reasonable privacy countermeasures if necessary. On the presumption that people may look in as easily as we look out, we typically put blinds and curtains in our windows. It is not so difficult to do similar things with sight-lines around the exterior of buildings. An umbrella here, an awning there, a fence around, planting some bamboo or arborvitaes--the further away the observer, the smaller their potential viewing angles, and the easier it is to block their view in without also blocking your own view out. While it may be unsettling to think about our neighbors monitoring our comings and goings, it might also be comforting that they would notice any unusual activity around our property, and maybe also take action to interrupt it, or at least report it. If you put up a screen such that no one else can see it when you go in and out of your front door, likewise no one can see it when a housebreaker is patiently picking its lock. So you put up a camera that you control, to monitor your own threshold, and the surveillance/privacy arms race can stop there. Your neighbor can no longer either look out at you, or look out for you.
neotek 7y ago
No shit.
vorpalhex 7y ago
This headline leaves out an important detail from the article: > Officers don’t receive ongoing or live-video access, and homeowners can decline the requests, which Ring sends via email It's not as if the police are pulling a Batman and watching every ring simultaneously, but instead they can do the digital equivalent of going door-to-door and asking "Hey, did you catch footage of your neighbors house being broken into last night?" Frankly, I actually trust a bunch of random citizens to have video footage more than I trust any company or government organization.
- y04nn 7y ago
  Edit: actually, this is by request as stated in the article A̶ ̶s̶y̶s̶t̶e̶m̶ ̶w̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶p̶o̶l̶i̶c̶e̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶a̶s̶k̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶a̶m̶e̶r̶a̶ ̶o̶w̶n̶e̶r̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶a̶c̶c̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶s̶p̶e̶c̶i̶f̶i̶c̶ ̶t̶i̶m̶e̶ ̶r̶a̶n̶g̶e̶ ̶w̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶m̶o̶r̶e̶ ̶t̶r̶u̶s̶t̶a̶b̶l̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶n̶ ̶o̶n̶e̶ ̶g̶i̶v̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶p̶e̶r̶m̶a̶n̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶a̶c̶c̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶a̶m̶e̶r̶a̶ ̶f̶o̶o̶t̶a̶g̶e̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶l̶i̶m̶i̶t̶s̶.̶ I would also not trust a system recording videos of my life and sending them on remote server that I have not access to.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- johnbrodie 7y ago
  It's not really random citizens that have the footage though, it's Google. I don't want to slippery slope too far, but we've been shown time and time again that data in private hands is essentially also in government hands. You only have to look back at whisleblowers/leaks in the past decade to see that this is true. Worse yet, with techniques like parallel construction, it could be many, many years until you know the truth.
  - adossi 7y ago
    Isn't Ring owned by Amazon, not Google?
    - abootstrapper 7y ago
5440 7y ago
My ring camera caught a murderer breaking a door down last year and it's been a headache for me ever since. Even though I didnt actually see the murder,I've been called to several depositions and had to take three unpaid weeks off of work because of trial stuff. It's so frustrating. All I say everytime, is "Yes, I own the camera" I regret ever buying it at this point.
- paublyrne 7y ago
  At the risk of being glib, your headache and frustrations seem trivial in the context of the crime you're mentioning.
  - mikestew 7y ago
    At equal risk of being glib, I don't think the purchase of consumer electronics should put you on the hook for weeks of depositions for a crime you didn't personally witness. I believe that would the literal manifestation of "that's not what I signed up for". Here's the MP4 file, now go away.
    - ghaff 7y ago
      What if you were a random witness? You didn't sign up for that either. You have certain civic obligations which are enforced by law. I assume in these types of cases, you could be held in contempt if you wouldn't respond voluntarily. It's unfortunate for the person involved and the incentives in the system are such that no one is trying to make efficient use of their time. But that's pretty much the way it is. It's not really that different from being seated on a multi-week jury trial much less a possibly multi-month grand jury.
      - ixtli 7y ago
        Maybe we shouldn't construct a society where your obligations to your employer are at odds with you helping society find justice for a murder victim. This is a great example of how atomized our society has become.
maximente 7y ago
all in all a great (if not disgusting) business strategy, showing the power of leveraging the state to succeed in a so called "free market": - get powerful, vocal .gov entity involved in your product as easily/thoroughly as possible while you perform typical statup "disruption" activities - when any issues with regulation, rights violations etc. come up, immediately "shell out" to your .gov spokeperson who sings your praises and how we cannot touch this entity ("helped catch all these bad guys", "used in xx criminal cases that led to convictions", "would you really want to let someone in your home /without/ one of these?") - repeat ad nauseum as frustrated citizens complain - "we would LOVE to comply, but... it's no longer just about us, you'd be hindering crime-fighting! so we can't do it" - you now have impenetrable air cover as any random .gov entity with power will trump citizen outrage
Trias11 7y ago
If Ring is being compensated by the government agencies - I'll happily participate too - providing Ring and/or law enforcement agency (let them decide between) will compensate me as well for supporting their business model every time i share my video. Optionally i can decide to share on a good will basis of course - but this is going to be optional.
mrbonner 7y ago
My city’s police department is actually very transparent about this. They have a campaign on social media and snail mail to inform citizen to sign up for the use of outside cameras to assist law enforcement in case they need footages for a crime in an area covered by your cameras. Once they determine that your camera footages could help they would send you a request to share the videos with them for investigation. I think pretty much everyone in my community welcomes this idea as we have had an uptick in car break ins lately.
- rdtwo 7y ago
  Bet they don’t tell you that if your footage turns out to be useful you might end up tied up in the legal system for weeks and missing work and income
scohesc 7y ago
So it's not government sponsored surveillance, it's company sponsored surveillance, paid for by the people who don't want to be watched. Grand! And then Ring can charge the police forces money to use the service! :\
cypherpunks01 7y ago
> To seek out Ring video that has not been publicly shared, officers can use a special “Neighbors Portal” map interface to designate a time range and local area, up to half a square mile wide, and get Ring to send an automated email to all users within that range, alongside a case number and message from police. Is "half a square mile wide" supposed to mean a square that's half a mile on each side?
- balls187 7y ago
  No, it means total area of 1/2 a square mile. The sides of the square would be sqrt(0.5).
somethoughts 7y ago
Is this an example of Paul Graham's concept of a submarine article? [1] At least they are honest about the relationship: "Ring is owned by Amazon, which bought the firm last year for more than $800 million, financial filings show. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos also owns The Washington Post." [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
fpgaminer 7y ago
I had an idea for a responsible mass surveillance system. Say you have cameras all over the city, feeding to the local police station. That's helpful in catching criminals, but obviously easy to abuse. Well suppose instead that the DVR in the police station is encrypted and contains a secure enclave. All the camera feeds are E2E encrypted from the camera to the box. The secure enclave in the DVR enforces rules for how the footage can be accessed. It only allows X amount of video footage to leave the box over time. Say watching 4 camera streams continuously or something (in a city of hundreds of cameras). So a crime occurs; police know the rough time frame and can easily query footage from the box. But mass surveillance, watching all the camera streams, dumping them to an AI cloud for facial recognition tracking of all your movements, etc, isn't possible. The secure enclave can also enforce logging; anyone viewing the footage submits authentication, creating a permanent paper trail of who viewed what. There are endless possibilities for the rules we want to establish, but the thrust of my idea is that we can enforce them using that concept of a secure enclave and encrypted footage, so that we can be reasonably sure that the system can't be abused. Anyway, it's just an interesting idea I had. I'm not really trying to make an argument for or against widespread surveillance like that. Just, if soceity wants it, there are ways to build systems that enforce rules on how those cameras are used. And what Ring offers is kind of in this vein too; allow camera owners to share footage on a case by case basis when requested. I think it'd be even better if Ring footage was encrypted so that Ring actually really couldn't access the footage without your consent.
dustfinger 7y ago
The first product that popped into my mind when I read the subject's name in the title was Gnu Ring. My jaw dropped several inches before I remembered that Gnu Ring changed its name from Ring to Jami in Jan of this year. > https://blog.savoirfairelinux.com/en-ca/card/ring-becomes-jami/ https://blog.savoirfairelinux.com/en-ca/card/ring-becomes-ja...
guelo 7y ago
Police don't need this to fight crime. Crime is at historical lows. Civilization has gotten by just fine without pervasive surveillance for centuries. In a way this is worse than what China is building since it's distributed.
JohnFen 7y ago
I like that the Ring surveillance devices has a glowing indicator visible from the outside. It lets me know what neighborhoods I should avoid.

139 points by catacombs 7y ago

At the time of this posting, the link above this one was "China’s CCTV network took just 7 minutes to capture BBC reporter (2017)." I find that very ironic, especially because the comments inside are calling China a surveillance state.

rchaud 7y ago
But we can split hairs about that forever because this isn't the action of an authoritarian government, but rather the invisible hand of the free market, which in this case is a company owned by American's richest industrialist working hand in hand with law enforcement to link together a network of surveillance systems. It's completely different. /s

danepowell 7y ago

The headline neglects to mention that the system is opt in and per-incident, which I think is a critical detail. It's not like police have 24/7 involuntary access to everyone's video.

moate 7y ago
Depends on what your problem with this arrangement is. IF you're worried about the use of your feed against your will, then yea this isn't a problem (you know, unless the police get a warrant and demand Nest turn it over to you) If your issue is that your neighbors are now helping expand the surveillance state by self-installing cameras to allow the police visibility of your home, then it's still a problem. Technically this was always a possibility, but the ease of which the police can now search for and find these cameras to request access to is what makes this scary.
- pdkl95 7y ago
  > Technically this was always a possibility Even worse, as people normalize the use of a surveillance technology (a technology in general, NOT a specific product), eventually it will pass the "in general public use" test created by Kyllo v United States. When that happens, using that technology is no longer a search and thus the police no longer need a warrant to use it. The people normalizing surveillance tech are eroding our future 4th Amendment protection. (see my previous post[1] about this for references) [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20595358 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20595358
inscionent 7y ago
Remember you don't own or control anything you upload to a third party. From the ring privacy policy: > We also may disclose personal information about you (1) if we are required to do so by law or legal process (such as a court order or subpoena); (2) in response to requests by government agencies, such as law enforcement authorities; (3) to establish, exercise or defend our legal rights; (4) when we believe disclosure is necessary or appropriate to prevent physical or other harm or financial loss; (5) in connection with an investigation of suspected or actual illegal activity; or (6) otherwise with your consent. > We reserve the right to transfer any personal information we have about you in the event we sell or transfer all or a portion of our business or assets (including in the event of a merger, acquisition, joint venture, reorganization, divestiture, dissolution or liquidation).
- vorpalhex 7y ago
  That's true for all companies. You still have to comply with subpoenas and can still be acquired. That's true whether you're the coffee shop down the street or Amazon full of cloud video from folks doorbells. (4) and (5) are the only ones with wording I see as a bit dubious, but I'm not a lawyer and don't know if those are normally required terms.
- panarky 7y ago
  Imagine if the privacy policy simply said: We will disclose your personal information if it benefits us. Adding more words doesn't strengthen privacy one bit: We will disclose your personal information to comply with a court order, or to save someone's life, or if it benefits us.
entropea 7y ago
>It's not like police have 24/7 involuntary access to everyone's video. I can't tell you how many times I've heard this one since I started on the internet in '97. It's never true.
- bradenb 7y ago
  I'm as paranoid about IoT devices being abused as anyone, but can you point out more than 1 or 2 examples of "It's never true?"
  - authoritarian 7y ago
    Police and the US government regularly abuse "legitimate" surveillance as well ass utilize illegal surveillance. There are a huge amount of examples. I have 0 faith that police cannot and will not abuse this https://thinkprogress.org/new-york-police-nypd-will-deploy-fleet-of-drones-4fb31537337f/ https://thinkprogress.org/new-york-police-nypd-will-deploy-f... https://www.npr.org/2018/02/01/578369420/report-alleges-police-use-secret-evidence-collected-by-feds-to-make-arrests https://www.npr.org/2018/02/01/578369420/report-alleges-poli... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/26/police-want-spy-without-oversight https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/26/police... https://theintercept.com/2018/01/09/dark-side-fbi-dea-illegal-searches-secret-evidence/ https://theintercept.com/2018/01/09/dark-side-fbi-dea-illega... https://ccrjustice.org/home/what-we-do/issues/government-surveillance https://ccrjustice.org/home/what-we-do/issues/government-sur... https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security/privacy-and-surveillance/warrantless-surveillance-under-section-702-fisa https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security/privacy-and-su... https://www.aclu.org/other/more-about-fbi-spying https://www.aclu.org/other/more-about-fbi-spying
mikeash 7y ago
Do police have any obligation to be honest in these requests? Even if it’s opt-in, I’d be afraid of cops using the system to harass personal enemies by making requests that say they’re looking for an active serial killer or whatever.
- HarryHirsch 7y ago
  Do police have any obligation to be honest in these requests? No. Infractions would have to be prosecuted by the district attorney, who has no interest to get on the bad side of the police because he needs them to be successful. Consider the case of Arlington police! Arlington cops were in bed with a drug dealer because he supplied the force with steroids. In return for the goodies, the police informed their supplier about the competition. The maximum penalty for improper access of records would be 10 years in prison, but they gave the bent cop just 1 year. It really does wonders to restore trust in the system. https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2014/02/12/ex-arlington-officer-gets-1-year-prison-sentence-in-steroids-case https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2014/02/12/ex-arlingto...
  - sixothree 7y ago
    We really need checks and balances on police. Seems like such a fundamental underpinning of democracy eroded.
    - clairity 7y ago
      by design, the police concentrate force in a separate group of people who then specialize in that use of force. residents relinquish that (threat of) force voluntarily to the police to enjoy being a citizen of a (hopefully) more peaceful society in exchange. part of the problem is that we naturally conflate (1) knowing and enforcing rules and (2) the use of force. despite the similarity of the words, enforcement doesn't necessarily require direct force. such intertwined subtleties make your entreaty to "institute checks and balances" hard to realize. and this disjunction is problematic; i think it's better to have a little force spread widely throughout communities, rather than a lot of force concentrated in one sub-group, as its less risk of catastrophic use of force and a more even application all around (more fair). but that's a challenge in the increasingly specialized social groupings (and identities) we live in. even so, "police" is too much of an identity separate from the society to which they're enjoined. i think policemen/women should be community members first, and enforcers second, not the other way around.

panarky 7y ago

Welcome to the private free-market Stasi. You can try to opt out by not using Facebook or Ring cameras, but your friends and neighbors opt you in without your permission.

yters 7y ago
Indeed. Mass surveillance. Police brutality. Weapons confiscation. Seems to be a pattern. Both sides of the political spectrum are enabling different portions of this pattern.
- inscionent 7y ago
  Who is confiscating weapons?
  - crazy1van 7y ago
    Sometimes it's called a "mandatory buy-back" like in Australia.
  - cc439 7y ago
    The police via Red Flag laws which are incredibly easy to abuse.
    - DiseasedBadger 7y ago
      It's worrying that Hacker News isn't mature enough to admit to the Dayton Ohio shooter's politics and affiliations. I don't think HN, as a population, are on the side of democracy, liberalism, or freedom.
    - inscionent 7y ago
      The police are using red flag laws to seize weapons because the 'private free-market Stasi' told them to? Red flag laws are mostly used to prevent suicides and domestic violence. They are formal proceedings and due process of law. If the problem is with the law, organize and change it.

rpmisms 7y ago

So, a capitalist surveillance state. Is it better if the Government forces surveillance, or if people are duped into buying it for themselves?

gameswithgo 7y ago
The libertarian flag as practiced in America: https://i.redd.it/fb6eejyt5em01.jpg https://i.redd.it/fb6eejyt5em01.jpg
- rpmisms 7y ago
  At least it's somewhat possible to opt-out. I wish the libertarian ideal of government as protecting personal liberties, up to and including against corporate interests, was practiced.
dole 7y ago
Buying it for themselves? I don't know whether Ring is paying the various police departments for their "partnership", but it's been in the news locally here (an "at-risk", "high-crime" area, call it what you will) in the last few days that the local police department is giving away 50 Ring cameras and the winners are chosen by a lottery system. Ticks all the boxes: "free" and entertaining element of gaming for the public, good police PR, field data for Ring. Much like the supposed value (and tentacles) of the Red Light Camera industry. Nevermind the constant barrage of ads through Nextdoor and other channels.

option 7y ago

If I put a camera outside of my house I want police to be able to access/react to what it’s captured. Our PD even has an app where you can register a camera with them (not direct access though)

moate 7y ago
Great. You pointed that camera directly at my house and are now infringing on my right not to have it watched by the police 24/7. Please explain why your rights are greater than mine.
- smileypete 7y ago
  It's the neighborhood equivalent of 'Five Eyes'!
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  >right not to have it watched by the police 24/7 I'm not aware of any legislation in the USA that would make a video feed of the exterior view of a property from one's own property illegal.
  - gameswithgo 7y ago
    The person you are responding to never mentioned laws. I believe he or she would be referring to certain ethical rights we should have.
    - logfromblammo 7y ago
      The right to privacy is the right to wear a mask, not the right to go around poking out other people's eyes. There is no ethical distinction between installing a camera to record, and watching with one's own eyes and remembering what was seen. We might, perhaps, have an ethical right to be informed when someone is watching us, that we might take reasonable privacy countermeasures if necessary. On the presumption that people may look in as easily as we look out, we typically put blinds and curtains in our windows. It is not so difficult to do similar things with sight-lines around the exterior of buildings. An umbrella here, an awning there, a fence around, planting some bamboo or arborvitaes--the further away the observer, the smaller their potential viewing angles, and the easier it is to block their view in without also blocking your own view out. While it may be unsettling to think about our neighbors monitoring our comings and goings, it might also be comforting that they would notice any unusual activity around our property, and maybe also take action to interrupt it, or at least report it. If you put up a screen such that no one else can see it when you go in and out of your front door, likewise no one can see it when a housebreaker is patiently picking its lock. So you put up a camera that you control, to monitor your own threshold, and the surveillance/privacy arms race can stop there. Your neighbor can no longer either look out at you, or look out for you.

neotek 7y ago

No shit.

vorpalhex 7y ago

This headline leaves out an important detail from the article: > Officers don’t receive ongoing or live-video access, and homeowners can decline the requests, which Ring sends via email It's not as if the police are pulling a Batman and watching every ring simultaneously, but instead they can do the digital equivalent of going door-to-door and asking "Hey, did you catch footage of your neighbors house being broken into last night?" Frankly, I actually trust a bunch of random citizens to have video footage more than I trust any company or government organization.

y04nn 7y ago
Edit: actually, this is by request as stated in the article A̶ ̶s̶y̶s̶t̶e̶m̶ ̶w̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶p̶o̶l̶i̶c̶e̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶a̶s̶k̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶a̶m̶e̶r̶a̶ ̶o̶w̶n̶e̶r̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶a̶c̶c̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶s̶p̶e̶c̶i̶f̶i̶c̶ ̶t̶i̶m̶e̶ ̶r̶a̶n̶g̶e̶ ̶w̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶m̶o̶r̶e̶ ̶t̶r̶u̶s̶t̶a̶b̶l̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶n̶ ̶o̶n̶e̶ ̶g̶i̶v̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶p̶e̶r̶m̶a̶n̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶a̶c̶c̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶a̶m̶e̶r̶a̶ ̶f̶o̶o̶t̶a̶g̶e̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶l̶i̶m̶i̶t̶s̶.̶ I would also not trust a system recording videos of my life and sending them on remote server that I have not access to.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
johnbrodie 7y ago
It's not really random citizens that have the footage though, it's Google. I don't want to slippery slope too far, but we've been shown time and time again that data in private hands is essentially also in government hands. You only have to look back at whisleblowers/leaks in the past decade to see that this is true. Worse yet, with techniques like parallel construction, it could be many, many years until you know the truth.
- adossi 7y ago
  Isn't Ring owned by Amazon, not Google?
  - abootstrapper 7y ago

5440 7y ago

My ring camera caught a murderer breaking a door down last year and it's been a headache for me ever since. Even though I didnt actually see the murder,I've been called to several depositions and had to take three unpaid weeks off of work because of trial stuff. It's so frustrating. All I say everytime, is "Yes, I own the camera" I regret ever buying it at this point.

paublyrne 7y ago
At the risk of being glib, your headache and frustrations seem trivial in the context of the crime you're mentioning.
- mikestew 7y ago
  At equal risk of being glib, I don't think the purchase of consumer electronics should put you on the hook for weeks of depositions for a crime you didn't personally witness. I believe that would the literal manifestation of "that's not what I signed up for". Here's the MP4 file, now go away.
  - ghaff 7y ago
    What if you were a random witness? You didn't sign up for that either. You have certain civic obligations which are enforced by law. I assume in these types of cases, you could be held in contempt if you wouldn't respond voluntarily. It's unfortunate for the person involved and the incentives in the system are such that no one is trying to make efficient use of their time. But that's pretty much the way it is. It's not really that different from being seated on a multi-week jury trial much less a possibly multi-month grand jury.
    - ixtli 7y ago
      Maybe we shouldn't construct a society where your obligations to your employer are at odds with you helping society find justice for a murder victim. This is a great example of how atomized our society has become.

maximente 7y ago

all in all a great (if not disgusting) business strategy, showing the power of leveraging the state to succeed in a so called "free market": - get powerful, vocal .gov entity involved in your product as easily/thoroughly as possible while you perform typical statup "disruption" activities - when any issues with regulation, rights violations etc. come up, immediately "shell out" to your .gov spokeperson who sings your praises and how we cannot touch this entity ("helped catch all these bad guys", "used in xx criminal cases that led to convictions", "would you really want to let someone in your home /without/ one of these?") - repeat ad nauseum as frustrated citizens complain - "we would LOVE to comply, but... it's no longer just about us, you'd be hindering crime-fighting! so we can't do it" - you now have impenetrable air cover as any random .gov entity with power will trump citizen outrage

Trias11 7y ago

If Ring is being compensated by the government agencies - I'll happily participate too - providing Ring and/or law enforcement agency (let them decide between) will compensate me as well for supporting their business model every time i share my video. Optionally i can decide to share on a good will basis of course - but this is going to be optional.

mrbonner 7y ago

My city’s police department is actually very transparent about this. They have a campaign on social media and snail mail to inform citizen to sign up for the use of outside cameras to assist law enforcement in case they need footages for a crime in an area covered by your cameras. Once they determine that your camera footages could help they would send you a request to share the videos with them for investigation. I think pretty much everyone in my community welcomes this idea as we have had an uptick in car break ins lately.

rdtwo 7y ago
Bet they don’t tell you that if your footage turns out to be useful you might end up tied up in the legal system for weeks and missing work and income

scohesc 7y ago

So it's not government sponsored surveillance, it's company sponsored surveillance, paid for by the people who don't want to be watched. Grand! And then Ring can charge the police forces money to use the service! :\

cypherpunks01 7y ago

> To seek out Ring video that has not been publicly shared, officers can use a special “Neighbors Portal” map interface to designate a time range and local area, up to half a square mile wide, and get Ring to send an automated email to all users within that range, alongside a case number and message from police. Is "half a square mile wide" supposed to mean a square that's half a mile on each side?

balls187 7y ago
No, it means total area of 1/2 a square mile. The sides of the square would be sqrt(0.5).

somethoughts 7y ago

Is this an example of Paul Graham's concept of a submarine article? [1] At least they are honest about the relationship: "Ring is owned by Amazon, which bought the firm last year for more than $800 million, financial filings show. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos also owns The Washington Post." [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

fpgaminer 7y ago

I had an idea for a responsible mass surveillance system. Say you have cameras all over the city, feeding to the local police station. That's helpful in catching criminals, but obviously easy to abuse. Well suppose instead that the DVR in the police station is encrypted and contains a secure enclave. All the camera feeds are E2E encrypted from the camera to the box. The secure enclave in the DVR enforces rules for how the footage can be accessed. It only allows X amount of video footage to leave the box over time. Say watching 4 camera streams continuously or something (in a city of hundreds of cameras). So a crime occurs; police know the rough time frame and can easily query footage from the box. But mass surveillance, watching all the camera streams, dumping them to an AI cloud for facial recognition tracking of all your movements, etc, isn't possible. The secure enclave can also enforce logging; anyone viewing the footage submits authentication, creating a permanent paper trail of who viewed what. There are endless possibilities for the rules we want to establish, but the thrust of my idea is that we can enforce them using that concept of a secure enclave and encrypted footage, so that we can be reasonably sure that the system can't be abused. Anyway, it's just an interesting idea I had. I'm not really trying to make an argument for or against widespread surveillance like that. Just, if soceity wants it, there are ways to build systems that enforce rules on how those cameras are used. And what Ring offers is kind of in this vein too; allow camera owners to share footage on a case by case basis when requested. I think it'd be even better if Ring footage was encrypted so that Ring actually really couldn't access the footage without your consent.

dustfinger 7y ago

The first product that popped into my mind when I read the subject's name in the title was Gnu Ring. My jaw dropped several inches before I remembered that Gnu Ring changed its name from Ring to Jami in Jan of this year. > https://blog.savoirfairelinux.com/en-ca/card/ring-becomes-jami/ https://blog.savoirfairelinux.com/en-ca/card/ring-becomes-ja...

guelo 7y ago

Police don't need this to fight crime. Crime is at historical lows. Civilization has gotten by just fine without pervasive surveillance for centuries. In a way this is worse than what China is building since it's distributed.

JohnFen 7y ago

I like that the Ring surveillance devices has a glowing indicator visible from the outside. It lets me know what neighborhoods I should avoid.