HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Police can keep Ring came...

Wed Nov 20, 2019, 08:51 AM

Police can keep Ring camera video forever and share with whomever they'd like, Amazon tells senator

Source: Washington Post



Police officers who download videos captured by homeowners’ Ring doorbell cameras can keep them forever and share them with whomever they’d like without providing evidence of a crime, the Amazon-owned firm told a lawmaker this month.

More than 600 police forces across the country have entered into partnerships with the camera giant, allowing them to quickly request and download video recorded by Ring’s motion-detecting, Internet-connected cameras inside and around Americans’ homes.

The company says that the videos can be a critical tool in helping law enforcement investigate crimes such as trespassing, burglary and package theft, and that homeowners are free to decline the requests. But some lawmakers and privacy advocates say the systems could empower more widespread police surveillance, fuel racial profiling and spark new neighborhood fears.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/11/19/police-can-keep-ring-camera-video-forever-share-with-whomever-theyd-like-company-tells-senator/

19 replies, 1658 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 19 replies Author Time Post
Reply Police can keep Ring camera video forever and share with whomever they'd like, Amazon tells senator (Original post)
Mr. Sparkle Nov 20 OP
randr Nov 20 #1
Bernardo de La Paz Nov 20 #10
randr Nov 20 #11
Quackers Nov 20 #12
ancianita Nov 20 #2
MineralMan Nov 20 #3
karynnj Nov 20 #5
MineralMan Nov 20 #6
Marcuse Nov 20 #4
MineralMan Nov 20 #7
Quackers Nov 20 #13
MineralMan Nov 20 #14
Quackers Nov 20 #16
MineralMan Nov 20 #17
getagrip_already Nov 20 #18
Mr.Bill Nov 20 #8
Javaman Nov 20 #9
MineralMan Nov 20 #15
truthisfreedom Nov 22 #19

Response to Mr. Sparkle (Original post)

Wed Nov 20, 2019, 08:55 AM

1. Why do they not ask the policed to buy their own cams

and leave peoples private property alone?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randr (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 20, 2019, 12:15 PM

10. Your idea is to have as MANY POLICE cameras around as doorbells. Think again.


I dislike the idea of Amazon sharing doorbell videos with the police without a warrant, but I dislike your idea more.

It would be like the facial recognition systems being built all over China. Jaywalk and get a ticket in the mail.

Associate on a street with a known anti-tRump activist and get put on a no-fly list. That's where your idea leads.

No thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #10)

Wed Nov 20, 2019, 12:30 PM

11. No, I really do not want more cameras

I do not think it appropriate for them to ask for data from private sources. If they had to buy and install and monitor their own they may think it too costly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #10)

Wed Nov 20, 2019, 12:34 PM

12. They don't need a warrant because the camera owners consent to share the data with authorities. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mr. Sparkle (Original post)

Wed Nov 20, 2019, 09:23 AM

2. Corporate legal rights invoked yet again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mr. Sparkle (Original post)

Wed Nov 20, 2019, 09:45 AM

3. This raises all sorts of questions, along with all sorts of potential.

We're constantly being surveiled. Cameras on homes are the next step. Law enforcement has been using private security camera video to investigate crimes for quite some time now. Now, they'll be using video from residential cameras. I'm not sure what the difference is, really.

Almost daily, here in the Twin Cities of Minnesota, the morning news shows video of some suspect of something in the act of committing a crime or at the scene of a crime. Typically, an arrest soon follows. Why? Because creeps who commit criminal acts usually have pissed off people who know them. Those pissed off people drop a dime and ID the person in the video, and the police go an arrest that person.

The Ring camera on your house or on your neighbor's house is in play now. Several times, recently, burglars and car thieves have been caught quickly in my city because video was available.

Is privacy being invaded? Sure it is. But whose privacy?

Will such video get misused? Probably. Everything gets misused.

Disclaimer: I don't have a camera on my home, and have no plans to put one there. I have neighbors who have installed Ring systems, though. My motion sensor floodlights will help if one of those can see my house and a burglar shows up. We have burglars where I live, from time to time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #3)

Wed Nov 20, 2019, 11:17 AM

5. Nice post - there is a real trade off here

My husband, a daughter and I flew into Heathrow on the day that terrorists bombed some buses and the London subway. Within days, they had video on several of the suicide bombers because there were CCTV cameras all over the place. Having all this in place enabled them to have comfort in opening the various historical places and museums quickly.

When the Boston Marathon was bombed, I think it was that day or at least soon afterward that security cameras from several of the stores on that main road were used to get a picture of one of the bombers that led to his identification and the scary chase through the Boston area.

In both of these cases, I would assume that it would have been much harder to solve who was behind these acts of terrorism, meaning a longer period of fear and very heightened security.

After London, someone I know who has been in both the UK and the US for extended periods of time, mentioned that the US had greater reservations against the presence of CCTV cameras. As to whose privacy, I know that everyone who went down the elevators to the underground (subway) would have been filmed. However, even if there was any cause for embarrassment - ie my kids arguing or it being a bad hair day - was never a concern. I know that even after knowing that there were cameras, my family did not try to avoid them.

Like you, we do not have a camera on our condo. However, I would have no problem if a neighbor had one - and given the closeness, we were included in any captured video.

I do think that on a local, state or even federal level, legislation may be needed that defines how law enforcement must secure any video they opt to retain. Use should be limited to legitimate policing uses that could be carefully defined. Once a person has given the video to the police, it is reasonable that the police retain access to it. I am pretty sure if a person goes to the police and writes a complaint on something, that report stays with the police -- and, even years later, could have bearing on an investigation. Imagine a domestic abuse cases where it could lead police to someone who had previously been threatening. Now, in some of those cases, the earlier incident will be found to be irrelevant and that person will be investigated and will have had to go through questioning that might not otherwise have happened. But in some cases, it could lead to getting to the truth faster.

One thing to consider is that where the video might show only a detail in a long relationship, it is real and the original is not edited.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 20, 2019, 11:23 AM

6. The entire issue is complicated, and has 4th Amendment links.

However, video cameras are now just about everywhere, and pretty much everyone knows that. So, the assumption that we are on camera should be part of people's decision-making process, I think.

That such cameras have led to arrests and convictions of criminals will always be used as an argument for their use.

It's yet another one of those things that we can't reverse, I think. Will such video be misused? Of course it will. Anything will be misused. Will it help prevent crimes or lead to convictions? Of course it will. There's the balance that must be used to weigh the issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mr. Sparkle (Original post)

Wed Nov 20, 2019, 10:29 AM

4. As you watch your smart tv, it may be watching you

|

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marcuse (Reply #4)

Wed Nov 20, 2019, 11:27 AM

7. Or not. Alexa is listening to you, too...all the time.

If not, you could not say, "Alexa, what's the temperature outside." And, there is no internal processing going on inside your Echo device. It all happens in the cloud, which Alexa is always connected to. The question to ask is: Does anyone care what I say in my own home? The answer is almost certainly no.

So, you have to weigh the usefulness of technology against your personal privacy concerns. Is the TV watching you? Perhaps, but who is interested in the goings on where your TV is? Anyone? I doubt it very much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #7)

Wed Nov 20, 2019, 12:37 PM

13. You are correct.

And it was just recently that Apple said they will no longer have real people listening in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quackers (Reply #13)

Wed Nov 20, 2019, 12:43 PM

14. Neither does Amazon. Nobody could afford to have people listening.

It's ridiculous. What they have is algorithms that hear words and react to them. There are no people involved with Siri or Alexa in real time. It's all automatic. It's all algorithmic, on a scale that is hard to even imagine. That's the field I should have entered about 20 years ago. AI.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Quackers (Reply #16)

Wed Nov 20, 2019, 01:04 PM

17. Some humans listen to some things. The percentage that is heard by

human ears is so low, though, it's insignificant. People are very expensive and very, very slow. Data algorithms are cheap and fast.

I'm betting the excerpts that are listened to by humans are not attached to any identifying information. Instead, they're used to develop better algorithms. They don't give a damn what people are saying, except to make Google, Siri, and Alexa function better so they can sell more of them.

Here's what probably happens: The AI system chokes on something and can't react in an intelligent way, so that exchange is flagged and stored for human analysis. The question is: How should Alexa or Siri react in this situation? What needs to be changed in the algorithms?

I stumped Alexa yesterday, just playing around with the Echo. I asked, "What is the wavelength of a 7 megahertz radio signal?" It was a question for which I wanted an answer. Alexa said, "I don't know that." That was an unsatisfactory response. The Alexa system could not process my question.

It's likely that the Alexa system pulled my question into the human queue, where someone will eventually look at it and come up with a better response for that and related questions. It's simple. There are calculators for that on the internet. The question simply needs to be parsed and the number for the frequency entered into such a calculator. The only words from the question that are needed are wavelength, 7, and megahertz. Then Alexa can read the result to me. Or even simpler, the frequency I gave could simply be presented to a simple math formula and the result read to me. That would be faster.


So, I said "Hey, Google!" to my Android phone, and asked the same question. Cleverly, Google sent me to a wavelength/frequency calculator. It inserted the frequency and the answer was on my display. Google got it right.

My wife's iPhone wasn't available, so I didn't test Siri with the question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #17)

Wed Nov 20, 2019, 04:01 PM

18. human ears? not necessary with todays tech...

Voice can be converted to text, and powerful algorithms can search for keywords and tag specific recordings, add them to databases, and create a very comprehensive record of what you say - all without anyone "hearing" it... Until they do a search and your clip pops up.

That is the danger in these devices. Not someone sitting in their cube randomly listening to clips.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mr. Sparkle (Original post)

Wed Nov 20, 2019, 11:52 AM

8. That's not Amazon's decision to make.

It's a legal matter yet to be sorted out by the courts. Sometimes the law is slow to keep up with technology. Police departments are still writing the book on what to do with body cam video.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mr. Sparkle (Original post)

Wed Nov 20, 2019, 12:09 PM

9. thought about getting one, now, not anymore. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #9)

Wed Nov 20, 2019, 12:45 PM

15. That's OK. Your neighbors will get one.

Everyone doesn't have to have one for them to see everything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mr. Sparkle (Original post)

Fri Nov 22, 2019, 11:12 AM

19. Sounds like the very definition of fascism

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread