16 ms·
Amazon Ring's lost dog ad sparks backlash amid fears of mass surveillance
- damnesian 9mo agoKnow what is super easy to do? Not buy Amazon Ring products.
- mr_machine 9mo agoKnow what is super hard to do? Leave your house without being caught by someone else's Ring camera.
- niggernagger 8mo ago[dead]
- jedberg 9mo agoAmazon also had the ad about Alexa killing you. Not sure what they were thinking exactly.
- tantalor 9mo agoThat ad was great. I'm not sure how it sells Alexa products, but it was hilarious.
- cheschire 9mo agoWell you’re talking about it and not Siri
- ThunderSizzle 9mo agoJokes on them. I won't buy either. I'll stick with my home assistant a d locally owned devices. Lost internet today for hours and for once, my local devices had no issues. It depresses me I was even interested in app-based devices.
- wakamoleguy 9mo agoIt was some attempt at reductio ad absurdum. If you are concerned about letting Alexa into your home, you must be as irrational as Chris Hemsworth. Edit: I'm misusing reductio ad absurdum, but somebody will please tell me what the fallacy here is called.
- dmoy 9mo agoStraw man?
- 1970-01-01 9mo agoWhat backlash? "People voiced concerns" turns out to be 9 people if you follow the link. Where exactly is this backlash and why can't I smell it?
- wolvoleo 9mo agoRing has experienced backlash before when they allowed police departments to browse the imagery without any kind of oversight or warrant. And has changed their policies as a result (in the most minimal way but ok) And these are pretty high profile people whose job it is to represent the people who will also have concerns but don't all contact the verge about it :) By the way i use ring cameras too but I've already mitigated them a lot. Installed telephoto lenses that can only see the specific area I want them to see, and I removed the microphones so they can't hear what I'm saying. I got some free with my ring alarm so I didn't really want to waste the hardware either.
- ranger_danger 9mo agoIf you search for this story on other sites, the comments are full of backlash.
- igleria 9mo agoAt what number of people do you consider it a backlash?
- 1970-01-01 9mo ago1% of subscribers
- thesuitonym 9mo agoWhat about people who aren't subscribers and do not want their privacy invaded?
- 1970-01-01 9mo agoI'm afraid it's GDPR for them
- gentleman11 9mo agoFears of mass surveillance? It's already mass surveillance
- colechristensen 9mo agoThis nitpick in language adds nothing to the conversation and is fundamentally incorrect. "Fears of" does not imply the thing feared doesn't exist.
- raised_by_foxes 9mo agoFear of bears in the woods? We already had bears.
- davidw 9mo agoThe WeRateDogs guy broke character and put out a video attacking that ad https://bsky.app/profile/weratedogs.com/post/3mejrtyvkyc2o https://bsky.app/profile/weratedogs.com/post/3mejrtyvkyc2o
- GaryBluto 9mo ago[flagged]
- add-sub-mul-div 9mo agoBecause it's them finally becoming aware that abuses of surveillance are real and tangible and not cable news rhetoric.
- _DeadFred_ 9mo agoBecause we decided the Constitution doesn't apply to a huge group of people living within the United States, and that seems wrong to those of us raised to believe the Constitution was important and the actual law of the land. It kind of doesn't work at all once we add a government decided 'subjective' layer on top of it. You could argue that already happened but this is the first most obvious in our faces instance.
- neogodless 9mo agoI have documentation proving that I am, in fact, the Average American Citizen. I am not fine with mass surveillance.
- csours 9mo agoObjection: facts not in evidence! The problem with the current push on "illegal immigrants" is that 1. It has been incredibly brutal 2. Many of the currently "illegal" immigrants were not illegal until their status was revoked by the current president. 3. The question of your immigration status, under the current system, is decided without proper access to legal representation. These problems are very much worth drawing a line in the sand over. --- Some people feel that the current push is solving a real problem in the real world. Unfortunately, the real world is actually very complicated, and you can't flatten that complication without violence. If that is hard to imagine, replace the ICE acronym with Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, Bureau of Land Management, or Internal Revenue Service.
- Archelaos 9mo agoWhat exactly are the "neighborhood cameras" mentioned in the article?
- jedberg 9mo agoEveryone's Ring doorbells and cameras.
- Archelaos 9mo agoIs it legal in the USA to point them on public ground?
- throwway120385 9mo agoYes it's legal to record spaces that are generally visible to the public.
- wolvoleo 9mo agohttps://archive.is/J7KGU https://archive.is/J7KGU Archive link posted because in some cases (not all, strange enough) there's a paywall ("subscribe to continue reading")
- crooked-v 9mo agoThat ad gave me a visceral shudder of revulsion, not so much for the specific functionality on display as for the timing, which absolutely could not have been accidental. They might as well have just put 'and we're working on automatic alerts for ICE!' in the ad.
- themafia 9mo ago"Helping abusive husbands find their escaped wives."
- blibble 9mo agothat advert is just so horribly manipulative it's borderline evil how can normal people go to work and produce this output? (I suppose everyone that is prepared to work at Amazon corporate is... a certain type of person)
- idle_zealot 9mo agoIt's not really about the individual people. They're probably all pretty normal interpersonally. Our systems reward this behavior, so people do it. Surveillance is desired by the politically and economically powerful, and the contravening forces are weak and largely unorganized. Do we punish politicians or businesses for bad behavior? No? Then they'll engage in whatever behavior advances their interests. You could purge the world of every single person with evil intentions, and things would maybe get better for a little while, but without fundamentally changing the underlying rules of the system the same thing would play out again with different actors.
- blibble 9mo ago> They're probably all pretty normal interpersonally. have you seen the cult like statements they make you emit if you want to pass the interview? I had a colleague that interviewed there (and was accepted) over the space of that month he completely changed (and not for the better)
- gorjusborg 9mo ago> It's not really about the individual people. They're probably all pretty normal interpersonally. Our systems reward this behavior, so people do it. Sorry, but people who do things they normally wouldn't because they are rewarded are not good people. They may be 'normal' in a distribution sense, but that doesn't mean the behavior becomes acceptable through it becoming commonplace.
- pbhjpbhj 9mo agoThe idea is compelling to consider though - I just saw a clip of comedian Romesh Ranganathan saying that a reason he hasn't cheated on his wife is lack of opportunity; another side of the same idea. Perhaps we would all be shit-head billionaires if given the opportunity. Most of us stay within our ethical lane, but then we don't have the money to afford a private island to abuse people on; we don't have to resist the temptation to incite an insurrection, or to shift gold markets by threatening a war ... perhaps we'd be tempted?
- text0404 9mo agoEven more concerning is that Ring is partnering with Flock [1], which has been the subject of quite a bit of controversy recently [2][3][4], with the CEO lashing out at critics with inflammatory language [5][6]. [1] https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-and-ring-partner-to-help-neighborhoods-work-together-for-safer-communities https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-and-ring-partn... [2] https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-roundup https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-roundup [3] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/10/ice-school-cameras-police-license-plates https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/10/ice-school-c... [4] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/12/effs-investigations-expose-flock-safetys-surveillance-abuses-2025-review https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/12/effs-investigations-ex... [5] https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-ceo-goes-ballistic https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-ceo-goes-... [6] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46903556 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46903556
- toephu2 9mo ago[flagged]
- whatthe12899 9mo ago> the reduction in crime is not solely due to Flock, but is has definitely helped. what's the theory? murderers see flock cams and decide not to murder? most of the general public doesn't even know what these cameras are (or that they even exist).
- toephu2 9mo agoPeople tend to behave if they know they are being watched. Yeah it's not going to stop crime 100%, but I bet you it will (and it has) help reduce crime by double digit percentages. Look at places where there are CCTV cameras all over, there is very little crime there compared to the United States. I won't use China as an example because then you are going to attack me for saying it's an authoritarian state. In that case I will use democratic examples: Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore.
- mjr00 9mo agoThe Dark Knight was released in 2008. In that movie, Batman hijacks citizens' cellphones to track down the Joker, and it's presented as a major moral and ethical dilemma as part of the movie's overall themes. The only way Batman remains a "good guy" in the eyes of the audience is by destroying the entire thing once he's done. Crazy to think that less than two decades later, an even more powerful surveillance technology is being advertised at the Super Bowl as a great and wonderful thing and you should totally volunteer to upload your Ring footage so it can be analyzed for tracking down the Jok... I mean illegal imm... I mean lost pets.
- ViktorRay 9mo agoThe Dark Knight was released in the summer of 2008. This was almost 7 years after 9/11. Many aspects of that film were deliberately done to explore post 9/11 America. This includes the methods Harvey Dent uses, the things the Joker says, and the surveillance scenes and more. These discussions surrounding surveillance have been around long before 2008.
- mjr00 9mo agoOf course. The use of mass surveillance in the movie is not-so-subtly referencing the PATRIOT Act. But again, it's presented as a moral dilemma, and multiple protagonists acknowledge that it's far too powerful to exist, and its use is a last resort. It falls into the larger theme of Joker pushing Batman to violate his ethics for the greater good. One could argue that because it was successfully used to catch Joker, the movie concludes that mass surveillance is sometimes necessary to stop evil, but it's at least presented as a dilemma. A massive corporation coming out and saying "mass surveillance is awesome because you can find lost pets" is a crazy escalation of the surveillance state.
- jazzyjackson 8mo agoCharlie's Angels (circa 2000) uses voice recognition and geolocation of cell signal as the terrifying new technology that allows the villain to track down his nemesis, Charlie. The entire film is about the Angels getting hoodwinked into giving Sam Rockwell access to the mainframe. Fun movie.
- ChrisArchitect 9mo ago[dupe] Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46950915 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46950915
- nullbyte 9mo agoI'm afraid that ship has sailed
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- Gagarin1917 9mo agoBullshit. The only people worried are the ones that were already concerned and never bought a Ring. I guarantee the vast majority of people LOVE this new feature.
- i_love_retros 9mo agoBullshit to you sir. I have a ring and have cancelled my subscription because of their scummy behavior
- JoshTriplett 9mo agoThank you for that. But please consider taking down the camera, too; it's just as much of a problem without a subscription, because you are the service being sold, not just the customer. Get one that stores and processes video entirely locally instead.
- i_love_retros 8mo agoCan they still see through my camera if I have removed the location from my account?
- JoshTriplett 8mo agoI would expect so, yes; I certainly wouldn't bet against it. I can think of any number of ways for a network-connected camera to figure out approximately where it is, and even if it doesn't know approximately where it is, it can still provide video and that video could go through any amount of server-side analysis.
- gorjusborg 9mo agoPart of the problem here is that people who love it are affecting people who do not. If you want to put cameras to record inside your home, fine, but this is people recording their neighbors without consent. The sales pitch is finding Fido, but I doubt that is the end game here.
- josefritzishere 9mo agoAmazon has a very bad track record in this area. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/amazon-is-waging-a-war-on-privacy https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/amazon-is-wagi...
- Traubenfuchs 9mo ago> joseffritz As an Austrian I have to wonder, is this name a homage to Josef Fritzl, one of the most well known Austrians of modern time?
- bradley13 9mo agoRecording public spaces should be illegal. Public street? Public sidewalk? Not your turf, no cameras, no recording.
- jedberg 9mo agoI'm not sure you've thought this through. That would mean you can't record law enforcement or any other abuse of power. The issue here isn't the recording, it's the packaging it up for sale that's the issue.
- nullc 8mo agoI've given a bit of thought on this, and I think the best path might be civil liability for the privacy loss-- defined broadly. Private security camera that never goes anywhere? You're fine. Start posting that same footage online where it results in people being massively tracked: big liability. I think otherwise it's too difficult to define the exact boundary between harmful and harmless use-- instead it's better to say that if your use harms someone you'll regret it.
- toephu2 9mo agoSo google maps streetview should be illegal?
- Dylan16807 9mo agoI think that goes too far, but limiting public space recordings to a camera you're operating in person would be a good starting point.
- alex43578 9mo agoGood idea: keep the confrontational 1st amendment auditors, lose the benefits of security cameras. /s
- Dylan16807 9mo agoNo idea who you mean by the first group. Security cameras are fine for filming your own property.
- gbolcer 9mo agoYeah in a world where if you post a Ring video of someone taking a crowbar to your mailbox which gets a strike in your neighborhood group and the video down for "hate", yeah, as useful as it is, the mass surveillance stuff is pretty alarming.
- foxfired 9mo agoThere’s no need to fear the construction of mass surveillance anymore. It’s already here. We built it one convenience at a time [0]. When I see all my friends with Alexa devices at home, ring cameras, and a million food apps on their phones, it feels like it’s already too late. [0]: https://idiallo.com/blog/we-have-all-we-need-for-mass-surveillance https://idiallo.com/blog/we-have-all-we-need-for-mass-survei...
- an-allen 9mo agoThe fears of mass surveillance are some of the funniest things I can think of. Do you think a tree grows a leaf and then says I don’t care what you do leaf.
- pibaker 9mo agoThere would be less backlash to the Ring ad if the ad was honest about how people actually use it. Show us porch pirates, burglars and stupid neighbor who backs into your car being caught on camera. But instead, they have to come up with something "wholesome" like finding your lost doggo. The wholesomeness is so forced and cringe that it makes you think they have something to hide. It almost feels like the people who wrote this ad and the people who greenlit it knew something was wrong so they have to come up with a cover story. But like a child smiling at you with his biggest smile while anxiously keeping his hands behind his back, it only makes them more suspicious especially in a time when big tech feels more and more like an adversary than a friend.
- wat10000 9mo agoIsn't the whole point of the ad that they have a new feature and they want people to know about it? They're not making up the idea of finding lost dogs. They have a new feature where you upload a photo of your lost dog and it automatically looks for the dog in camera feeds.
- frm88 8mo agoThe ad states that 1 million dogs are lost every year and that Ring returns 1 dog every day. Could the uselessness of the feature be any more prominent?
- Auracle 8mo agoIt’ll probably be significantly more now that people know about it. And I doubt those 365 families a year think it’s useless.
- frm88 8mo agoIf you cannot take care/train of your dog maybe you shouldn't have one. Total neighbourhood surveillance for the benefit of the 0.03% is way out of proportion.
- 8mo ago
- dev_l1x_be 9mo agoAre you a dog?? No?? So you do not have anything to worry about!! So they say.
- orthecreedence 8mo agoRisking downvotes, I am adding this so I can always be reminded of this comment and how much it made me laugh.
- Animats 9mo agoThey don't have a lost-kid feature? In China, kids are accustomed to face recognition early.[1] The kids are checking into school via fare gates with face recognition. Here's an ad for Hikvision surveillance systems showing the whole system.[2] Hikvision has a whole series of videos presenting their concept of a kindly, gentler Big Brother. This is probably the most amusing.[3] Amazon's concept is in some ways more powerful. They don't need full coverage. Just sparse, but widespread coverage. Anything that moves around will pass through the view of cameras at some point. Suspicious behavior can be detected in the back end cloud processing, which improves over time. Flock has the same concept. Flock coverage is sparse in terms of area, but widespread. "1984" was so last cen. [1] https://www.youtube.com/shorts/SMKG8aLTJ38 https://www.youtube.com/shorts/SMKG8aLTJ38 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnHFJz-u85A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnHFJz-u85A [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otAuH6FDhgw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otAuH6FDhgw
- toephu2 9mo ago[flagged]
- nilamo 9mo agoThat's beside the point? Gaining security by losing freedom was always on the table. What's interesting is the cultural shift toward not caring about losing freedom.
- toephu2 9mo agoEverything I want to do in public I can still do. What "freedom" is lost? I gain security and lose no freedoms (unless you are doing something illegal). When property crime is up 53%.. plenty of people are willing to lose "freedom" whatever you are referring to, in exchange for safety.
- warkdarrior 9mo agoYou were recorded smoking marijuana, an illegal drug at the federal level. You were recorded walking into an abortion clinic, although face recognition identified as a resident of a state where abortion is illegal.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 9mo agoI think Nancy Guthrie and the release of the doorbell video by scouring Google’s caches has done far, far more to make people want video cameras and cloud storage than any ad.
- throwaway743 9mo agoWhat's not given as much coverage is how she didn't have a subscription, yet the footage was still recorded pulled from servers. That's concerning.
- russellbeattie 9mo agoAmazon marketing broke a fundamental rule about consumer tech: Don't remind users about how much Big Tech knows about you. Your various devices track everywhere you go, who you communicate with, what you search for, what you buy, what audio you listen to, what videos you watch, what games you play, who your family is, all your pictures and video you take, who comes and goes from your house, when you sleep, your health data, and much more. And as a fundamental part of Big Tech's business they accumulate, aggregate and analyze all that information in various ways to increase profits. They don't keep this a secret, but wisely they normally don't brag about it to the general public. Consumers have shown that are totally willing to give up privacy for convenience. Just don't remind them of it.
- manicennui 9mo agoDid they not realize that it is already a mass surveillance network?
- jimt1234 9mo agoI thought Ring was already sending data to law enforcement agencies (that paid Amazon for it). Also, I thought the EULA included language that basically said, "All your data are belong to us", so they could already do whatever surveillance they want.
- isametry 9mo agoThe Circle (2017) is by no means a perfect movie, based on a 2013 book which I’m told is only marginally better. But it did do a surprisingly accurate job of depicting pretty much this exact scenario, 9 (13) years in advance. As in: sleek FAANG holds a grand showcase of mass surveillance using its ubiquitous user-installed smart cameras, under the guise of a good cause. https://youtube.com/watch?v=Mro9RCAhvE4 https://youtube.com/watch?v=Mro9RCAhvE4 (The fictional story is slightly more blunt about it, the good cause being finding wanted persons, rather than lost dogs).
- kmoser 9mo agoEven if it can and will only be used to track dogs, that means if I have a photo of someone's dog I can track it and learn that the owner is (likely) away from their house.
- frm88 8mo agoGood point! Thank you.
- xyst 9mo agoA country ruled by fear has their "security" systems turned on themselves. We truly live in an Orwellian dystopia
- CrzyLngPwd 9mo agoA mobile phone is the surveillance dictators' wet dream. What are my subjects doing...tap tap tap...ah there they are. Oh him, he needs to be cancelled, he isn't where I wanted him to be.
- frm88 8mo agoFeersum Endjinn has this plot line. Can recommend.
- CrzyLngPwd 8mo agoOhhh thank you :-)
- teaearlgraycold 9mo agoJust airtag your dog? Jesus Christ.
- eddyg 9mo agoQuoting from the press release: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2026/01/apple-introduces-new-airtag-with-expanded-range-and-improved-findability/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2026/01/apple-introduces-new-... "Designed exclusively for tracking objects, and not people or pets" (emphasis mine)
- VanTheBrand 9mo agoThat’s just so you don’t sue the over your lost dog
- batiudrami 9mo agoOr your dog eating the AirTag with the button battery inside it
- dabinat 8mo agoI think it’s also for practical reasons: your dog needs to be near a person with an iPhone. If the dog is in the middle of the woods it won’t show up. Generally most objects require a person to move them and so the chances of them being near an iPhone are much higher.
- apparent 9mo agoThe situation with the Nancy Guthrie disappearance and Nest camera footage is related, and interesting. It seems that she had a Nest doorbell camera, but didn't pay for the subscription plan ($100/yr?). As a result, the camera records short snippets but doesn't save them to the cloud in a user-accessible way. After a week, Google finally hunted down/coughed up the footage. I imagine there were some people within Google who realized that if they provided the footage immediately, then it could discourage people from paying for the subscription. Of course, they must also realize that by not providing the footage sooner, they may have allowed the perp to get away, or the victim to be killed.
- ibejoeb 9mo agoThat is one of the weirder aspects of this run of the simulation. Ring: just want you to know that we record everything whether you pay us or not and we know where you dog is. Savannah: Where's Ma? Ring:
- apparent 9mo agoFWIW, Nancy's camera was a Nest, not Ring.
- ibejoeb 9mo agoMy mistake. Despite that, I don't have much confidence that nest isn't also uploading everything at all times.
- apparent 8mo agoI do. The battery life on our units varies depending on the amount of foot traffic that they see. One is at our front door, where package deliveries and entry/egress trigger 5-10 times daily, and the other is in our backyard, where it is triggered a 5-10 times weekly. The backyard camera lasts much longer per charge. This tends to indicate that they are only recording/uploading in response to specific triggers. They also have LEDs that supposedly light up whenever they are recording.
- ibejoeb 9mo agoIt's so overt that I wouldn't blame you for thinking that they don't care and that they want you to know.
- LightBug1 9mo agoMove Fast and Stasi Things ...
- morkalork 9mo agoIt's you. You're the dog. Now roll over and sit-pretty for your oligarchical overlords.
- IAmGraydon 9mo agoYet massive numbers of people (I'm sure including many on this thread) are buying and installing Ring cameras. It's always been a surveillance network.
- puppycodes 9mo agoFears? This has already been happening for years.
- rightbyte 8mo agoLLMs might have changed the feasibility of cheap data analysis a bit.
- analogpixel 9mo agoI wonder if we'll see backlash of people wandering around ripping out/smashing/destorying ring cameras from their neighbors doors.
- mixmastamyk 8mo agoI've thought about spray painting them pink, so they stand out.
- tjpnz 8mo agoAre people going to start referring to said homeowners as ringholes?
- drnick1 9mo agoThe main issue is that fearmongering, aggressive marketing (as seen here), and subsidized pricing has convinced people to buy that spyware. The playbook is very much the same as for the Alexa and other "bugs" people now willingly pay for and place in the middle of their homes, constantly recording and monitoring their activities. In reality, these cameras are next to useless when it comes to protecting the owners as seen in other news. If you fear a home invasion, it's a shotgun that you need, not a Ring camera.
- colinhb 8mo agoVery much appreciated the internet's #1 dog-rating account covering this: https://www.instagram.com/reels/DUlye8NETR3/ https://www.instagram.com/reels/DUlye8NETR3/
- flyingzucchini 8mo agoWe are all now dogs
- m3kw9 8mo agoThis is Airtag, but for video
- ram_rattle 8mo agoI genuinely want someone to build nice tech to solve this problem, I have a cctv at my home and once a month a cop shows up to get some info on a crime that has happened in my area, tech like homomorphic encryption should get really really good so that searching for a image or video in a footage should not create privacy nightmare.
- oort-cloud9 8mo ago[dead]
- matt-attack 8mo agoDid anyone catch the recent development in the Nancy Guthrie kidnapping story? For days it was explained that, while she had a Nest doorbell camera (which was stolen by the kidnapper) it was sadly useless because Nancy wasn’t paying for cloud storage. Just live video and notifications. Well what do know happened today? The video of the kidnapper was magically produced by Google. I guess, even when you don’t pay for storage, they’re… you know…. Recording and saving the video anyway. No one’s really bothered to point this out as they’re all just so excited that the video has turned up.
- zombot 8mo agoIt has been pointed out in another HN comment thread, but ... surveillors gonna surveil, that's how they make money and accumulate power.
- maxehmookau 8mo agoTurns out you're not buying the storage and compute required to store your video. Google can afford that regardless of whether you pay. They're licensing your own video back to you.
- pardon_me 8mo agoDo they just store everything? How long is that sustainable?
- bruckie 8mo agoGoogle doorbell cameras send clips to the cloud. They're accessible to users for 3 hours for free, and a month or two if you pay. While they become unavailable to users after 3 hours, it's unlikely that they're deleted immediately—partly for operational reasons (easier to clear out many clips periodically in a batch process, rather than individual clips one by one exactly when they expire), and partly because Google keeps a lot of data around for a short period (a week or two) to be able to debug systems. Even when data is requested to be deleted, it's often possible to recover it from off-site backups or soft-deleted data stores for a while. Google ensures that all user data is actually, irrecoverably deleted within 2 months after a deletion request (see https://policies.google.com/technologies/retention https://policies.google.com/technologies/retention).
- wraptile 8mo agoThe frog has been boiled when it comes to information privacy and if you were an alien you'd think humanity sacrificed privacy and safety for something important but no, it's to trace someone's lost dog. Hilarious.
- motbus3 8mo agoWhat people mean by "could be used?" That's the wrong verbe tense.
- elischleifer 8mo agoOf all the things Amazon brings to the marketplace - global surveillance is not one I would advertise on the superbowl.
- aroheir 8mo agoThe system could have used base64 encryption, imagine a mood mesh ring or 'gizmo' for Kotlin DSL code reviews.