3 ms·

Am I an idiot? I genuinely don't understand the chain of logic in this article, and I'm not being deliberately obtuse here. You shouldn't have the ability to pr

• local_crmdgeon 3y ago
  They don't like that having cameras provides objective evidence of the race of people who commit crime. They recommend against being able to prevent/punish these crimes, because that might be mean.
• guiambros 3y ago
  Maybe I'm being cynical, but the entire article feels like an excuse to have the last two paragraphs with links to their own reviews of "the best video doorbells". All of which are full of affiliate links, of course.
• themacguffinman 3y ago
  It's interesting that so many comments are bewildered at the article's argument - that Ring by default puts too much power in the untrustworthy police - when that's the mainstream argument put forth by privacy advocates on web tracking and data collection, an argument that should be pretty familiar here. Instead of the potential for Facebook/Google/Amazon to abuse your data, it's the potential for the American police to abuse crime reports. Instead of Facebook/Google/Amazon using their data to spy on and manipulate people, it's the police using Ring surveillance to go after minorities. Whenever you read "police" and wonder what's wrong with police access, pretend it's actually talking about data bogeyman "Facebook" instead. Maybe that'll help some folks understand the reasoning here: it's a classic "don't help the oppressors" narrative that becomes more familiar when you put a techie spin on it.