5 ms·
You could still be served a court order to hand over the footage, it is just a couple of steps harder than the one stop shop that is Ring / Amazon.
by shapefrog 4y ago
You could still be served a court order to hand over the footage, it is just a couple of steps harder than the one stop shop that is Ring / Amazon.
- barbazoo 4y agoAs long as it's within the retention period of the video data. It's nuts for Ring to store the data for 180 days. If I had exterior cameras, I'd store the data for maybe a week?! However long I'd need to backup important snippets in case something happens, like a theft.
- shapefrog 4y ago> If I had exterior cameras, I'd store the data for maybe a week? Annecdata - but people I know who have cctv around their home store for as long as possible, limited only by the storage size availiable - every motion from a car / person / tree blowing through the trees - years of recordings. People are selecting 180 days on Ring as the retention period (if they could select longer they probably would), the default is 60 days.
- barbazoo 4y agoThanks for correcting me on the retention period. What realistic use case am I missing that would require 60 days let alone, 180?
- bell-cot 4y agoI'd assume that the dominant use case for both is "self-medication of anxiety and other personality issues". Though I'm sure there are seasonal vacation homes, abuse victims with restraining orders against ex's, zealous ornithologists hoping to catch a glimpse of some extremely rare species of bird, and more.
- kodt 4y agoPeople may go in vacation for 2-4 weeks and not even realize something happened until they return. Or without even going on vacation I had an expensive DLSR camera stolen and didn’t realize it for 2 months when I went to take it out of its case. Assuming I had a security camera in that room 180 days would have been useful.
- at_a_remove 4y agoI think they can order you to hand over the files, but not decrypt them first.
- rom-antics 4y agoYou mean due process? Sounds great, sign me up!
- eternalban 4y agoGreat point.
- pc86 4y agoYeah, I don't think most people object to Ring video potentially being used by LE (I'm sure there are some though). I think the biggest complaint is the complete lack of due process and even the lack of notifying anyone when their footage is used.
- sneak 4y agoUS law enforcement is not to be trusted. Any data to which they have access is police abuse waiting to happen.
- sneak 4y agoNo. The article is about a failure of that exact system. Judges just sign search warrants for just about anything; the only thing they check for generally is that it's not involving the search of hundreds of people. Invading the privacy of 1-10 innocents is just a rubber stamp.
- JohnFen 4y agoYes, but obtaining footage directly from 10 different people is ten times more work than obtaining the same footage from a single source. That additional work increases friction and decreases (but certainly doesn't eliminate) the level of abuse that will happen.
- cptcobalt 4y agoThat means you (or someone that represents you) can fight back on unreasonable requests. That's great. Doesn't seem like Ring even gave half an ass.
- pc86 4y agoAmazon does a lot of business with the government. They have very little to gain over fighting about handing over video footage like this, and a lot to lose.