4 ms·

Ring forever became the 3rd party police with these things. I'll never own one, no matter what lies they trot out. It's all marketing garbage, because their p

Ring forever became the 3rd party police with these things. I'll never own one, no matter what lies they trot out. It's all marketing garbage, because their profits were impacted. Nothing more. edit: typo..doh

JohnFen 3y ago
> I've never own one I take it even further than that. I also try to avoid going anywhere near houses that have them.
- Paul-Craft 3y ago
  Isn't it kind of hard to tell if a house has one without actually going near it in the first place?
  - kkarakk 3y ago
    if you are in a neighborhood where everyone makes above a certain level of money literally every door has one. this is true across countries even(the cameras might not be called ring tho) turns out people do want a surveillance state, they were just uncomfortable putting cameras on the roofs
    - r0salesr 3y ago
      "turns out people do want a surveillance state" I don't think that follows. How is wanting a bit of personal security the same as wanting a "surveilance state"?
      - kkarakk 3y ago
        because it doesn't stop at personal security - they participate in the forums set up by ring and share videos of "problematic activity". that is a fundamental part of owning a ring camera - if you just cared about personal security you would buy a gun instead or live in a gated community. a camera isn't gonna do anything for you.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    It's hard to tell with 100% certainty, but most such devices have a distinctive light that can be seen from a distance. In any case, these things tend to be used by a fairly specific demographic that tends to congregate in specific neighborhoods, so I can use that as a proxy and avoid going to those neighborhoods.
    - lsaferite 3y ago
      > specific demographic that tends to congregate in specific neighborhoods Care to elaborate? I actually have no clue what you are talking about, so I'm curious.
      - sonicanatidae 3y ago
        They are talking about white and/or rich enclaves, likely.
cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
I don’t get it. This article points to concrete actions that Amazon is taking. It explicitly states end result. We can all agree that needing to get a warrant first makes things harder, yes? Are you implying that they are lying about this? Or are you implying that it’s meaningless because it’s not being done for what you see as commendable reasons? Please don’t use my questions as an opportunity to get on your soapbox. I am really just trying to understand if this is anything more than “Amazon bad”.
- free_bip 3y ago
  TFA states that they're still giving police footage without warrants. So if their claim is that they stopped giving police footage without warrants, then yeah, that would be a lie. But it sounds like they're freely admitting that they're going to continue giving footage without a warrant. So I wouldn't call it a lie, more a marketing strategy. "Oh we pinky promise we won't give away your footage without a warrant! ... Well, except maybe that one time. But that was a special case, surely you understand."
- sonicanatidae 3y ago
  I'm stating 2 things. 1. They cannot be trusted, so personally, I think their words are just words. You are welcome to trust them and not if, but when that goes esplodie, you'll know why I don't trust them. 2. It's a minor change to a continued violation of people's privacy, so essentially it's a meaningless change that sounds like change, but isn't really a change at all.

JohnFen 3y ago

> I've never own one I take it even further than that. I also try to avoid going anywhere near houses that have them.

Paul-Craft 3y ago
Isn't it kind of hard to tell if a house has one without actually going near it in the first place?
- kkarakk 3y ago
  if you are in a neighborhood where everyone makes above a certain level of money literally every door has one. this is true across countries even(the cameras might not be called ring tho) turns out people do want a surveillance state, they were just uncomfortable putting cameras on the roofs
  - r0salesr 3y ago
    "turns out people do want a surveillance state" I don't think that follows. How is wanting a bit of personal security the same as wanting a "surveilance state"?
    - kkarakk 3y ago
      because it doesn't stop at personal security - they participate in the forums set up by ring and share videos of "problematic activity". that is a fundamental part of owning a ring camera - if you just cared about personal security you would buy a gun instead or live in a gated community. a camera isn't gonna do anything for you.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  It's hard to tell with 100% certainty, but most such devices have a distinctive light that can be seen from a distance. In any case, these things tend to be used by a fairly specific demographic that tends to congregate in specific neighborhoods, so I can use that as a proxy and avoid going to those neighborhoods.
  - lsaferite 3y ago
    > specific demographic that tends to congregate in specific neighborhoods Care to elaborate? I actually have no clue what you are talking about, so I'm curious.
    - sonicanatidae 3y ago
      They are talking about white and/or rich enclaves, likely.

cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago

I don’t get it. This article points to concrete actions that Amazon is taking. It explicitly states end result. We can all agree that needing to get a warrant first makes things harder, yes? Are you implying that they are lying about this? Or are you implying that it’s meaningless because it’s not being done for what you see as commendable reasons? Please don’t use my questions as an opportunity to get on your soapbox. I am really just trying to understand if this is anything more than “Amazon bad”.

free_bip 3y ago
TFA states that they're still giving police footage without warrants. So if their claim is that they stopped giving police footage without warrants, then yeah, that would be a lie. But it sounds like they're freely admitting that they're going to continue giving footage without a warrant. So I wouldn't call it a lie, more a marketing strategy. "Oh we pinky promise we won't give away your footage without a warrant! ... Well, except maybe that one time. But that was a special case, surely you understand."
sonicanatidae 3y ago
I'm stating 2 things. 1. They cannot be trusted, so personally, I think their words are just words. You are welcome to trust them and not if, but when that goes esplodie, you'll know why I don't trust them. 2. It's a minor change to a continued violation of people's privacy, so essentially it's a meaningless change that sounds like change, but isn't really a change at all.