4 ms·
I addressed that in my comment. It’s literally what the second paragraph is about.
by georgeplusplus 7y ago
I addressed that in my comment. It’s literally what the second paragraph is about.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- Thorrez 7y agoSorry, 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 agoTo 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?