This map only details agreements related to Neighbors by Ring (i.e., agencies that have signed a Memorandum of Agreement with Ring for use of a "law enforcement portal"), and I don't think there are any such agreements at non-US agencies. I am aware of subsidy contracts in the United Kingdom, but those types of contracts are out of scope for the moment.
Source: [I made the map](https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/co0vzl/this_map_shows_if_your_towns_police_are_tapped/ewg3n2a)
Exactly. This is literally the same process as uploading a video from a “dumb” camera. The fact that it’s a Ring camera makes no difference.
It’s a glorified web forum for sharing videos.
I'm the guy who made the map. There's more context at my [blog post](https://sgandlur.com/ring-map/) and [accompanying Twitter thread](https://twitter.com/rot13x2/status/1159474352087326724?s=19).
I agree with all of you that the title of this article is weird. I think this Vice article is better: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qvg4vx/new-map-reveals-that-at-least-231-cities-have-partnered-with-ring
Regardless of your feelings about Ring cameras, transparency about what technologies local governments are using is important. Ring repeatedly declined to reveal the police departments they were partnering with, which is why I decided to make this map. I put these caveats in the blog post, but I'll recount them here:
1. This only details agreements related to the Neighbors by Ring app. These agreements are in the form of Memorandums of Understanding, in which Ring gives police agencies access to a law enforcement portal in exchange for police agencies trying to get more people to sign up for/buy Ring products. There's also a clause about any press releases needing to be approved by both parties.
2. There are several agreements related to subsidy contracts, in which local municipalities use taxpayer dollars to subsidize the purchase of Ring cameras for their residents. I don't include those in the map.
3. There are several agencies in the process of making agreements. I'm not including them in the map right now.
4. There are several agencies that are missing. The memo that said there's more than 225 police agencies in the program is from April, and new agencies join every day.
It's disappointing that the headline distracts from the issues at hand, which I see as these:
1. Troubling lack of transparency in partnerships between government and industry: you can't hold government accountable if it won't tell you what it's doing
2. The centralization of power within one company: even if each police agency only gets a little bit of information, Amazon is getting the sum of everything - and do we want a future where we need to trust a single company to not commit malfeasance?
3. Police departments (and in extension, governments) becoming PR firms for private corporations/subsidizing purchase of equipment from private corporations
4. The deployment of mass-scale surveillance technology, of which Ring is only a part: Ring is important, but so is facial recognition technology, license plate recognition technology, etc. being deployed at large scale
5. The long-term future of privacy rights around the world: the pace of agencies signing these Memorandums of Understanding seems to be increasing, based on the press releases I went through. With a lot of these technologies, it's not sufficient to think about what's going on today, but what might happen in the future. With that in mind, we can try to stop these technologies from being deployed, because once they are deployed, it'll probably be too late.
But a lot of these discussions will get derailed over the word "tapped" now, and that's very unfortunate. On the positive side, more than 5000 people have viewed my blog post from the Gizmodo article and hopefully they'll read my blog post/Twitter thread and glean some context. I'll keep doing what I'm doing: try to perform fact-/document-based reseach and hopefully help create some more transparency in what local governments and private corporations are doing with regards to surveillance. I've been in touch with people from organizations like EFF and Fight for the Future and hopefully the data I compiled in this map can do some good.
I should make it clear I don't agree with the headline either, none of those are my words. Unfortunately that's what all the aggregators picked up and the Gizmodo article is what most people are going to see, even though the Wire article was first.
To be fair, how many people here would click a modern gizmodo article and expect it to be entirely accurate? Not that this excuses it of course, but I'd imagine most people on subreddits like this know better by now.
As far as I know, Minneapolis doesn't have this type of agreement (let me know if I'm wrong though!) Rochester [joined the program last week](https://www.postbulletin.com/news/local/does-police-partnership-with-ring-threaten-privacy/article_397f013e-b3d2-11e9-b369-3798195c79ca.html) which is why they are on the map.
> Ring, the smart doorbell home security system Amazon bought for over $1 billion last year, is involved in some fairly unnerving arrangements with local law enforcement agencies.
That's something that a user should have full control over and is absolutely unacceptable if enabled without their knowledge.
Be extremely careful when looking at any smart home device, especially if offered as a service with external servers.
I mean... It's a camera that streams to servers that aren't yours, nor is it encrypted with a password or key that only you have...
So Amazon can do whatever the hell they want to with it.
The issue is that there is a surveillance state being created under our noses while almost all of us snooze. In this case, they're offering to give people something in exchange for helping them spread the reach of their surveillance. This concentrates too much power in the hands of too few, at least in the opinion of myself and many here.
I'm not talking about me and you. I'm talking about our neighbors we have no control over. I see the dangers in giving my government exceptional surveillance powers that dilute the 4th Amendment, but my neighbor obviously doesn't, since he's participating in the program. I'd wager that there's more people ignorant of this danger than not, and the ignorant people unwittingly help build the massive surveillance network.
The main point is that my inalienable Constitutional rights ought not require me to be diligent and knowledgeable on an issue in order to keep them. Getting tricked out of being free must not be allowed, otherwise our laws are only as strong as the most ignorant or foolish among us. These participants are not doing anything against their will, but they're being fooled into building something they almost surely wouldn't want if they fully realized what they were doing.
Anyone who fails to recognize the creeping increase of government power over it's citizens is among those being tricked. Maybe tricked is not the right word, but I think these participants would be less eager to help put a camera on every inch of the country if they saw the logical conclusion of giving this kind of power to anyone. All governments in history have examples of abuses of power, and they all have examples of changing the rules mid-stride, making previously legal actions now criminal, sometimes even retroactively. I think that one should not be so quick to trust one's government. They are no different from any other strangers.
These are not super immediate concerns. I don't foresee an impending police state and I own not a single tinfoil hat. I am saying that bad situations develop slowly over years, so we should always be on the look out for things that can go badly or have unintended consequences. There is nothing wrong with asking ourselves if new laws and government programs constitute an overreach of their authority or infringe on people's freedom to go about their business without being messed with.
[This](https://www.govtech.com/security/Amazons-Ring-Video-Camera-Alarms-Privacy-Advocates.html) article mentions that they can also request footage directly from Amazon, without users’ consent, if it’s been uploaded to the cloud.
> However, he noted, there is a workaround if a resident happens to reject a police request. If the community member doesn’t want to supply a Ring video that seems vital to a local law enforcement investigation, police can contact Amazon, which will then essentially “subpoena” the video.
>“If we ask within 60 days of the recording and as long as it’s been uploaded to the cloud, then Ring can take it out of the cloud and send it to us legally so that we can use it as part of our investigation,” he said.
For those who don’t know, all footage captured by Ring *has* to be uploaded to the cloud. There’s no other option.
There are clearly problems with this service.
It’s even in their privacy policy:
> We also may disclose personal information about you (1) if we are required to do so by law or legal process (such as a court order or subpoena); (2) in response to requests by government agencies, such as law enforcement authorities.
Also, where is this denial of the claim by Ring? Please post a source.
Under the section titled “Information we collect”
the policy states:
> In addition, our products and services are designed to allow you to see, hear and speak to anyone at your door from your computer or mobile device, and collaborate with others in your community. To provide you with these services, we obtain content (and related information) that is captured and recorded when using our products and services, such as video or audio recordings, live video or audio streams, images, comments, and data our products collect from their surrounding environment to perform their functions (such as motion, events, temperature and ambient light).
Thus implying that video recordings are indeed classed as personal information.
In reference to the “Fresno police officer”, the man who made the statement is the public information officer for the Fresno Sheriff’s office.
Now, let’s read Ring’s statement on the matter:
> video evidence is only turned over to the authorities after being served with a "valid and binding legal demand."
Note that there is no mention of a subpoena. If a subpoena was needed, they would have mentioned it to better assuage concerns. To me this indicates it’s still a process mostly put in place by amazon, meaning requests to your data are privatized as opposed to going through regulated government channels. This is a terrible idea in my opinion.
[Facepalm.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/FwsRdVg.jpg)
---
^(*Feedback welcome at /r/image_linker_bot* | )[^(Disable)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=image_linker_bot&subject=Ignore%20request&message=ignore%20me)^( with "ignore me" via reply or PM)
Look, it seems clear neither of us is going to convince the other. Do what you want, I’ll be erring on the side of caution when it comes to my data being shared.
The appeal of Neighbors is that it is a social service that shares videos from your Ring to your neighbors and local law enforcement. Law enforcement that is enrolled in the service will promote said service (and we don't know if they are required to promote it because of their contract, or if they are being paid to do so).
Unfortunately, without owning one, it's unclear if this service can be opted out of or not.
This is slightly off. What's going on is that these partnerships (with formal Memorandums of Understanding) allow access to a "law enforcement portal" in which police departments can request footage from cameras in a certain location at a certain time: so it's not just about what's shared publicly (which, as you state, is public) but that police agencies can also request video footage at large scale. For the moment, it's voluntary, of course, but for the long-term future of privacy, do we want to rely on governments and corporations to enforce this voluntariness?
We sorely need to better understand and perhaps redefine "expectation of privacy." There are two definitions, subjective and objective.
Subjective expectation of privacy means that someone is of the opinion that a situation is private.
Objective expectation of privacy applies to a situation generally recognized by society as being private.
For most of the life of these concepts, "public" meant something not behind any doors, where it was possible for someone to see the happenings.
Until not too long ago, something like an airport waiting room could not be reasonably expected to be private; but being public meant that maybe a few hundred of people would see what was happening there. Today, any public place can be immediately seen by millions of people. What is meant to be public or private has changed dramatically.
As for subjective expectation of practice, I believe (without looking at research on the subject) that most people believe that social media posts are private in the sense that it is only accessible to those with whom the poster has "shared" the item. Most people, I believe, don't expect their posting on social media to be seen by anyone else, including government, police, marketers, researchers, or Google employees.
I form my opinion to be, therefore, that social media sites, including Ring, are violating the reasonable subjective expectation of privacy of their users.
Eve if that were not the case, we would still need to redefine what "public" means in the presence of social media services.
I do. A camera I have nothing to do with is spying on my front yard. A drug dealer parks on my street. Someone shares that information saying they thought they saw them go into my home. No Knock warrant issued. People get shot.
Am I paranoid to the point where I think it will happen to me? No - this is an extreme strawman example. Do I think it likely that Police somewhere eventually use information by some busy body suspicious neighbor to mess up the life of someone with brown skin or put people on their short list for further surveilance? Yes - in the grand scheme it's extremely low probabily but something like this will happen. This tech is just in it's infancy and it goes beyond government - it's insidiously using neigbors for surveillance. I'm not saying it's Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany, but it's creepy as fuck.
If there's one thing that's clear, there are some LEO agencies or at least some people in some agencies that cannot be trusted with this level of surveilance. Beyond that, Corporations have not been trustworthy with privacy when it ads to shareholder value and every government agency is likely to want ALL of the imagery whether there's a warrant or not (and let's be real - that's almost certainly happening right now with NSA). BTW - I appreciate the usefulness of this tech to the individual and society at large and think it likely to be shown more often than not that it helped solve crimes. I have "rolled my own" cameras and network storage (so I'm in control) so I'm not denying the value. But to act non-chalantly that *THERE IS NO PROBLEM* is bullshit. And I think you know that.
>But, if we restrict the conversation to what’s actually happening, right now, in reality, then there’s nothing surprising or problematic here.
The issue with this is once technology is deployed, good luck scaling that back. Stopping something from being deployed in the first place guarantees that won't be a vector for future privacy violations.
It's a locked down internet connected camera and microphone mounted to the front of your house that communicates over wireless. It should not be trusted at all. It's essentially a black box that users have no control over.
0/10 would not trust in my house.
Yeah the article was pretty shitty. Unfortunately that's kind of par for the course for Gizmodo. I'm definitely worried that Ring is partnering with local law enforcement, but there are *plenty* of benign reasons they would do so. You know, things like mail theft....
But there are, deep down, serious privacy concerns that plague all of us in the digital age, and I'm very concerned that Ring is going so far out of its way to not only partner with police forces, but control the narrative of the partnership, which is definitely alarming in and of itself.
No. Its more then that. May I suggest reading this article, and some of the other links that are contained in the article. You have trivialized a number of serious, concerning privacy issues among which are determination and control of ring imaging without consent.
I added a comment here touching on non-US: https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/co0vzl/this_map_shows_if_your_towns_police_are_tapped/ewg3sck
There might be other partnerships going on, I didn't consider subsidy contracts
I made the map, and posted a few comments here: https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/co0vzl/this_map_shows_if_your_towns_police_are_tapped/ewg3n2a
F the police. I only want employees of Amazon peeking in and looking at my footage. (old article from earlier this year) https://nypost.com/2019/01/11/employees-at-amazons-ring-have-been-spying-on-customers/
> If you bought a normal Ring and never opted to share anything, its not sharing with them
That's not 100% accurate. They even say that they will share with police if there is a "legal binding document" regardless of opt-in. That does not say warrant, just a document.
You're gonna have to provide some documentation on that claim, because I read differently:
> "Legally Binding Document: Everything You Need to Know
A legally binding document is an agreement between two parties where specific actions are prohibited or required on behalf of one or both of the parties.3 min read
> A legally binding document is an agreement that has been made between two parties where specific actions are prohibited or required on behalf of one or both of the parties. As an example, an apartment lease is a legally binding contract, as the lessee and lessor agree to a certain number of conditions when they sign this document. The lessor often agrees to give the apartment for a specific length of time in a certain condition, while the lessee agrees to pay a set amount for rent each month and not participate in any behaviors that are destructive."
https://www.upcounsel.com/legally-binding-document
This is more or less about whether your neighborhood/city/locality is Ring “enabled” or “capable”. Opting in or out of the “surveillance” is a customer’s personal preference.
Joke's on them. I don't buy retarded IoT devices. Police around here do VERY little to help anyone. I guess that's fitting though, as it's an accurate reflection of the government that makes the laws that they "enforce".
If you're living in the US
This map only details agreements related to Neighbors by Ring (i.e., agencies that have signed a Memorandum of Agreement with Ring for use of a "law enforcement portal"), and I don't think there are any such agreements at non-US agencies. I am aware of subsidy contracts in the United Kingdom, but those types of contracts are out of scope for the moment. Source: [I made the map](https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/co0vzl/this_map_shows_if_your_towns_police_are_tapped/ewg3n2a)
[удалено]
Exactly. This is literally the same process as uploading a video from a “dumb” camera. The fact that it’s a Ring camera makes no difference. It’s a glorified web forum for sharing videos.
Wow, in my home town. Not surprised honestly tho, they where always crooks.
I'm the guy who made the map. There's more context at my [blog post](https://sgandlur.com/ring-map/) and [accompanying Twitter thread](https://twitter.com/rot13x2/status/1159474352087326724?s=19). I agree with all of you that the title of this article is weird. I think this Vice article is better: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qvg4vx/new-map-reveals-that-at-least-231-cities-have-partnered-with-ring Regardless of your feelings about Ring cameras, transparency about what technologies local governments are using is important. Ring repeatedly declined to reveal the police departments they were partnering with, which is why I decided to make this map. I put these caveats in the blog post, but I'll recount them here: 1. This only details agreements related to the Neighbors by Ring app. These agreements are in the form of Memorandums of Understanding, in which Ring gives police agencies access to a law enforcement portal in exchange for police agencies trying to get more people to sign up for/buy Ring products. There's also a clause about any press releases needing to be approved by both parties. 2. There are several agreements related to subsidy contracts, in which local municipalities use taxpayer dollars to subsidize the purchase of Ring cameras for their residents. I don't include those in the map. 3. There are several agencies in the process of making agreements. I'm not including them in the map right now. 4. There are several agencies that are missing. The memo that said there's more than 225 police agencies in the program is from April, and new agencies join every day.
[удалено]
It's disappointing that the headline distracts from the issues at hand, which I see as these: 1. Troubling lack of transparency in partnerships between government and industry: you can't hold government accountable if it won't tell you what it's doing 2. The centralization of power within one company: even if each police agency only gets a little bit of information, Amazon is getting the sum of everything - and do we want a future where we need to trust a single company to not commit malfeasance? 3. Police departments (and in extension, governments) becoming PR firms for private corporations/subsidizing purchase of equipment from private corporations 4. The deployment of mass-scale surveillance technology, of which Ring is only a part: Ring is important, but so is facial recognition technology, license plate recognition technology, etc. being deployed at large scale 5. The long-term future of privacy rights around the world: the pace of agencies signing these Memorandums of Understanding seems to be increasing, based on the press releases I went through. With a lot of these technologies, it's not sufficient to think about what's going on today, but what might happen in the future. With that in mind, we can try to stop these technologies from being deployed, because once they are deployed, it'll probably be too late. But a lot of these discussions will get derailed over the word "tapped" now, and that's very unfortunate. On the positive side, more than 5000 people have viewed my blog post from the Gizmodo article and hopefully they'll read my blog post/Twitter thread and glean some context. I'll keep doing what I'm doing: try to perform fact-/document-based reseach and hopefully help create some more transparency in what local governments and private corporations are doing with regards to surveillance. I've been in touch with people from organizations like EFF and Fight for the Future and hopefully the data I compiled in this map can do some good.
[удалено]
I should make it clear I don't agree with the headline either, none of those are my words. Unfortunately that's what all the aggregators picked up and the Gizmodo article is what most people are going to see, even though the Wire article was first.
To be fair, how many people here would click a modern gizmodo article and expect it to be entirely accurate? Not that this excuses it of course, but I'd imagine most people on subreddits like this know better by now.
[удалено]
I -really- wish you were wrong about that...
Minneapolis isn't placed correctly. That's where Rochester is. Thanks for putting this together!
As far as I know, Minneapolis doesn't have this type of agreement (let me know if I'm wrong though!) Rochester [joined the program last week](https://www.postbulletin.com/news/local/does-police-partnership-with-ring-threaten-privacy/article_397f013e-b3d2-11e9-b369-3798195c79ca.html) which is why they are on the map.
Thanks for sharing but is Ring a bad service? Is it unsafe?
> Ring, the smart doorbell home security system Amazon bought for over $1 billion last year, is involved in some fairly unnerving arrangements with local law enforcement agencies. That's something that a user should have full control over and is absolutely unacceptable if enabled without their knowledge. Be extremely careful when looking at any smart home device, especially if offered as a service with external servers.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I mean... It's a camera that streams to servers that aren't yours, nor is it encrypted with a password or key that only you have... So Amazon can do whatever the hell they want to with it.
[удалено]
The issue is that there is a surveillance state being created under our noses while almost all of us snooze. In this case, they're offering to give people something in exchange for helping them spread the reach of their surveillance. This concentrates too much power in the hands of too few, at least in the opinion of myself and many here.
[удалено]
I'm not talking about me and you. I'm talking about our neighbors we have no control over. I see the dangers in giving my government exceptional surveillance powers that dilute the 4th Amendment, but my neighbor obviously doesn't, since he's participating in the program. I'd wager that there's more people ignorant of this danger than not, and the ignorant people unwittingly help build the massive surveillance network. The main point is that my inalienable Constitutional rights ought not require me to be diligent and knowledgeable on an issue in order to keep them. Getting tricked out of being free must not be allowed, otherwise our laws are only as strong as the most ignorant or foolish among us. These participants are not doing anything against their will, but they're being fooled into building something they almost surely wouldn't want if they fully realized what they were doing.
[удалено]
Anyone who fails to recognize the creeping increase of government power over it's citizens is among those being tricked. Maybe tricked is not the right word, but I think these participants would be less eager to help put a camera on every inch of the country if they saw the logical conclusion of giving this kind of power to anyone. All governments in history have examples of abuses of power, and they all have examples of changing the rules mid-stride, making previously legal actions now criminal, sometimes even retroactively. I think that one should not be so quick to trust one's government. They are no different from any other strangers. These are not super immediate concerns. I don't foresee an impending police state and I own not a single tinfoil hat. I am saying that bad situations develop slowly over years, so we should always be on the look out for things that can go badly or have unintended consequences. There is nothing wrong with asking ourselves if new laws and government programs constitute an overreach of their authority or infringe on people's freedom to go about their business without being messed with.
Yes they are allowing police to view your personal footage as a way of going around the fourth amendment. Visit r/restorethefourth for more.
[удалено]
[This](https://www.govtech.com/security/Amazons-Ring-Video-Camera-Alarms-Privacy-Advocates.html) article mentions that they can also request footage directly from Amazon, without users’ consent, if it’s been uploaded to the cloud. > However, he noted, there is a workaround if a resident happens to reject a police request. If the community member doesn’t want to supply a Ring video that seems vital to a local law enforcement investigation, police can contact Amazon, which will then essentially “subpoena” the video. >“If we ask within 60 days of the recording and as long as it’s been uploaded to the cloud, then Ring can take it out of the cloud and send it to us legally so that we can use it as part of our investigation,” he said. For those who don’t know, all footage captured by Ring *has* to be uploaded to the cloud. There’s no other option. There are clearly problems with this service.
[удалено]
It’s even in their privacy policy: > We also may disclose personal information about you (1) if we are required to do so by law or legal process (such as a court order or subpoena); (2) in response to requests by government agencies, such as law enforcement authorities. Also, where is this denial of the claim by Ring? Please post a source.
[удалено]
Under the section titled “Information we collect” the policy states: > In addition, our products and services are designed to allow you to see, hear and speak to anyone at your door from your computer or mobile device, and collaborate with others in your community. To provide you with these services, we obtain content (and related information) that is captured and recorded when using our products and services, such as video or audio recordings, live video or audio streams, images, comments, and data our products collect from their surrounding environment to perform their functions (such as motion, events, temperature and ambient light). Thus implying that video recordings are indeed classed as personal information. In reference to the “Fresno police officer”, the man who made the statement is the public information officer for the Fresno Sheriff’s office. Now, let’s read Ring’s statement on the matter: > video evidence is only turned over to the authorities after being served with a "valid and binding legal demand." Note that there is no mention of a subpoena. If a subpoena was needed, they would have mentioned it to better assuage concerns. To me this indicates it’s still a process mostly put in place by amazon, meaning requests to your data are privatized as opposed to going through regulated government channels. This is a terrible idea in my opinion.
[удалено]
[Facepalm.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/FwsRdVg.jpg) --- ^(*Feedback welcome at /r/image_linker_bot* | )[^(Disable)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=image_linker_bot&subject=Ignore%20request&message=ignore%20me)^( with "ignore me" via reply or PM)
Look, it seems clear neither of us is going to convince the other. Do what you want, I’ll be erring on the side of caution when it comes to my data being shared.
The appeal of Neighbors is that it is a social service that shares videos from your Ring to your neighbors and local law enforcement. Law enforcement that is enrolled in the service will promote said service (and we don't know if they are required to promote it because of their contract, or if they are being paid to do so). Unfortunately, without owning one, it's unclear if this service can be opted out of or not.
[удалено]
This is slightly off. What's going on is that these partnerships (with formal Memorandums of Understanding) allow access to a "law enforcement portal" in which police departments can request footage from cameras in a certain location at a certain time: so it's not just about what's shared publicly (which, as you state, is public) but that police agencies can also request video footage at large scale. For the moment, it's voluntary, of course, but for the long-term future of privacy, do we want to rely on governments and corporations to enforce this voluntariness?
We sorely need to better understand and perhaps redefine "expectation of privacy." There are two definitions, subjective and objective. Subjective expectation of privacy means that someone is of the opinion that a situation is private. Objective expectation of privacy applies to a situation generally recognized by society as being private. For most of the life of these concepts, "public" meant something not behind any doors, where it was possible for someone to see the happenings. Until not too long ago, something like an airport waiting room could not be reasonably expected to be private; but being public meant that maybe a few hundred of people would see what was happening there. Today, any public place can be immediately seen by millions of people. What is meant to be public or private has changed dramatically. As for subjective expectation of practice, I believe (without looking at research on the subject) that most people believe that social media posts are private in the sense that it is only accessible to those with whom the poster has "shared" the item. Most people, I believe, don't expect their posting on social media to be seen by anyone else, including government, police, marketers, researchers, or Google employees. I form my opinion to be, therefore, that social media sites, including Ring, are violating the reasonable subjective expectation of privacy of their users. Eve if that were not the case, we would still need to redefine what "public" means in the presence of social media services.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mb88za/amazon-requires-police-to-shill-surveillance-cameras-in-secret-agreement
[удалено]
I do. A camera I have nothing to do with is spying on my front yard. A drug dealer parks on my street. Someone shares that information saying they thought they saw them go into my home. No Knock warrant issued. People get shot. Am I paranoid to the point where I think it will happen to me? No - this is an extreme strawman example. Do I think it likely that Police somewhere eventually use information by some busy body suspicious neighbor to mess up the life of someone with brown skin or put people on their short list for further surveilance? Yes - in the grand scheme it's extremely low probabily but something like this will happen. This tech is just in it's infancy and it goes beyond government - it's insidiously using neigbors for surveillance. I'm not saying it's Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany, but it's creepy as fuck. If there's one thing that's clear, there are some LEO agencies or at least some people in some agencies that cannot be trusted with this level of surveilance. Beyond that, Corporations have not been trustworthy with privacy when it ads to shareholder value and every government agency is likely to want ALL of the imagery whether there's a warrant or not (and let's be real - that's almost certainly happening right now with NSA). BTW - I appreciate the usefulness of this tech to the individual and society at large and think it likely to be shown more often than not that it helped solve crimes. I have "rolled my own" cameras and network storage (so I'm in control) so I'm not denying the value. But to act non-chalantly that *THERE IS NO PROBLEM* is bullshit. And I think you know that.
[удалено]
>But, if we restrict the conversation to what’s actually happening, right now, in reality, then there’s nothing surprising or problematic here. The issue with this is once technology is deployed, good luck scaling that back. Stopping something from being deployed in the first place guarantees that won't be a vector for future privacy violations.
[удалено]
It's a locked down internet connected camera and microphone mounted to the front of your house that communicates over wireless. It should not be trusted at all. It's essentially a black box that users have no control over. 0/10 would not trust in my house.
[удалено]
Yeah the article was pretty shitty. Unfortunately that's kind of par for the course for Gizmodo. I'm definitely worried that Ring is partnering with local law enforcement, but there are *plenty* of benign reasons they would do so. You know, things like mail theft.... But there are, deep down, serious privacy concerns that plague all of us in the digital age, and I'm very concerned that Ring is going so far out of its way to not only partner with police forces, but control the narrative of the partnership, which is definitely alarming in and of itself.
No. Its more then that. May I suggest reading this article, and some of the other links that are contained in the article. You have trivialized a number of serious, concerning privacy issues among which are determination and control of ring imaging without consent.
No Canadian cities are participating or is it that the data analyzed was only for America?
I added a comment here touching on non-US: https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/co0vzl/this_map_shows_if_your_towns_police_are_tapped/ewg3sck There might be other partnerships going on, I didn't consider subsidy contracts
This article is terribly written
I made the map, and posted a few comments here: https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/co0vzl/this_map_shows_if_your_towns_police_are_tapped/ewg3n2a
F the police. I only want employees of Amazon peeking in and looking at my footage. (old article from earlier this year) https://nypost.com/2019/01/11/employees-at-amazons-ring-have-been-spying-on-customers/
[удалено]
> If you bought a normal Ring and never opted to share anything, its not sharing with them That's not 100% accurate. They even say that they will share with police if there is a "legal binding document" regardless of opt-in. That does not say warrant, just a document.
[удалено]
You're gonna have to provide some documentation on that claim, because I read differently: > "Legally Binding Document: Everything You Need to Know A legally binding document is an agreement between two parties where specific actions are prohibited or required on behalf of one or both of the parties.3 min read > A legally binding document is an agreement that has been made between two parties where specific actions are prohibited or required on behalf of one or both of the parties. As an example, an apartment lease is a legally binding contract, as the lessee and lessor agree to a certain number of conditions when they sign this document. The lessor often agrees to give the apartment for a specific length of time in a certain condition, while the lessee agrees to pay a set amount for rent each month and not participate in any behaviors that are destructive." https://www.upcounsel.com/legally-binding-document
This is more or less about whether your neighborhood/city/locality is Ring “enabled” or “capable”. Opting in or out of the “surveillance” is a customer’s personal preference.
Nothing shared from Stl thankfully.
This is so fucked up.
Joke's on them. I don't buy retarded IoT devices. Police around here do VERY little to help anyone. I guess that's fitting though, as it's an accurate reflection of the government that makes the laws that they "enforce".
That is one clickbaity article. I’m still trying to understand how police access the network.