3 ms·

The title incorrectly implies that police can no longer ask users for surveillance video, while the actual change is that Amazon itself is going to stop sharing

by paxys 3y ago

The title incorrectly implies that police can no longer ask users for surveillance video, while the actual change is that Amazon itself is going to stop sharing it without a warrant. You can of course do anything with your video you want, including giving it to police.

g42gregory 3y ago
It looks like Bloomberg wrote this misleading article and put this title up, deliberately, on purpose. I don’t think it’s the OP’s fault. I wonder what else Bloomberg publishes on, in the same way?
- paxys 3y ago
  You don't have to wonder. Read like 5 more lines beyond the title and figure it out for yourself.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- redcobra762 3y ago
  Can you help me understand why the article/title is "misleading" or what their motive would be to do so "deliberately, on purpose"? I genuinely don't get the angle here you're suggesting Bloomberg has.
  - g42gregory 3y ago
    The poster above me pretty much explained it. The article suggests that Amazon won’t let the police to ask for videos anymore, which does not sound bad. In reality, Amazon was giving the videos to the police without warrant and, I am assuming, without notifying you. Now, that’s bad. So Bloomberg covers this up. Also, they call it “modifying public safety stance”? How about calling it “stopping privacy violations”? Also notice, they interweave the real information into the article so that they could say, well we actually told you all of this. But they are artfully trying to create a misdirection.
    - redcobra762 3y ago
      > In reality, Amazon was giving the videos to the police without warrant and, I am assuming, without notifying you. Is this actually true? My understanding was that Amazon was allowing law enforcement a simple form to ask the user of the Ring device if the police could access the videos, without a warrant.
IshKebab 3y ago
> Next week, the company will disable its Request For Assistance tool, the program that had allowed law enforcement to seek footage from users on a voluntary basis, How is this not stopping the police from asking users for surveillance video? Are you saying this statement is a lie? I don't think anyone is stupid enough to think that Amazon are somehow physically restraining the police from knocking on people's doors and asking them face to face. It's about requests facilitated by Amazon.

by paxys 3y ago

g42gregory 3y ago

It looks like Bloomberg wrote this misleading article and put this title up, deliberately, on purpose. I don’t think it’s the OP’s fault. I wonder what else Bloomberg publishes on, in the same way?

paxys 3y ago
You don't have to wonder. Read like 5 more lines beyond the title and figure it out for yourself.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
redcobra762 3y ago
Can you help me understand why the article/title is "misleading" or what their motive would be to do so "deliberately, on purpose"? I genuinely don't get the angle here you're suggesting Bloomberg has.
- g42gregory 3y ago
  The poster above me pretty much explained it. The article suggests that Amazon won’t let the police to ask for videos anymore, which does not sound bad. In reality, Amazon was giving the videos to the police without warrant and, I am assuming, without notifying you. Now, that’s bad. So Bloomberg covers this up. Also, they call it “modifying public safety stance”? How about calling it “stopping privacy violations”? Also notice, they interweave the real information into the article so that they could say, well we actually told you all of this. But they are artfully trying to create a misdirection.
  - redcobra762 3y ago
    > In reality, Amazon was giving the videos to the police without warrant and, I am assuming, without notifying you. Is this actually true? My understanding was that Amazon was allowing law enforcement a simple form to ask the user of the Ring device if the police could access the videos, without a warrant.

IshKebab 3y ago

> Next week, the company will disable its Request For Assistance tool, the program that had allowed law enforcement to seek footage from users on a voluntary basis, How is this not stopping the police from asking users for surveillance video? Are you saying this statement is a lie? I don't think anyone is stupid enough to think that Amazon are somehow physically restraining the police from knocking on people's doors and asking them face to face. It's about requests facilitated by Amazon.