4 ms·

> So your Ring app pops up and says "Hey, your local police department is looking for a suspect and your camera spotted them. Would you like to share the footag

by krick 7y ago

> So your Ring app pops up and says "Hey, your local police department is looking for a suspect and your camera spotted them. Would you like to share the footage?". This doesn't sound ok at all. I won't delve into a thousand reasons why I don't like the idea, but let's just start with that answering "no" to that question can be easily treated as the obstruction of justice. So, to cut it short, if I'm not volunteering to lend my video feed to local police department by installing some additional plug-in that would download people faces from their DB and scanning the street for them, it shouldn't even attempt to by default.

wpietri 7y ago
I don't think that's anything like obstruction of justice under US law. If you were right, then so too would be recognizing a face from a wanted poster and not calling the police. It isn't even obstruction of justice if they explicitly ask you something and you refuse to respond: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/what-do-when-encountering-law-enforcement-questioning/ https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/what-do-when-encounter... So I don't see how not responding to a question they didn't ask could be illegal.
- xmprt 7y ago
  It's a blurred line though. If the police know that the perpetrator was in line of sight of your camera and they knew you had the footage, then not giving it to them is a lot closer to obstruction of justice than the example you gave. I'm no lawyer but I'm sure a competent one would be able to argue either side.
  - kortilla 7y ago
    If they have a warrant, sure.
  - wpietri 7y ago
    Only if they ask for it in a way where you're legally compelled to give to them. Otherwise, no. Cops want things all the time, like searching without a warrant. But not doing what they want isn't obstruction.
- georgeplusplus 7y ago
  It absolutely is obstruction of justice if there’s reasonable suspicion and they have a subpoena or warrant and you refuse to hand over said evidence. If they come to your house and Willy nilly ask you for your cameras data because they believe that it spotted a crime then you can say no for sure, but then they’ll just come back with a court order to force compliance since there’s good reason to at least inspect the camera footage and I can tell you from experience I don’t know any judge that wouldnt sign a subpoena for that.
  - Thorrez 7y ago
    You have to give police information just because you suspect they might have a warrant? I would have thought you could wait until you're actually presented with the warrant.
    - georgeplusplus 7y ago
      I addressed that in my comment. It’s literally what the second paragraph is about.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - Thorrez 7y ago
        Sorry, I badly misread your comment as "suspicion that they have a subpoena" instead of "suspicion and they have a subpoena". But to address what you actually said, I believe the vast majority of these requests that police are making from Ring users don't have a warrant/subpoena. > The partnerships let police request the video recorded by homeowners’ cameras within a specific time and area, helping officers see footage from the company’s millions of Internet-connected cameras installed nationwide, the company said. Officers don’t receive ongoing or live-video access, and homeowners can decline the requests https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/08/28/doorbell-camera-firm-ring-has-partnered-with-police-forces-extending-surveillance-reach/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/08/28/doorbel...
- soulofmischief 7y ago
  Information and physical evidence are two different things. The government can use your password if they can find it written down somewhere, they just can't compel you to offer it up. But in cases where the government has metadata, logs, or other verifiable info about what is on the account, media, etc., recent precedent has established that they can hold you without charges for any amount of time, in the cases of some individuals, several years, in order to attempt to compel you to give up your password.
tripzilch 7y ago
I'm really more interested in the reasons why you don't like the idea, though (cause the other reason sounds kind of US specific to me).

by krick 7y ago

wpietri 7y ago

I don't think that's anything like obstruction of justice under US law. If you were right, then so too would be recognizing a face from a wanted poster and not calling the police. It isn't even obstruction of justice if they explicitly ask you something and you refuse to respond: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/what-do-when-encountering-law-enforcement-questioning/ https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/what-do-when-encounter... So I don't see how not responding to a question they didn't ask could be illegal.

xmprt 7y ago
It's a blurred line though. If the police know that the perpetrator was in line of sight of your camera and they knew you had the footage, then not giving it to them is a lot closer to obstruction of justice than the example you gave. I'm no lawyer but I'm sure a competent one would be able to argue either side.
- kortilla 7y ago
  If they have a warrant, sure.
- wpietri 7y ago
  Only if they ask for it in a way where you're legally compelled to give to them. Otherwise, no. Cops want things all the time, like searching without a warrant. But not doing what they want isn't obstruction.
georgeplusplus 7y ago
It absolutely is obstruction of justice if there’s reasonable suspicion and they have a subpoena or warrant and you refuse to hand over said evidence. If they come to your house and Willy nilly ask you for your cameras data because they believe that it spotted a crime then you can say no for sure, but then they’ll just come back with a court order to force compliance since there’s good reason to at least inspect the camera footage and I can tell you from experience I don’t know any judge that wouldnt sign a subpoena for that.
- Thorrez 7y ago
  You have to give police information just because you suspect they might have a warrant? I would have thought you could wait until you're actually presented with the warrant.
  - georgeplusplus 7y ago
    I addressed that in my comment. It’s literally what the second paragraph is about.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - Thorrez 7y ago
      Sorry, I badly misread your comment as "suspicion that they have a subpoena" instead of "suspicion and they have a subpoena". But to address what you actually said, I believe the vast majority of these requests that police are making from Ring users don't have a warrant/subpoena. > The partnerships let police request the video recorded by homeowners’ cameras within a specific time and area, helping officers see footage from the company’s millions of Internet-connected cameras installed nationwide, the company said. Officers don’t receive ongoing or live-video access, and homeowners can decline the requests https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/08/28/doorbell-camera-firm-ring-has-partnered-with-police-forces-extending-surveillance-reach/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/08/28/doorbel...
soulofmischief 7y ago
Information and physical evidence are two different things. The government can use your password if they can find it written down somewhere, they just can't compel you to offer it up. But in cases where the government has metadata, logs, or other verifiable info about what is on the account, media, etc., recent precedent has established that they can hold you without charges for any amount of time, in the cases of some individuals, several years, in order to attempt to compel you to give up your password.

tripzilch 7y ago

I'm really more interested in the reasons why you don't like the idea, though (cause the other reason sounds kind of US specific to me).