25 ms·
For this reason, I just cancelled my nest doorbell order. I will gladly share access with the police if the situation warrants it but I don't accept that Google
by igetspam 4y ago
For this reason, I just cancelled my nest doorbell order. I will gladly share access with the police if the situation warrants it but I don't accept that Google (or any company) should be able to make that decision without my consent.
- FollowingTheDao 4y agoBut will you stop using all of Google's products? "Google will allow law enforcement to access data from its Nest products — or theoretically any other data you store with Google — without a warrant."
- fooey 4y agoMy understanding is under US law, any data you allow a 3rd party to "see" (aka "host") is considered public and they don't need a warrant Police don't need a warrant to get into your gmail or icloud or whatever else you host with 3rd parties
- Grazester 4y agoand from my understanding this is incorrect.
- sennight 4y agoand from my understanding of the ECPA, opened email on a third party server is legally considered abandoned property and enjoys all the protection that a smashed washing machine next to the highway receives. After 180 days all bets are off, regardless of the message being previously read or not.
- xdennis 4y agoThe data isn't public. It belongs to Google. They can ask for a warrant or just give away "your" data willy nilly.
- digitalsushi 4y agoWait a second, do I need to panic that the police can thumb through my gmail, or not?
- solardev 4y ago
- Voeid 4y agoNote that this is already in-line with their policy, you've already agreed to hand over your data and allowed them to share it, so I don't understand why this single article suddenly changed your mind.
- jjulius 4y ago>... so I don't understand why this single article suddenly changed your mind. Prior ignorance of said policy (which is standard for most users), for one.
- lynndotpy 4y agoIs this tucked away in the Terms/Privacy policy? If so, it might be because they did not read the policy.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ren_engineer 4y ago1984 was overly optimistic about people, government didn't even need to enforce putting spying devices in homes. Instead a huge chunk opted in voluntarily with doorbell cameras, Alexa, and other smart devices
- arberx 4y agoIt's hilarious. Freedom/privacy-loving Americans voluntarily give it up for minor gains in comfort.
- ziddoap 4y agoGoogle's ToS is 16 pages with what appears to be about 50+ hyperlinks, including several hyperlinks to "additional service-specific terms" which itself has ~50 links to other terms which are all multiple pages. Perhaps instead of pinning all of the blame on users, we could have the companies producing labyrinthian ToS contracts written by top-grade lawyers and full of legalese (that no layperson should be expected to understand) shoulder at least some of the blame? This doesn't even touch on the fact that many topics (as related to data aggregation and privacy) are highly technical and require at least a few years of post-secondary to even begin wrapping your head around (e.g. de-anonymization via large sparse datasets is not something I can reasonably teach my 85-year old parent, nor to my child, both of which use Google services in some capacity). But, yes... Let's blame it on Average Joe, who just wants to watch their dog for a few minutes while at work and saw an ad on TV about a convenient way to do so. Shame on them for not being both a lawyer and a CS graduate.
- mstipetic 4y agoI don’t understand why aren’t there any standard terms of service which are generally applicable and companies can make minor adjustments to them if they can justify it
- NaturalPhallacy 4y agoBecause their in house lawyers tell them they need a custom made one. “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” — Upton Sinclair
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- cronix 4y agoNow if only you could get your neighbors to quit too. The ones that have it are all still recording you. You really only need one or two per block to monitor everyone on the street. ML should easily be able to work out "Silver Corolla with license plate ABC123 left 1200 Sunnyside St at 4:32pm and headed East." Then another one 3 blocks away can report the same car turning North on 127th, and then another can report...
- hammock 4y agoDon't live so close to your neighbors? Easier said than done, but on the long scale...
- JoshGlazebrook 4y agoThat would assume that nest and ring cameras are even capable of making out license plates. They're all crappy sensors with horrible night vision.
- MichaelCollins 4y agoSo you're saying it will only be a few more years then? Look at where cellphone cameras were 20 years ago, and where they are today. The present inadequacy of hardware doesn't give me any comfort.
- sparkbII 4y agoWhy would you stop at the first model once you are already in the ecosystem? People upgrade their devices all the time.
- stilldavid 4y agoOr live in a metro area with WAMI already in place...
- lotsofpulp 4y agoThis is much easier (and already accomplished) by the government installing license plate readers.
- TameAntelope 4y agoThis just seems extreme to me, considering how you've likely never been in this scenario and will in all likelihood not ever be in a scenario where you wouldn't give the police this information but Google would (e.g. your own home being robbed or a masked stranger ringing your doorbell). Sometimes I think people covet privacy for its own sake, and don't think about the practicalities. The whole point of living in a collective society is that we give up some freedoms for the sake of overall increased prosperity, that's always been the tradeoff, and this is just one of those tradeoffs.
- fleetwoodsnack 4y agoLouis Brandeis on the right to privacy: https://louisville.edu/law/library/special-collections/the-louis-d.-brandeis-collection/the-right-to-privacy https://louisville.edu/law/library/special-collections/the-l...
- TameAntelope 4y agoYeah, like I said, you give up some of your rights in order for a prosperous society to exist. I'm not denying the right exists, I'm saying we give up our other rights all the time for the benefit of society, why is privacy any different? Further, it's a spectrum. You're not putting a camera up for police to peruse at their leisure, it's only in specific situations.
- azlev 4y agoYou are not giving up privacy to a prosperous society, you are just giving up privacy. I couldn't find evidence that mass surveillance is good a society.
- judge2020 4y ago'prosperous society' ~= convenience, less human hours wasted on boring stuff. The convenience of a video doorbell and connected home sure seem worth it to me.
- shadowgovt 4y agoThe funny thing is I'm of the opposite mind. "Convenience and if I go missing mysteriously Google will hand info over to the people trying to find me? Win-win."
- progman32 4y agoThat's fine, as long as we're clear that is said in a position of privilege.
- xdennis 4y agoWould it be so difficult for Google to add a configuration step where people can explicitly consent to this?
- shadowgovt 4y agoThe short answer is "yes," but I would be in favor of it being added. Of course, it's not going to secure your data if somebody that isn't you is the one under threat of imminent harm or death and Google believes the data you are holding could save their life.
- olyjohn 4y agoIf that data is so relevant, then why can't they get a warrant?
- shadowgovt 4y agoUrgency. In the event of kidnapping, chances of successful rescue vs identifying a John Doe body six months later can be measured in hours.
- slingnow 4y agoYou're right! That hypothetical and highly unlikely scenario is completely worth all of the ways in which the tech could be and is being abused.
- ransom1538 4y agoI only use these types of cameras outside where neighbors are recording anyway. In home, I use internal networks.
- LorenPechtel 4y agoTo me, a Nest or Ring is pointed at a basically public space. So what if the cops can look at the feed?
- fknorangesite 4y agoBecause I don't want to live in a surveillance dystopia where the state - or Google or Amazon - has a camera on the outside of every house.
- Dylan16807 4y agoIt's bad for public spaces to be pervasively tracked.
- MichaelZuo 4y agoIs there an internally consistent reason for why that's bad? Because every argument I've seen along those lines fall apart after drilling down a few layers.
- oigursh 4y agoThere's a video of a panel with Moxie Marlinspike who says something along the lines that there is value in being able to break the law. It's how society evolves. Complete surveillance means no broken laws, means a relatively static society.
- hnick 4y agoThis was also mentioned as a theme in passing in a sci-fi book I read. One of the trends across civilisations was that some would become total surveillance states, and they always failed because they stopped progressing at that point.
- Dylan16807 4y ago99% of what I do in public should be immediately forgotten or only available by interviewing the specific people that were there, while they still remember. It shouldn't be possible to passively profile me and everyone else by putting cameras all over.
- unixbane 4y agoI rented a house 2 years ago and it had some cloud trash with camera and mic in it. I said I will move out unless they remove it. They simply removed it as it was there only to appease prospective tenants.