4 ms·

Seems to me that nearly every assertion in that Reuters story is wrong. Police agencies may be being given a new, additional way to request video data, but noth

Seems to me that nearly every assertion in that Reuters story is wrong. Police agencies may be being given a new, additional way to request video data, but nothing Ring can do can prevent police agencies from using the old, legal methods of requesting video data. So now there are two separate data request systems: 1) "pretty please can people send videos" 2) subpoena, direct request, national security letters, etc. Anything built in to the legal system. 1) will be public and probably not too common - fishing expeditions by the police. 2) will not be public at all and will represent the bulk of data transfer from individuals to the police, and in general the public will never know it happened. 1) will be soft-represented as the totality of data transfer by Ring, if you (as an enterprising young reporter) happen to make the mistake of reporting it as the totality, Ring will definitely not call you up and correct the record. Specifically, these paragraphs are both complete bullshit: > "Public safety agencies such as police and fire departments now must request material from their communities through a new, publicly viewable type of post on the Neighbors app, Ring said in a blog." They certainly mustn't. > "It said no information would be shared with agencies without users choosing to do so and that requests can be issued only by verified agency profiles and that request history will be logged online, so users can see how their police force is using the posts." Complete bullshit as well. Ring doesn't make the rules.

vageli 5y ago
This was my reaction as well. Maybe it relies on redefining "sharing" information with agencies as distinct from furnishing information in compliance with a subpoena. The optimist in me sees this as a way to push departments to prefer the methods of the legal system to obtain this info, but then why even make it available without a court order in the first place?
OJFord 5y ago
> They certainly mustn't. Well, they may. (Hard to imagine they will, agreed.) i.e. if 'must' is the function m(x), then 'must not' is m(¬x); not ¬m(x). Here it's 'not the case that they must', that is, ¬m(request through Ring app).
rantwasp 5y ago
2 things: of course if there is a subpoena they will need to turn over the footage + ring supposedly has e2e encryption where they would actually have to get the footage from you. i have a ring camera and: 1) I did not let their app use gps and i did not give them an adress (ie ring does not know, in theory where the camera is) 2) i straight up disabled requests from law enforcement (yes there is a setting for that) 3) i opted out of the neighbors thing (you cannot be in a neighborhood if you don’t have an address + explicitly opting out). it’s sad that there isn’t a product on the market that actually respects user’s privacy
secabeen 5y ago
Amazon/Ring is certainly eliding over the subpoena path to getting information. However, that path does require a warrant, and a judge's sign-off. The "just ask" approach doesn't, so I think both have their place. Given the paucity of information about the latter, I don't think we can say which will "represent the bulk of data transfer from individuals to the police." There are certainly a lot of subpoenas issued each year, but there are also a lot of times a police officer stops at a business or home that has a security system with cameras, asks for copies of the footage, and gets it easily.
crazygringo 5y ago
> 1) will be public and probably not too common - fishing expeditions by the police. 2) will not be public at all and will represent the bulk of data transfer I don't think that's correct at all. To the contrary -- how often does a regular resident get a subpoena? Practically never. On the other hand, how often do cops check CCTV footage? All the time. If cops are trying to follow the path a suspect took to drive through a neighborhood and where they wound up, then this 1) option is amazing and will frequently be used. I can't imagine why you're perjoratively calling it "fishing expeditions". That's ridiculous, there's zero evidence police are using this, or want to use it, to catch petty crimes they don't know about in the first place. It's to track suspects' routes and confirm alibis, that type of thing. Both common and legitimate. > They certainly mustn't. The obvious context here is Ring requests. Not things like subpoenas. > Complete bullshit as well. Ring doesn't make the rules. You're wrong. Ring does make all the rules of what Ring shares through this program. You're acting like the existence of subpoenas makes this all a bunch of song and dance, but they're entirely different things for entirely different purposes. Your pessimism and cynicism isn't just unwarranted, it's simply factually incorrect.

vageli 5y ago

This was my reaction as well. Maybe it relies on redefining "sharing" information with agencies as distinct from furnishing information in compliance with a subpoena. The optimist in me sees this as a way to push departments to prefer the methods of the legal system to obtain this info, but then why even make it available without a court order in the first place?

OJFord 5y ago

> They certainly mustn't. Well, they may. (Hard to imagine they will, agreed.) i.e. if 'must' is the function m(x), then 'must not' is m(¬x); not ¬m(x). Here it's 'not the case that they must', that is, ¬m(request through Ring app).

rantwasp 5y ago

2 things: of course if there is a subpoena they will need to turn over the footage + ring supposedly has e2e encryption where they would actually have to get the footage from you. i have a ring camera and: 1) I did not let their app use gps and i did not give them an adress (ie ring does not know, in theory where the camera is) 2) i straight up disabled requests from law enforcement (yes there is a setting for that) 3) i opted out of the neighbors thing (you cannot be in a neighborhood if you don’t have an address + explicitly opting out). it’s sad that there isn’t a product on the market that actually respects user’s privacy

secabeen 5y ago

Amazon/Ring is certainly eliding over the subpoena path to getting information. However, that path does require a warrant, and a judge's sign-off. The "just ask" approach doesn't, so I think both have their place. Given the paucity of information about the latter, I don't think we can say which will "represent the bulk of data transfer from individuals to the police." There are certainly a lot of subpoenas issued each year, but there are also a lot of times a police officer stops at a business or home that has a security system with cameras, asks for copies of the footage, and gets it easily.

crazygringo 5y ago

> 1) will be public and probably not too common - fishing expeditions by the police. 2) will not be public at all and will represent the bulk of data transfer I don't think that's correct at all. To the contrary -- how often does a regular resident get a subpoena? Practically never. On the other hand, how often do cops check CCTV footage? All the time. If cops are trying to follow the path a suspect took to drive through a neighborhood and where they wound up, then this 1) option is amazing and will frequently be used. I can't imagine why you're perjoratively calling it "fishing expeditions". That's ridiculous, there's zero evidence police are using this, or want to use it, to catch petty crimes they don't know about in the first place. It's to track suspects' routes and confirm alibis, that type of thing. Both common and legitimate. > They certainly mustn't. The obvious context here is Ring requests. Not things like subpoenas. > Complete bullshit as well. Ring doesn't make the rules. You're wrong. Ring does make all the rules of what Ring shares through this program. You're acting like the existence of subpoenas makes this all a bunch of song and dance, but they're entirely different things for entirely different purposes. Your pessimism and cynicism isn't just unwarranted, it's simply factually incorrect.