5 ms·

> Also, I'm not sure where people are getting that Amazon is bad at privacy. Oh, I dunno, profiting from selling law enforcement nearly unrestricted access[1]

by badRNG 5y ago

> Also, I'm not sure where people are getting that Amazon is bad at privacy. Oh, I dunno, profiting from selling law enforcement nearly unrestricted access[1] to their existing IOT offerings as part of what they call "the new neighborhood watch"[2] while also profiting facial recognition offerings (Rekognition) doesn't really give me the impression they're good at privacy. In fact, it makes Google Analytics seem down right charitable in comparison. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/11/19/police-can-keep-ring-camera-video-forever-share-with-whomever-theyd-like-company-tells-senator/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/11/19/police-... [2] 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...

crazygringo 5y ago
What you claim is completely false. Key quotes from the articles you linked: > Ring, she added, “does not own or otherwise control users’ videos, and we intentionally designed the Neighbors Portal to ensure that users get to decide whether to voluntarily provide their videos to the police.” > The user can click to share their Ring videos, review them before sharing, decline or, at the bottom of the email, unsubscribe from future footage-sharing requests. > Ring says police officers don’t have access to live video feeds and aren’t told which homes use Ring cameras or how homeowners responded unless the users consent. So, please explain how this is "nearly unrestricted access"? When it requires the owner to explicitly choose to share their own private video with police on a per-request basis? To the contrary, it is 100% restricted.
- t-writescode 5y ago
  "Police can get your Ring doorbell footage without a warrant, report says" 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...
  - crazygringo 5y ago
    Yes. But ONLY if the user VOLUNTARILY shares the footage on a per-incident basis. As the article says explicitly. Guess what? If the police come to my house and ask me for physical photos and I show them photos out of the kindness of my heart, that's without a warrant too. I'm under no obligation though, and neither is a Ring user. You're making it sound like police have access to footage without a user's consent, or without consent per individual incident. That's simply FALSE.
    - t-writescode 5y ago
      From their privacy policy: We also may disclose personal information about you (1) if we are required to do so by law or legal process (such as a court order or subpoena); (2) to establish, exercise or defend our legal rights; (3) when we believe disclosure is necessary or appropriate to prevent physical or other harm or financial loss; (4) in connection with an investigation of suspected or actual illegal activity; or (5) otherwise with your consent. https://ring.com/privacy-notice https://ring.com/privacy-notice It says both “by court order” and “to help solve a crime”, separately. Amazon is within its policy to help the police without a warrant.
      - crazygringo 5y ago
        I'm not a lawyer so I'm not qualified to interpret what (4) means -- its legal purpose or ramifications. But Amazon has explicitly and publicly stated they don't share Ring videos with law enforcement without user consent (at least not without a court order), and there have been zero news articles about them doing so. So your insinuation that Amazon is handing police user videos without consent or warrants continues to be utterly unsubstantiated.
        t-writescode 5y ago
        It’s a privacy policy. They could get sued but no one is going to prison for “violating” it. And I never said they’re actively doing it all over the place. I said they could and be within the permissions they’ve given themselves.

by badRNG 5y ago

crazygringo 5y ago

What you claim is completely false. Key quotes from the articles you linked: > Ring, she added, “does not own or otherwise control users’ videos, and we intentionally designed the Neighbors Portal to ensure that users get to decide whether to voluntarily provide their videos to the police.” > The user can click to share their Ring videos, review them before sharing, decline or, at the bottom of the email, unsubscribe from future footage-sharing requests. > Ring says police officers don’t have access to live video feeds and aren’t told which homes use Ring cameras or how homeowners responded unless the users consent. So, please explain how this is "nearly unrestricted access"? When it requires the owner to explicitly choose to share their own private video with police on a per-request basis? To the contrary, it is 100% restricted.

t-writescode 5y ago
"Police can get your Ring doorbell footage without a warrant, report says" 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...
- crazygringo 5y ago
  Yes. But ONLY if the user VOLUNTARILY shares the footage on a per-incident basis. As the article says explicitly. Guess what? If the police come to my house and ask me for physical photos and I show them photos out of the kindness of my heart, that's without a warrant too. I'm under no obligation though, and neither is a Ring user. You're making it sound like police have access to footage without a user's consent, or without consent per individual incident. That's simply FALSE.
  - t-writescode 5y ago
    From their privacy policy: We also may disclose personal information about you (1) if we are required to do so by law or legal process (such as a court order or subpoena); (2) to establish, exercise or defend our legal rights; (3) when we believe disclosure is necessary or appropriate to prevent physical or other harm or financial loss; (4) in connection with an investigation of suspected or actual illegal activity; or (5) otherwise with your consent. https://ring.com/privacy-notice https://ring.com/privacy-notice It says both “by court order” and “to help solve a crime”, separately. Amazon is within its policy to help the police without a warrant.
    - crazygringo 5y ago
      I'm not a lawyer so I'm not qualified to interpret what (4) means -- its legal purpose or ramifications. But Amazon has explicitly and publicly stated they don't share Ring videos with law enforcement without user consent (at least not without a court order), and there have been zero news articles about them doing so. So your insinuation that Amazon is handing police user videos without consent or warrants continues to be utterly unsubstantiated.
      - t-writescode 5y ago
        It’s a privacy policy. They could get sued but no one is going to prison for “violating” it. And I never said they’re actively doing it all over the place. I said they could and be within the permissions they’ve given themselves.