4 ms·

That's honestly not a bad point, but it doesn't help me shake the skeeziness I feel about this story. Maybe it's the fact that these are ostensibly home-protec

by ketzo 6y ago

That's honestly not a bad point, but it doesn't help me shake the skeeziness I feel about this story. Maybe it's the fact that these are ostensibly home-protection devices, not public surveillance devices? But really, I could see how you could make the argument that that's a very-narrow-bordering-on-pedantic distinction. Maybe it's just general Big Brother heebie jeebies.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
The article isn't clear what is meant by "request" here. If they are merely asking private citizens to give them access to the video, and those citizens have a choice to do so or not, then it's essentially the same as anybody just uploading phone footage to youtube. If it turns out there is coercion in getting these videos then that line of reasoning goes out the window, however.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ketzo 6y ago
  Very true. And maybe that's where my discomfort is coming from; the potential for police obtaining this footage through coercion or even in secret is deeply disturbing to me.
- throwawayboise 6y ago
  When a couple of large guys with badges and guns are at your door asking for video, it would take a very self-confident person to say "no." There's certainly adequate plausible deniability of coercion, but it would be a very different feeling than if, for example, a reporter were asking, or an insurance company investigator, etc.
  - ketzo 6y ago
    Or even just the police on the phone vs. the police at your door.
    - fitblipper 6y ago
      Any time someone identifies as a cop, people will do what you tell them to. Here is just one extreme example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strip_search_phone_call_scam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strip_search_phone_call_scam People will do stuff without thinking because someone with authority asked them to.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
    From what I can gather looking at the emails shared in another thread, Ring was the go-between for the police and explicitly stated that sharing was optional. It also gives the detective's name and an incident number. I'm really not sure how the process could be made less intimidating or more transparent than that.
fitblipper 6y ago
I think the Big Brother heebie jeebies are justified. Amazon gives Police officers a script and coaching[1] to use to try to endorse their surveillance products and to maximize participation in the "Ring as Big Brother feature". Requesting video for law enforcement is automated to the point that all a police officer has to do (even without any judicial over-site!) is to drag and drop a square over a map on their computer and press a button. This sends the email identifying themselves as with the police and requested video data. Yes, this is voluntary for the person to grant access to that video but research[2] has shown that the VAST number of Americans will submit to a "consent search" simply because the Law Officer is in a position of power and people want to be seen as cooperative. That is also just 1 way that police can get the footage, they can also easily go to Amazon themselves and get it without notifying the user. [1]https://www.vice.com/en/article/43kga3/amazon-is-coaching-cops-on-how-to-obtain-surveillance-footage-without-a-warrant?xyz https://www.vice.com/en/article/43kga3/amazon-is-coaching-co... [2]https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/01/so-called-consent-searches-harm-our-digital-rights https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/01/so-called-consent-sear... and https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3369844 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3369844 (edit: update reference number)
- mywittyname 6y ago
  > people want to be seen as cooperative. Or they are implicitly threatened. What will happen if refused? Will a warrant be obtained for the footage? Is non-consent considered obstruction? Will a local LO come by to try and convince me to consent. Most people don't know their rights and it not unusual for cops to blatantly disregard civil liberties anyway.
  - bonestamp2 6y ago
    This is a good point and raises a good point: There's a big difference between cooperating to provide footage of a crime vs providing a surveillance tool. I'd be more than happy to provide my camera's footage of a timeframe when a crime was committed. But, providing real time access to my camera before any crime is committed? That is exactly the big brother scenario I don't want my kids to grow up in.

by ketzo 6y ago

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago

The article isn't clear what is meant by "request" here. If they are merely asking private citizens to give them access to the video, and those citizens have a choice to do so or not, then it's essentially the same as anybody just uploading phone footage to youtube. If it turns out there is coercion in getting these videos then that line of reasoning goes out the window, however.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ketzo 6y ago
Very true. And maybe that's where my discomfort is coming from; the potential for police obtaining this footage through coercion or even in secret is deeply disturbing to me.
throwawayboise 6y ago
When a couple of large guys with badges and guns are at your door asking for video, it would take a very self-confident person to say "no." There's certainly adequate plausible deniability of coercion, but it would be a very different feeling than if, for example, a reporter were asking, or an insurance company investigator, etc.
- ketzo 6y ago
  Or even just the police on the phone vs. the police at your door.
  - fitblipper 6y ago
    Any time someone identifies as a cop, people will do what you tell them to. Here is just one extreme example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strip_search_phone_call_scam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strip_search_phone_call_scam People will do stuff without thinking because someone with authority asked them to.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  From what I can gather looking at the emails shared in another thread, Ring was the go-between for the police and explicitly stated that sharing was optional. It also gives the detective's name and an incident number. I'm really not sure how the process could be made less intimidating or more transparent than that.

fitblipper 6y ago

I think the Big Brother heebie jeebies are justified. Amazon gives Police officers a script and coaching[1] to use to try to endorse their surveillance products and to maximize participation in the "Ring as Big Brother feature". Requesting video for law enforcement is automated to the point that all a police officer has to do (even without any judicial over-site!) is to drag and drop a square over a map on their computer and press a button. This sends the email identifying themselves as with the police and requested video data. Yes, this is voluntary for the person to grant access to that video but research[2] has shown that the VAST number of Americans will submit to a "consent search" simply because the Law Officer is in a position of power and people want to be seen as cooperative. That is also just 1 way that police can get the footage, they can also easily go to Amazon themselves and get it without notifying the user. [1]https://www.vice.com/en/article/43kga3/amazon-is-coaching-cops-on-how-to-obtain-surveillance-footage-without-a-warrant?xyz https://www.vice.com/en/article/43kga3/amazon-is-coaching-co... [2]https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/01/so-called-consent-searches-harm-our-digital-rights https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/01/so-called-consent-sear... and https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3369844 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3369844 (edit: update reference number)

mywittyname 6y ago
> people want to be seen as cooperative. Or they are implicitly threatened. What will happen if refused? Will a warrant be obtained for the footage? Is non-consent considered obstruction? Will a local LO come by to try and convince me to consent. Most people don't know their rights and it not unusual for cops to blatantly disregard civil liberties anyway.
- bonestamp2 6y ago
  This is a good point and raises a good point: There's a big difference between cooperating to provide footage of a crime vs providing a surveillance tool. I'd be more than happy to provide my camera's footage of a timeframe when a crime was committed. But, providing real time access to my camera before any crime is committed? That is exactly the big brother scenario I don't want my kids to grow up in.