4 ms·

I disagree that it is a 'dragnet'. That seems like an emotionally-colored take. It is camera owners voluntarily sharing footage with police when they request it

I disagree that it is a 'dragnet'. That seems like an emotionally-colored take. It is camera owners voluntarily sharing footage with police when they request it. Citizens are allowed to lawfully film in many locations (their own homes, public spaces, etc.) and citizens are allowed to voluntarily exchange information they own with entities of their choosing.

glenda 7y ago
From what I’ve seen sharing these videos publicly also provides a potential thief with your location and information about the placement of your cameras, which is not a smart move if security is your main motive.
- Johnny555 7y ago
  What information is disclosed that the thief can't discover himself by driving or walking by your house? It seems unlikely that a thief needs to see a published list of camera locations to find my house, unless for some reason he's looking specifically for houses that are protected by Ring cameras. My ring doorbell cam is readily visible from the street, so there's no secrets about placement.
  - OnlineGladiator 7y ago
    Knowing where the cameras are lets the thief know where the blind spots are. The thief wouldn't be able to see a hidden camera just by walking by (or at least it's much less likely). I don't think most Ring cameras are meant to be hidden though, since it's primarily sold as a doorbell.
aidenn0 7y ago
At some point quantitative changes to cost and availability make a qualitative change in the invasiveness of a technology. I don't know enough about how ring footage is being used to say whether or not it's crossed that point, but this can't be dismissed just because it's something that's always been legal and happening at a smaller scale.
HarryHirsch 7y ago
Just the sheer scale of data collection by the Ring public-private partnership is worrisome already. Some of us worry about the amount of information held by Facebook, even those that do not have a Facebook account. The same principle applies here.
- throwawaysea 7y ago
  If it is legally filmed footage (for example on public spaces or in a private residence), then there is no legitimate expectation of privacy.
  - HarryHirsch 7y ago
    There's the tiny issue that storage became so cheap over the last 20 years that recordings can now be kept indefinitely. In the past you had a CCTV camera, and you could store maybe a month's worth of movie (on tapes, in a safe), until you had to overwrite it. Now you just keep filming and have a never forgotten record of who lives in the neighbourhood. And if Facebook runs it though its face recognition system they get names, friends and other preferences. That completely changes the nature of CCTV recordings. The law just hasn't caught up with it, also because of prolific lobbying by the usual bigdata actors.
  - homonculus1 7y ago
    Expectation of privacy was defined in an era when recording was expensive, on the assumption that there was a certain degree of anonymity in public just from the sheer impossibility of tracking everybody. There is no reason that our rights should be limited to what was found necessary to protect in the past. There must be a new category of expectation of transience, that Jeff Bezos and the FBI won't keep a permanent record of your every waking moment.
throwaway2048 7y ago
Consider if a police force was near omniscient, and could view everything happening in a city publicly, at all times 24/7. Don't you think that changes the nature of things, even if technically legal?
- erikpukinskis 7y ago
  Omniscient police would be a qualitatively new development, for sure. But as surveillance increases, so does stealth. You’d have to include that in your model.
heavyset_go 7y ago
> It is camera owners voluntarily sharing footage with police when they request it. Police can request that you share the footage you have, or police can get a warrant and obtain the footage directly from Ring. The difference between a camera whose footage you control and Ring is that Ring provides a nice interface to let police know that potential video evidence that you captured exists. A camera system that you rolled out yourself doesn't send a message to law enforcement agencies each time your cameras potentially capture evidence. The knowledge that video evidence exists makes it infinitely easier to get a warrant for it from a judge.
- throwaway393955 7y ago
  They don't need a warrant. They only need to make a friendly administrative subpoena to Amazon, which will happily fork over the data without challenging the order, even if the owner has refused. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/08/police-can-get-your-ring-doorbell-footage-without-a-warrant-report-says/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/08/police-can-get-y...
  - heavyset_go 7y ago
    This is a good point, as well. Part of Ring's business model is integration with law enforcement. The incentives in place certainly don't align with user privacy. Thanks for the link.
  - throwawaysea 7y ago
    This is a false story that relies on an incorrect statement from someone in the Fresno police department. Your own article contains this update: > UPDATE 5:55pm ET: After we published our story, a representative from Ring responded to our request for comment to deny all allegations in the Government Technology report. > "The reports that police can obtain any video from a Ring doorbell within 60 days is false," a spokesperson said. "Ring will not release customer information in response to government demands without a valid and binding legal demand properly served on us. Ring objects to overbroad or otherwise inappropriate demands as a matter of course. We are working with the Fresno County Sheriff's Office to ensure this is understood."

glenda 7y ago

From what I’ve seen sharing these videos publicly also provides a potential thief with your location and information about the placement of your cameras, which is not a smart move if security is your main motive.

Johnny555 7y ago
What information is disclosed that the thief can't discover himself by driving or walking by your house? It seems unlikely that a thief needs to see a published list of camera locations to find my house, unless for some reason he's looking specifically for houses that are protected by Ring cameras. My ring doorbell cam is readily visible from the street, so there's no secrets about placement.
- OnlineGladiator 7y ago
  Knowing where the cameras are lets the thief know where the blind spots are. The thief wouldn't be able to see a hidden camera just by walking by (or at least it's much less likely). I don't think most Ring cameras are meant to be hidden though, since it's primarily sold as a doorbell.

aidenn0 7y ago

At some point quantitative changes to cost and availability make a qualitative change in the invasiveness of a technology. I don't know enough about how ring footage is being used to say whether or not it's crossed that point, but this can't be dismissed just because it's something that's always been legal and happening at a smaller scale.

HarryHirsch 7y ago

Just the sheer scale of data collection by the Ring public-private partnership is worrisome already. Some of us worry about the amount of information held by Facebook, even those that do not have a Facebook account. The same principle applies here.

throwawaysea 7y ago
If it is legally filmed footage (for example on public spaces or in a private residence), then there is no legitimate expectation of privacy.
- HarryHirsch 7y ago
  There's the tiny issue that storage became so cheap over the last 20 years that recordings can now be kept indefinitely. In the past you had a CCTV camera, and you could store maybe a month's worth of movie (on tapes, in a safe), until you had to overwrite it. Now you just keep filming and have a never forgotten record of who lives in the neighbourhood. And if Facebook runs it though its face recognition system they get names, friends and other preferences. That completely changes the nature of CCTV recordings. The law just hasn't caught up with it, also because of prolific lobbying by the usual bigdata actors.
- homonculus1 7y ago
  Expectation of privacy was defined in an era when recording was expensive, on the assumption that there was a certain degree of anonymity in public just from the sheer impossibility of tracking everybody. There is no reason that our rights should be limited to what was found necessary to protect in the past. There must be a new category of expectation of transience, that Jeff Bezos and the FBI won't keep a permanent record of your every waking moment.

throwaway2048 7y ago

Consider if a police force was near omniscient, and could view everything happening in a city publicly, at all times 24/7. Don't you think that changes the nature of things, even if technically legal?

erikpukinskis 7y ago
Omniscient police would be a qualitatively new development, for sure. But as surveillance increases, so does stealth. You’d have to include that in your model.

heavyset_go 7y ago

> It is camera owners voluntarily sharing footage with police when they request it. Police can request that you share the footage you have, or police can get a warrant and obtain the footage directly from Ring. The difference between a camera whose footage you control and Ring is that Ring provides a nice interface to let police know that potential video evidence that you captured exists. A camera system that you rolled out yourself doesn't send a message to law enforcement agencies each time your cameras potentially capture evidence. The knowledge that video evidence exists makes it infinitely easier to get a warrant for it from a judge.

throwaway393955 7y ago
They don't need a warrant. They only need to make a friendly administrative subpoena to Amazon, which will happily fork over the data without challenging the order, even if the owner has refused. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/08/police-can-get-your-ring-doorbell-footage-without-a-warrant-report-says/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/08/police-can-get-y...
- heavyset_go 7y ago
  This is a good point, as well. Part of Ring's business model is integration with law enforcement. The incentives in place certainly don't align with user privacy. Thanks for the link.
- throwawaysea 7y ago
  This is a false story that relies on an incorrect statement from someone in the Fresno police department. Your own article contains this update: > UPDATE 5:55pm ET: After we published our story, a representative from Ring responded to our request for comment to deny all allegations in the Government Technology report. > "The reports that police can obtain any video from a Ring doorbell within 60 days is false," a spokesperson said. "Ring will not release customer information in response to government demands without a valid and binding legal demand properly served on us. Ring objects to overbroad or otherwise inappropriate demands as a matter of course. We are working with the Fresno County Sheriff's Office to ensure this is understood."