4 ms·

The prevalence of Amazon Ring is in large part because local police subsidize them and give them for "free" to underinformed citizens, and then access their pri

by uoaei 4y ago

The prevalence of Amazon Ring is in large part because local police subsidize them and give them for "free" to underinformed citizens, and then access their private data without their consent pretty much at will.

hackernewds 4y ago
Any proof for these claims?
- dogman144 4y ago
  https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ring%20selling%20data%20to%20law%20enforcement https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ring%20selling%20data%... There’s a USENIX paper floating around as well. Known for several years now. Wild OP is getting downvoted, this is known research for a few years.
- uoaei 4y ago
  There was an article on HN about the lack of consent part a few days ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32081900 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32081900 There's lots of firsthand evidence online about the free cameras themselves. It's not like they were particularly secret about the initiative.
vba616 4y ago
When I read articles about this sort of thing, I wonder if the reporters and readers are aware that when there is a (violent) crime in public, (at least in my area of the US) it is ordinary practice to go around to private businesses with nearby security cameras and request footage. I'm not minimizing the issue of consent, I just wonder if outraged people (especially HN types) are aware of how things are normally, and either way, are/would be outraged about voluntary cooperation. Is it generally considered ok to put up cameras and voluntarily help the police out of a desire to protect the community?
- parkingrift 4y ago
  He/she specifically said without consent.
  - vba616 4y ago
    Just because the camera owners consent doesn't mean the people caught on tape consented. Just because someone is angry about one thing doesn't tell you if they have a problem with something related, but slightly different. Which is why I was asking.

by uoaei 4y ago

hackernewds 4y ago

Any proof for these claims?

dogman144 4y ago
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ring%20selling%20data%20to%20law%20enforcement https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ring%20selling%20data%... There’s a USENIX paper floating around as well. Known for several years now. Wild OP is getting downvoted, this is known research for a few years.
uoaei 4y ago
There was an article on HN about the lack of consent part a few days ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32081900 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32081900 There's lots of firsthand evidence online about the free cameras themselves. It's not like they were particularly secret about the initiative.

vba616 4y ago

When I read articles about this sort of thing, I wonder if the reporters and readers are aware that when there is a (violent) crime in public, (at least in my area of the US) it is ordinary practice to go around to private businesses with nearby security cameras and request footage. I'm not minimizing the issue of consent, I just wonder if outraged people (especially HN types) are aware of how things are normally, and either way, are/would be outraged about voluntary cooperation. Is it generally considered ok to put up cameras and voluntarily help the police out of a desire to protect the community?

parkingrift 4y ago
He/she specifically said without consent.
- vba616 4y ago
  Just because the camera owners consent doesn't mean the people caught on tape consented. Just because someone is angry about one thing doesn't tell you if they have a problem with something related, but slightly different. Which is why I was asking.