4 ms·

Not great, but the whole Ring™ doorbell law enforcement relationship scares me more. The "boiling frogs" way it happened, and how nobody was really up in arms

by tyingq 5y ago

Not great, but the whole Ring™ doorbell law enforcement relationship scares me more. The "boiling frogs" way it happened, and how nobody was really up in arms about it is interesting.

detritus 5y ago
Depends upon where you are. Here in Blighty at least, it looks like people are paying attention... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-58911296 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-58911296 ("Neighbour wins privacy row over smart doorbell and cameras").
irrational 5y ago
On Nextdoor this past week a neighbor posted about her doorbell camera capturing a naked guy running down the street at 3am. Everyone thought it was funny (probably lost a bet, her husband probably came home early, etc.), but my thought is, what is this world coming to when I can’t run down the street naked at 3 am without being filmed. Where is my privacy?
- threatofrain 5y ago
  On the flip side is the question of whether private citizens ought to be able to record each other in public; or even record police encounters, protests, crimes, etc. Rights must begin and end at the boundary of another person. So, to what degree should one be private when "exposed" to the public? And how might we secure such a private boundary?
  - filoeleven 5y ago
    There is no expectation of privacy in public. Public buildings (and increasingly, outdoor spaces) are littered with security cameras. That footage is subject to FOIA disclosure. If you are in public, you appear in public. Anyone who sees you can tell anyone else that they saw you, and they are a lot less reliable than a camera recording, for now. Changing this would require amending the first amendment’s freedom of the press clause.
- anonAndOn 5y ago
  Frank the Tank[0] as role model? [0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVi91fo8gw4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVi91fo8gw4
- mywacaday 5y ago
  I am so glad my "party" days were pre smart phone, social media and private security cameras. The thought of growing up without the opportunity to make mistakes without them being recorded for eternity depresses me for the generations to come.
  - thinkingemote 5y ago
    I agree and if there's some consolation it's that digital records tend to also get eroded over time, maybe quicker than old school photos. The key thing is to ensure they are not too save-worthy.
    - ohazi 5y ago
      > The key thing is to ensure they are not too save-worthy. Basically the definition of a chilling effect...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- bradknowles 5y ago
  If you’re in a public space, there is no expectation of privacy. Sorry dude, that horse left the barn along time ago.
Loughla 5y ago
Not only that, but from what I can tell, the use of ubiquitous, privately owned security cameras for police and other uses is being lauded by the public as a massive success. It's. Well. Terrifying to me that more than likely, my day-to-day is being recorded by someone, at all times. I genuinely do not like it, and I am sure that it is compounding my existing anxieties.
jollybean 5y ago
And it's often in the safest neighbourhoods. My family lives out in the safest burbs imaginable, with not a funny looking person for miles. 0 homeless. 0 crime. They all have these heavy security systems and door cameras. And the absence of crime is not due to these cameras. Just a kind of fearful mindset, and a lot of extra money.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  "And the absence of crime is not due to these cameras." Really? Otherwise safe neighbourhoods used to be a preferred target for burglars once, because there is a lot of valuable items to steal there. This kind of burglary is becoming less viable due to modern security systems, especially the sort that connect to a remote security service that sends a car to every alarm. Claiming that low level of crime means that security systems are a result of fearful mindset is not unlike claiming that being in good health shows that the immune system is superfluous and not worth the metabolic investment.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    The crime rate in those burbs was nil for the last 50 years and has not changed 'because spy cameras'. In my urban neighbourhood, the crime is visible, I see people trying to steal bikes. Crack deals out in the open. I left my door unlocked for 15 minutes and had Mac stolen. And I don't think cameras would make a blink of a difference. Semi-smart criminals with resources, driving across town to random middle class suburb to rob people of their Mircowave ovens is not really a thing. Surely it does happen, but it's a very rare event. If you live in the Hollywood Hills, you'll want cameras everywhere, or adjacent to a serious 'problem area' likewise, but otherwise, no.
    - inglor_cz 5y ago
      This really depends on the willingness of the local police force to review and use the footage. Sometimes, the insurance companies conduct their own investigation too, if they suspect insurance fraud or if the stolen items were extra expensive. Anyway, after I wrote my first comment, I started recalling all the burglary incidents in my surroundings and among my friends. There were like 20 of them in this century, so approximately one a year, not supercommon, but not too rare either. And their common denominator was poor home security. No one with a good door and closed windows got successfully broken into (there were failed attempts). People with subpar door/locks or leaving ground floor windows open at night OTOH definitely attracted successful criminal attention, even in better neighbourhoods. The country I live in is fairly safe otherwise, but theft of all kinds is depressingly common. Funnily, a friend of mine described me his own "security setup" in his old car. Two visible red LEDs on the dashboard, blinking, one of them starts to blink a little faster from time to time. Nothing else. Total cost like 2 USD. No one ever tried to steal his car. Good psychology.

by tyingq 5y ago

Not great, but the whole Ring™ doorbell law enforcement relationship scares me more. The "boiling frogs" way it happened, and how nobody was really up in arms about it is interesting.

detritus 5y ago

Depends upon where you are. Here in Blighty at least, it looks like people are paying attention... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-58911296 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-58911296 ("Neighbour wins privacy row over smart doorbell and cameras").

irrational 5y ago

On Nextdoor this past week a neighbor posted about her doorbell camera capturing a naked guy running down the street at 3am. Everyone thought it was funny (probably lost a bet, her husband probably came home early, etc.), but my thought is, what is this world coming to when I can’t run down the street naked at 3 am without being filmed. Where is my privacy?

threatofrain 5y ago
On the flip side is the question of whether private citizens ought to be able to record each other in public; or even record police encounters, protests, crimes, etc. Rights must begin and end at the boundary of another person. So, to what degree should one be private when "exposed" to the public? And how might we secure such a private boundary?
- filoeleven 5y ago
  There is no expectation of privacy in public. Public buildings (and increasingly, outdoor spaces) are littered with security cameras. That footage is subject to FOIA disclosure. If you are in public, you appear in public. Anyone who sees you can tell anyone else that they saw you, and they are a lot less reliable than a camera recording, for now. Changing this would require amending the first amendment’s freedom of the press clause.
anonAndOn 5y ago
Frank the Tank[0] as role model? [0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVi91fo8gw4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVi91fo8gw4
mywacaday 5y ago
I am so glad my "party" days were pre smart phone, social media and private security cameras. The thought of growing up without the opportunity to make mistakes without them being recorded for eternity depresses me for the generations to come.
- thinkingemote 5y ago
  I agree and if there's some consolation it's that digital records tend to also get eroded over time, maybe quicker than old school photos. The key thing is to ensure they are not too save-worthy.
  - ohazi 5y ago
    > The key thing is to ensure they are not too save-worthy. Basically the definition of a chilling effect...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
bradknowles 5y ago
If you’re in a public space, there is no expectation of privacy. Sorry dude, that horse left the barn along time ago.

Loughla 5y ago

Not only that, but from what I can tell, the use of ubiquitous, privately owned security cameras for police and other uses is being lauded by the public as a massive success. It's. Well. Terrifying to me that more than likely, my day-to-day is being recorded by someone, at all times. I genuinely do not like it, and I am sure that it is compounding my existing anxieties.

jollybean 5y ago

And it's often in the safest neighbourhoods. My family lives out in the safest burbs imaginable, with not a funny looking person for miles. 0 homeless. 0 crime. They all have these heavy security systems and door cameras. And the absence of crime is not due to these cameras. Just a kind of fearful mindset, and a lot of extra money.

inglor_cz 5y ago
"And the absence of crime is not due to these cameras." Really? Otherwise safe neighbourhoods used to be a preferred target for burglars once, because there is a lot of valuable items to steal there. This kind of burglary is becoming less viable due to modern security systems, especially the sort that connect to a remote security service that sends a car to every alarm. Claiming that low level of crime means that security systems are a result of fearful mindset is not unlike claiming that being in good health shows that the immune system is superfluous and not worth the metabolic investment.
- jollybean 5y ago
  The crime rate in those burbs was nil for the last 50 years and has not changed 'because spy cameras'. In my urban neighbourhood, the crime is visible, I see people trying to steal bikes. Crack deals out in the open. I left my door unlocked for 15 minutes and had Mac stolen. And I don't think cameras would make a blink of a difference. Semi-smart criminals with resources, driving across town to random middle class suburb to rob people of their Mircowave ovens is not really a thing. Surely it does happen, but it's a very rare event. If you live in the Hollywood Hills, you'll want cameras everywhere, or adjacent to a serious 'problem area' likewise, but otherwise, no.
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    This really depends on the willingness of the local police force to review and use the footage. Sometimes, the insurance companies conduct their own investigation too, if they suspect insurance fraud or if the stolen items were extra expensive. Anyway, after I wrote my first comment, I started recalling all the burglary incidents in my surroundings and among my friends. There were like 20 of them in this century, so approximately one a year, not supercommon, but not too rare either. And their common denominator was poor home security. No one with a good door and closed windows got successfully broken into (there were failed attempts). People with subpar door/locks or leaving ground floor windows open at night OTOH definitely attracted successful criminal attention, even in better neighbourhoods. The country I live in is fairly safe otherwise, but theft of all kinds is depressingly common. Funnily, a friend of mine described me his own "security setup" in his old car. Two visible red LEDs on the dashboard, blinking, one of them starts to blink a little faster from time to time. Nothing else. Total cost like 2 USD. No one ever tried to steal his car. Good psychology.