3 ms·
So the police requests access to the footage for a specific time, the homeowner has to agree to it, and then Amazon/Ring hands it over? If the homeowner decline
by adossi 7y ago
So the police requests access to the footage for a specific time, the homeowner has to agree to it, and then Amazon/Ring hands it over? If the homeowner declines, then the neighbor agrees, the police can still (most likely) see what they were trying to see. This has got some creepy implications that basically means the more of these Ring cameras are out there, the more power the police has in terms of surveillance. The homeowner's permission is completely useless since there are likely other homeowners in the area that will agree.
- wolfgke 7y ago> The homeowner's permission is completely useless since there are likely other homeowners in the area that will agree. Why does an "agree" "overwrite" a "disagree" and not the other way round?
- adossi 7y agoWell, in this specific context it is because the police's request is not for the neighbor to provide access to the other's Ring camera footage, it is a request to provide access to that individual's own Ring camera footage. An unfortunately side effect is that both Ring cameras, owned by two separate homeowners, may be pointing in a similar enough direction to still see whatever it is that the police wants to see. Then the whole 'agreement' process is kind of moot.
- jellicle 7y agoOr the police request access, the homeowner denies it, the police get a search warrant for certain data on Ring's servers, Ring provides it without comment. Everyone's happy! The homeowner has preserved their privacy by smugly clicking "no", the police are browsing all the footage from the camera anyway. Job well done.
- bagacrap 7y agoIf a judge approves a search warrant, what's the issue? Your constitutional rights are not being infringed. I am afraid of the police (or CIA, etc) acting illegally but if the judiciary I'm probably ok with it.
- CompuHacker 7y agoIn a suburban environment.