4 ms·

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

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...
    - georgeplusplus 7y ago
      To me this is more Rings fault than law enforcement. I’m sure there is some TOS that states Ring will hand over any video and since the program is public knowledge, therefor If the individual still decides to willingly install it, IMO that’s on them. when are we going to start holding the user accountable?
wpietri 7y ago
It sounds like you're discussing a hypothetical case very different than what you're replying to. fpgaminer was talking about something where facial recognition is done locally, giving the camera owner the option to contact the police. The cops would not even know you had a camera unless you told them (or unless they saw it). You seem to be imagining all sorts of other things, including a warrant. Which, yes, if you ignore it is obstruction. But I don't think that was part of what fpgaminer was describing.

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...
  - georgeplusplus 7y ago
    To me this is more Rings fault than law enforcement. I’m sure there is some TOS that states Ring will hand over any video and since the program is public knowledge, therefor If the individual still decides to willingly install it, IMO that’s on them. when are we going to start holding the user accountable?

wpietri 7y ago

It sounds like you're discussing a hypothetical case very different than what you're replying to. fpgaminer was talking about something where facial recognition is done locally, giving the camera owner the option to contact the police. The cops would not even know you had a camera unless you told them (or unless they saw it). You seem to be imagining all sorts of other things, including a warrant. Which, yes, if you ignore it is obstruction. But I don't think that was part of what fpgaminer was describing.