3 ms·

Yeah I lost the author right here in these two totally incompatible statements. > As a part of the partnership, police promote Ring products and engage with Am

Yeah I lost the author right here in these two totally incompatible statements. > As a part of the partnership, police promote Ring products and engage with Amazon’s neighborhood watch app, Neighbors. In exchange, Amazon provides police departments with an easy way to request and store footage from thousands of residents at one time You have no expectation of privacy in public or in someone else’s domicile with some specific exclusions (like bathrooms or bedrooms). And sure, maybe you could argue this for basically any indoor residential camera (though I would disagree) But here is where I lost him > Amazon + Police surveillance partnerships function with no oversight or accountability. This statement and the one above it are completely incompatible. The oversight is literally done by the owner of the camera. It seems built into the application. And I will admit I myself have avoided these, and instead used Wyze cams with rtsp only specifically because of that mistrust (and the principle that Amazon can comply without my consent, even if they don’t currently)

beeboop 5y ago
There's a difference between "no expectation of privacy in public" and a permanent record tracking your every movement, fart, and sneeze in public. Combined with gait and facial tracking, it can become very problematic. > The oversight is literally done by the owner of the camera. Not if the footage is subpoenad.
- croutonwagon 5y ago
  But that isnt what is being discussed by the author. He is specifically calling into question private Ring cameras. Which citizens are free to buy and put up. And the "lack of accountability" was the Amazon Neighbors app, where users are given specific agency on whether they want to provide recordings/access to LEO's or not. >Not if the footage is subpoenad. Again not really called into question within the article and is a thing for any hosted service. Or for that matter...something you also self host. Similar to a warrant.

beeboop 5y ago

There's a difference between "no expectation of privacy in public" and a permanent record tracking your every movement, fart, and sneeze in public. Combined with gait and facial tracking, it can become very problematic. > The oversight is literally done by the owner of the camera. Not if the footage is subpoenad.

croutonwagon 5y ago
But that isnt what is being discussed by the author. He is specifically calling into question private Ring cameras. Which citizens are free to buy and put up. And the "lack of accountability" was the Amazon Neighbors app, where users are given specific agency on whether they want to provide recordings/access to LEO's or not. >Not if the footage is subpoenad. Again not really called into question within the article and is a thing for any hosted service. Or for that matter...something you also self host. Similar to a warrant.