I get the privacy implications, but this article adds unnecessary fearmongering with sensationalist racism (apparently author is unfamiliar with non-white neighborhoods b/c just as whites, non whites will also report suspicious activity).
From what I’ve witnessed, these services have indeed aided residents to cooperate against “dirtbag” criminals as well as supply imagery to police as evidence and has led to arrests and convictions (in my neighborhood, at least). It gives all types of residents some comfort that the perps will get caught rather than the police saying “sorry, we don’t have evidence, and don’t have time to follow up on non violent crime”.
Residents are going to deploy this. That’s a given. At this time owners control access. If there comes a time when one loses control over this content unilaterally, then it will be a problem.
This is honestly one of the issues I have with journalism today. As a non-white person I do not need a white savior. I just want to be treated equally, I do not need to be coddled or "protected". I have thick skin; I am not a child. Sorry for the rant mc32. Services like this have helped to curb delivery thefts, scam visits, etc near me. And I agree with you if the resident is stripped of their control I can see it becoming a huge problem.
So let me get this straight. Amazon, is allowing and partnering with law enforcement for this "Ring" product, so they can fight crime in neighborhood? (sounds innocuous right?)
.....But in reality, they can tie in their AI facial recognition back end (that they have rightly been criticized for partnering with police), to use with their Ring product. Thus creating a surveillance system so sophisticated that even the Chinese would be envious of.
You have to ask yourself, why is a retail company (which started as an online bookstore) in the least bit interested in the police business?
This is a disturbing trend. It seems that, as tech companies get larger, they are giving themselves over to the surveillance state with ever more enthusiasm.
I would think it's to improve reliability of their deliveries. I see why you would be concerned, but retail stores have had security guards for my whole lifetime...
Yep. Both Fed-Ex and Amazon have an interest in preventing theft as well as fraud (false claims of non-delivery), and they see a business opportunity in addition to shrinkage minimization with the perk of customer psychological comfort to boot.
Not sure about their marketing, but I know how and why people use it in their apartments and homes.
If curious get on one of the mentioned neighborhood apps, see how people use these devices: package theft, suspicious people/cars, vagrants/unstable folks, public disturbance (skaboarders scratching cars, etc.,) early hours canvassing by thieves, etc...
Shoppers do not care about package theft or any other loss- making properties of a business.
Show me one place where package theft is even mentioned on Ring's website or in their doc. Is isn't.
It naive to think that Amazon is worried about package theft and that's why they bought Ring. Too many other tech companies have signed up for the surveillance economy for that to be true.
Loss aversion is a real thing - people can and do decide to go brick and mortar because of being afraid of package theft. It isn't realistically a big issue but people care about it a lot.
As for why I would guess wanting better rates from turning bits to cash.
That is true. But we also pay for pensions, profits, advertising, union-busting, pollution, and countless other things we may not want to pay for.
Ultimately, the consumer only cares about what product he is getting and what price he has to pay. How the company juggles its losses or where they come from is of no interest to the product purchaser.
Easy.. package theft alone probably costs Amazon millions every year. If more customers have a doorbell camera that captures motion activity, more thieves can be caught, and the less theft will happen. It's actually a very good pairing.
Package theft affects their margins. They will have a strong financial motive to minimize it. No conspiracy theory required.
It's also a moral outrage, when a subset of the population blatantly preys on others, and perpetrating the vast majority of thefts while constituting a tiny proportion of the population. There needs to be a strong response to these types of people for the safety of everyone else.
I was only answering for the Amazon case... the rest comes down to two things, in terms of home security, it's mostly driven by the consumer demand. As to general surveillance at larger levels part of it is maximizing the fractions of a penny. I mean, if you can sell a piece of data for a fraction of a cent, but have 50 billion fractions to sell, that's a pretty big hunk of change.
There are also those genuinely concerned over $STATE$ security and working towards that as a goal.
I'm not condoning or supporting or rejecting for that matter any of the above. But it really doesn't take too much to see several reasons why this stuff happens.
As to the losses in relation to retail stores... retail stores generally have higher margins, and they still hire security staff and put up cameras.
As long as people don't point their cameras at public spaces, i.e. the streets, I don't see a problem with this. I wouldn't personally trust a company to handle my video feed, but that's just me.
22 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 33.5 ms ] threadFrom what I’ve witnessed, these services have indeed aided residents to cooperate against “dirtbag” criminals as well as supply imagery to police as evidence and has led to arrests and convictions (in my neighborhood, at least). It gives all types of residents some comfort that the perps will get caught rather than the police saying “sorry, we don’t have evidence, and don’t have time to follow up on non violent crime”.
Residents are going to deploy this. That’s a given. At this time owners control access. If there comes a time when one loses control over this content unilaterally, then it will be a problem.
.....But in reality, they can tie in their AI facial recognition back end (that they have rightly been criticized for partnering with police), to use with their Ring product. Thus creating a surveillance system so sophisticated that even the Chinese would be envious of.
(toilet flushing noise!!!)
This is a disturbing trend. It seems that, as tech companies get larger, they are giving themselves over to the surveillance state with ever more enthusiasm.
If curious get on one of the mentioned neighborhood apps, see how people use these devices: package theft, suspicious people/cars, vagrants/unstable folks, public disturbance (skaboarders scratching cars, etc.,) early hours canvassing by thieves, etc...
Show me one place where package theft is even mentioned on Ring's website or in their doc. Is isn't.
It naive to think that Amazon is worried about package theft and that's why they bought Ring. Too many other tech companies have signed up for the surveillance economy for that to be true.
What's the real reason?
As for why I would guess wanting better rates from turning bits to cash.
Ultimately, the consumer only cares about what product he is getting and what price he has to pay. How the company juggles its losses or where they come from is of no interest to the product purchaser.
Package theft is a drop in the bucket for Amazon and can't amount to more than the equivalent losses from shoplifting if they ran retail stores.
It's also a moral outrage, when a subset of the population blatantly preys on others, and perpetrating the vast majority of thefts while constituting a tiny proportion of the population. There needs to be a strong response to these types of people for the safety of everyone else.
There are also those genuinely concerned over $STATE$ security and working towards that as a goal.
I'm not condoning or supporting or rejecting for that matter any of the above. But it really doesn't take too much to see several reasons why this stuff happens.
As to the losses in relation to retail stores... retail stores generally have higher margins, and they still hire security staff and put up cameras.