The difference is this is an ad. Commercial speech is subject to more regulation than private speech in America.
For example, California has a right of publicity law. It's my understanding that even photos taken "in public" can't necessarily be used for commercial purposes:
> Yes, the tweet is promoted. But I'm not sure if it would fit the definition of an "ad"
It's posted by a corporation to sell a product. I think it's disingenuous to claim it's not an ad, though whether the content of the ad is illegal is admittedly debatable.
(As an aside, it's my understanding the "Promoted" tag is added specifically to comply with FTC guidelines that paid content be labeled.)
It would be a very unusual circumstance for a person caught on camera performing a criminal act to incriminate him/herself by admitting guilt for the purpose of prevailing on a right-to-publicity action.
Moreover, every case involving right to publicity/right of likeness thus far has had a "famous" person as the plaintiff, where there's a sort of "brand goodwill" in the person's likeness and that goodwill is being misappropriated specifically to recommend or endorse a product. That's not the case here, for sure.
> It would be a very unusual circumstance for a person caught on camera performing a criminal act
But the person wasn’t caught on camera performing a criminal act afaics. She was caught walking between two cars and pulling at a door handle, the car was locked, person continued. Is this criminal? Kids do that all the time.
It’s alleged that the person did perform a criminal act elsewhere but was not caught on camera.
So perhaps this is a suspect due to other factors that aren't mentioned. Maybe the location of this video is near other documented break-ins and it fits a profile.
Now, if you can prove that. I’ve pulled on door handles of cars that I believed to be mine. I’ve tried to enter apartments and hotel rooms because I took the wrong floor. The acts described in the video certainly look suspicious, but as a stand-alone video are a bit low as standards for convictions should go.
Businesses post images and video of suspects all the time and solicit information.
Hell entertainment/production companies exist just to create shows that run these kinds of stories and solicit information from the public. Think of the host of FBIs most wanted who’s own child was famously kidnapped from a sears department store...you think sears, the FBI, or even the father have no right to show videos/images, public or private, that depict the suspect and solicit information from the public? Or even offer a reward for information leading to arrest?
The police department stated that she was a suspect; Amazon identified her as a thief, breaking the presumption of innocence that is a bedrock of American society.
If the video is fine, the post wording still isn't.
Habeas corpus called & would like to be thawed from deep freeze.
The presumption of innocence in American society died a long time ago, with Gitmo, CIA black sites & NSLs. What little was still left, is being killed every day with asylum seeker kids being abused in border ‘shelters’.
Long live habeas corpus & the American conscience.
Given the fact the constitution limits the govt and not the people.
Given the fact the constitution says the govt cannot limit the freedom of movement.
The govt cannot make laws limiting freedom of movement regardless of the method as they were not given that right by the constitution. Therefore driving as a form of movement cannot be regulated.
There are also precedents discussing it
Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” –
> Given the fact the constitution limits the govt and not the people.
Well, sorta.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
States rights was decided during this little thing called the civil war.
Interstate travel cannot be regulated by the states and since freedom of movement is a right protected by the constitution.
You have to conclude interstate travel is a right. Granted the commerce clause can be used to regulate commercial travel but private travel cannot be ;)
The right to do it as the driver of a car is less clear, given that one can freely move between states in a bus, plane, boat, taxi, or as a car passenger.
There's a pretty wide gap between what you think is Constitutional and what U.S. courts think.
Virginia law notwithstanding, elsewhere in the U.S., driving is not a right and never has been. Per U.S. Supreme Court law, freedom to travel includes the freedom to cross state lines, but that right does not extend to any particular mode of travel. You're free to walk, but not necessarily to drive or fly (notwithstanding 49 U.S.C. 40103, because Congress subsequently restricted that right in 49 U.S.C. 44901-44902). Otherwise, you'd just be able to walk into an airport and board any flight you'd like without presenting identification.
Similarly, if driving were a right, states would be forced to allow anyone behind a wheel (ok, at the helm of a 2-ton killdozer) without being properly trained or insured first.
The Illinois State Police can confirm that on August 11, 2018, Mr. David Weaver was arrested by the ISP and cited for the following offenses at the scene of a multi vehicle personal injury crash that resulted in multi vehicle fires: Criminal Trespass to Real Property, Failure to Yield to Emergency Vehicles, Stopping Parking or Standing on Roadway, and Walking Improperly on the roadway. This case remains open and ongoing in the court system, therefore we have no further comment at this time. The Illinois State Police's primary goal at the scene of a critical incident, and at all times, is the safety and well-being of all members of the public.
The linked article has a photo that shows many people walking on that controlled access highway, many right in the middle. Were they all arrested?
It's orthogonal to the general right to travel freely, but the story does demonstrate how overly broad procedural laws end up being selectively and inappropriately enforced to persecute under the color of law.
So, I-88 is a controlled-access interstate highway, and the parent poster above you acknowledged that pedestrians are not allowed on those (at least in Illinois). THAT is what the italicized charge is for.
The parent is correct in that pedestrians ARE allowed alongside an "ordinary public highway" like IL-29 or a county highway.
> There's a pretty wide gap between what you think is Constitutional and what U.S. courts think.
This is often brought out as if to imply that the courts are correct. But why wouldn't government courts tend to malinterpret the Constitution in favor of the government?
> The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare[...]
> The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets
Even if one claims the video is fine (and I'd disagree), it's still a very very very bad idea for Amazon, or any large company, to be enforcing the law and conducting mass shaming via advertising.
That's practically a Black Mirror episode, and I would hope that everyone can see this, but judging from this comment thread, that's clearly not the case. Disturbing.
What's the practical difference between a TV show like "COPS" (or any of its various descendants), which features police recordings of its interactions in public with possibly-innocent suspects, and what's happening here? Is it merely the association with a commercial product?
OJ is an interesting case. Basically though, the prosecution messed up enough that OJ’s team was able to instill enough doubt to avoid the “without a doubt” part needed for a jury
OJ was tried criminally and was found not guilty (I assure you the state of California has more money than OJ, yet he prevailed).
OJ was then sued civilly for wrongful death by the Goldman’s (OJ probably had more money than the Goldman’s) and yet the Goldman’s prevailed in the civil suit.
The standard for winning a civil case (preponderance of evidence) is lower than the standard for winning a criminal case (beyond a reasonable doubt), so the two are not comparable.
What does that have anything to do with the point being made of the OJ Simpson case as an example of money winning cases? In both the civil and criminal case the parties with more money/resources lost respectively.
The party with less money had the easier side in both cases. GGGP's point is that even though the party with less money had the easier case in the OJ trial, they had enough money to win what somebody with less money would have certainly lost. Though the state has more money, it could not afford OJ's lawyers. Similarly, at the time of the civil trial, OJ could not afford the lawyers he had in the criminal trial.
Sure, I get that, because they don't want to be sued.
You asked what the difference was with the social media post vs. TV: The difference is that COPS, etc., don't want to be sued, so they get releases, because they realize that they could potentially be sued (and sometimes for good reason!) I sincerely doubt the person in the post signed a release from Amazon.
If you argue that it's technically legal, the OP wasn't specifically arguing that either.
> Even if one claims the video is fine (and I'd disagree), it's still a very very very bad idea for Amazon, or any large company, to be enforcing the law and conducting mass shaming via advertising.
They don’t blur faces on FBIs most wanted, those suspects haven’t given permission to use their name/likeness...the show solicits information from the public and even offers rewards for information leading to arrest.
Even if that would be the case, allowing private companies to so blatantly capitalize on fear, all the while mocking that so very hard won presumption, is simply an amazingly terrible idea.
Not only because under the pressure of competition some company in this sector will attempt to manufacture fear by any means available. If by misdirection,
or by direct action of some sort, but we'll all be so much worse for it.
The presumption of innocence is a legal presumption. Anyone is free to make private judgments about someone's innocence or guilt without waiting for a criminal verdict. That said, Amazon's phrasing ("this woman was caught on camera breaking into a vehicle") does seem a bit reckless. If the person in the video is innocent, she can and should sue Amazon for defamation.
I smell a lawsuit coming. How can Amazon think it's ok to use people's faces in an advertisement when those people haven't been convicted of a crime?
The case of Ring is particularly disturbing. When its inventor appeared on Shark Tank, he said he wanted to create a way to hear his doorbell from the garage. Since Amazon bought the company for $1B, it's pivoted to a surveillance tool that's being offered to police as a way to freely record and review neighborhood camera views.
It's sad to see that unicorn companies today believe that surveillance capitalism is the way forward. Personally, I long for a return to old-fashioned values in business, namely making a product or service that people care about and want to pay for rather than pandering to fear and courting easy money from our soon-to-be robot overlords.
Ring's mission is all about safety. Jamie has talked extensively about how they actively rejected ideas to just build connected things for the home, to focus on & foster a sense of safe homes and safe communities. The floodlight is a great example of a pre-acquisition product that piggybacks on that mission.
That "mission" came from Amazon. It wasn't any part of the pitch Jamie gave on Shark Tank. This is just another example of surveillance capitalism and it's pretty sickening.
As an attorney (this is not legal advice), I would like to know what law might be violated by publishing these videos. They're owned by the person who recorded the video; and presumably they gave Ring a license to use them for such purposes.
The subject of the video, as far as I can tell, has no rights that might be recognized in law. There's no privacy right, as there's no reasonable expectation of privacy under such circumstances. There's no right of publicity being violated AFAICT, as there's no "brand goodwill" in the person's likeness to misappropriate.
Former attorney here. I'd guess it would be a claim like defamation or false light. These laws aren't typically used in this way, but I could see them being applied here.
For defamation, for example, the claim would be that by including someone's face in an advertisement about home security videos, Amazon is implying that the person pictured is someone whom you would not want snooping around your house because he's a criminal. This would tend to hurt that person's reputation, which is the legal test for defamation.
If others similarly situated could prevail on similar theories, TV shows like "COPS" and the like wouldn't be possible. The fact that they've been successfully running for over 20 years suggests that this is not the case.
Second, there's no "false light" if the recording shows the plaintiff plainly performing a criminal act.
Finally, a disclaimer of innocence until proven guilty would likely tend to negate such a defamation claim.
>If others similarly situated could prevail on similar theories, TV shows like "COPS" and the like wouldn't be possible. The fact that they've been successfully running for over 20 years suggests that this is not the case.
I haven't seen an episode of COPS in almost two decades, when I was a kid, but if I recall correctly, a lot of suspects faces on the show were blurred out so that they wouldn't be identified. I don't know if that is because they didn't sign a consent form from the show (or if the show even needed that), or what, but a lot of faces we're definitely censored.
>I haven't seen an episode of COPS in almost two decades, when I was a kid, but if I recall correctly, a lot of suspects faces on the show were blurred out so that they wouldn't be identified
Yup. Faces of suspects were often blurred. Victim/witnesses would also have their faces blurred sometimes, I assume they were offered some compensation in exchange for showing their face.
I'm sure the attorneys at Ring have already been through this discussion to decide whether similar actions were warranted, and concluded otherwise.
Also, a big difference between COPS and the instant case is that in the TV shows, law enforcement have already identified the suspect, while here, the suspect is at large. I think it would be difficult to convince a court that you were the intentional target of defamation when the defendant hasn't identified you yet.
That person is on camera attempting to open a car that is (presumably) not theirs, on (presumably) private property. Unless the recording was edited or taken out of context, proving that statement is false is going to be difficult.
There is an additional nuance as to whether a sponsored post is an ad or not. They are paid for posts to reach a larger audience, but not necessarily to advertise a product. In this case, the police are asking for more information about this person, and Ring has paid Facebook to reach a larger audience.
I agree that in this instance a lawsuit would likely be unsuccessful. I was just putting out a couple legal theories that could be applied to this general fact pattern (Amazon putting a Ring video of you in a security-minded advertisement).
Perhaps defamation? If this person isn't actually guilty of their suspected crime, especially since no conviction has been made, couldn't this post ruin the person's reputation?
Not a lawyer, but to me this sounds like libel to me. There's an implication that the people are committing a crime despite not being convicted. Doesn't sound like a clear cut case because it doesn't outright say they're a criminal. That said, I could be missing some of the nuances with these laws.
Probably not going to generate any lawsuits but kind of shows how complicit the general public is about constructing a surveillance state. We bitch when the government spies on us. But with this we're effectively making it so that the we spy on each other for the government.
Would you be ok with it if the video stayed local?
The companies that insert themselves into every equation are the ones that make me upset. "Registation required to enable", "cloud based device", etc.
Also, Telsa cars now have 8 cameras and users have access to the footage with Dashcam Mode (while driving) and Sentry Mode (while parked). Lots of youtube videos are showing up, showing interesting things like autopilot saving the car, or people keying parked cars.
Reposts are fine on HN if a story hasn't had significant attention yet. There's a lot of randomness in what gets traction, and allowing reposts is a way to mitigate that.
On the Ring Neighbors app, you see all sorts of videos where the posters are making criminal accusations all the time. (usually it's a guy selling electricity door to door, but his skin tone is wrong, so they assume he's there to rob the house)
Yeah, if somebody came to my front door to "sell me electricity" I'd be on high alert, regardless of his race.
Where I come from it's a known scheme where one guy gets you distracted at the front door with some semi-plausible sales pitch like re-sealing your driveway while his accomplice goes behind the house and robs you blind. Of course, even when the apparent salesman is a genuine salesman, that doesn't mean he's a nice person. Door to door salesmen praying on politeness to get unsuspecting victims into high pressure sales situations in their own living room is common enough that my blanket response to all salesmen knocking on my door is telling them to fuck off. In a certain sense, calling a salesman a thief might actually be giving him the benefit of the doubt.
> Where I come from it's a known scheme where one guy gets you distracted at the front door with some semi-plausible sales pitch like re-sealing your driveway while his accomplice goes behind the house and robs you blind.
This sounds like precisely the sort of pearl-clutching urban legend the parent comment is describing. The wealthy neighborhood I grew up in had all sorts of stories along these lines - "be on the lookout for gypsies" etc., despite a vanishingly small crime rate.
Reselling agencies promising to sell you electricity cheaper than the local utility.
Of course, they’re buying the electricity from the local utility, so the contract generally looks something like a monthly price of U - x for a couple months (U being the price set by the utility, x the promised discount), followed by a number of months of U+z, z>>x.
They don’t mention the U+z; that’s left to the fine print.
In some states (including NY and CA) electricity is partially deregulated so you can choose from different providers, even though it all goes through the same grid. There are actually sales people who go door to door or set up booths to encourage people to switch, usually pitching it as cleaner energy and/or cost-saving.
It's a bit more complicated. The door-to-door thing is retail choice, typically when people talk about "deregulated" electricity markets they're often referring to stuff at the generation/transmission level (wholesale markets), where a regional transmission operator is the balancing authority and offers a variety of market products that utilities and merchant generators participate in. Generally this has been perceived as more efficient than the traditional integrated utility and lowered costs for consumers in general. Since you're on PG&E, you're probably in California ISO's territory[1].
"Retail choice" is the ability of individual households to buy directly from retail suppliers[2], and the history there is a bit spottier and less conclusive. It's not as widespread and participation has actually declined[3].
US really need to deregulate (btw I find this word an oxymoron, but english is not my first language) their ISP's and most countries really need to deregulate their wireless providers.
Imagine single shared spectrum easy to setup eSIM, easy to terminate contracts. Unfortunately most countries want your ID nowadays when you sign up for internet...
The problem is its not so easy to share spectrum. In reality you can only have a single transmitter/receiver on a given frequency band in a given area.
The problem is its not so easy to share spectrum. In reality you can only have a single transmitter/receiver on a given frequency band in a given area
In reality that hasn't been true for decades, beginning with the initial work on spread-spectrum communications in the WWII timeframe. But the regulatory system has yet to catch up fully with the technology's potential.
You would need PRN codes with zero cross-correlation; no such thing. So when you add more users, they appear as noise in your de-spread bandwidth. Add more users, your noise floor goes up, degrading your SNR.
There are optimum codes to use, such and Gold (GPS) and Walsh (IS-95 CDMA), but they still have non-zero cross-correlation, so your users are limited. Still no free lunch.
They are still technical. The spreading doesn’t buy you anything in terms of channel capacity, just processing gain over narrow band interference, and the downside is now you need precise power control to keep all those codes at the same noise level.
4G & 5G uses OFDM, essentially distributing the data over slow, narrow band channels to get around the multi-path issues with trying to use even wider band CDMA. Then MIMO to actually increase the capacity, which only works when you have multi path.
This gives a good summary, specifically page 32, but CDMA is essentially dead soon.
Dude, your entire post history calls to mind the question, "What am I doing on a site called 'Hacker News'?"
Channel capacity is not the problem. Do you own a radio capable of VHF/UHF reception? Turn it on. Tune it to a randomly-chosen frequency between, say, 600 and 1000 MHz. What do you hear? Now, repeat this exercise 5,000 times, and let me know how many of those iterations yield anything but white noise from your receiver's own front end and IF strip.
There's your "channel capacity."
This problem is purely regulatory. Everything should be frequency-agile at this point in time, but it's not. Never mind CDMA or TDMA, we haven't even picked the lowest of the low-hanging FDMA fruit yet.
You don't share per-se, you operate network same way many MVNO's do.
There's one network (ran by one gov agency) and rest of the players are basically MVNO's, doing customer support, marketing and negotiating peering. Just like traditional ISPs work in many western countries.
in case your curious, "deregulate" is not really an oxymoron. the "de-" prefix usually means something like "remove" or "undo". it just means to remove or relax some existing rules.
don't feel bad though, English vocab can be tricky for native speakers too. for example, "in-" usually means "not", like "indestructible" means "can't be destroyed", but "inflammable" and "flammable" mean the same thing...
Had one yelling at me through the home office window the other day. Took me 5 minutes of blowing off his various pitches to get rid of him. So annoying.
I never open the door unless it is for someone I am expecting, no exceptions whatsoever. It is a textbook case of something that has marginal upside and unlimited downside.
You could make the same argument about helping someone change their tire on the side of the road. Or helping a blind person cross the road. Life is full of risks but constantly worrying about them isn’t worth it, especially if it comes at the expense of actually helping someone who is in danger.
If you see someone getting abused or needs help, I think you should do the right thing and try and help them, because everyone helping each other reduces risk for everyone and makes a better society.
Ok, also factor in the probability that the person at your door isn’t dying or in desperate need of help, but is actually out to take advantage of you (or, at least waste your time).
Texas is deregulated, so you have a ton of options to pick from. Common methods are setting up a table at a grocery store or the like, or door-to-door. You also see a lot of cable and alarm sales door-to-door.
On a related note, I went with Griddy, which is actually a cool startup approach to it.
I'm happy this is pretty close to the extent of "racism" in our society at this point. Really grasping at straws if you have to keep reminding people about the horrors of racism when it comes out as, "Some people are upset that a wrong-colored stranger showed up at their door."
As I said in my other comment, maybe focus on the overt racism. I'm getting sick of seeing people nitpick at pointless garbage like perceived or circumstantial racism (something akin to 'these people must be pearl-clutching racists because they get upset that the stranger at their door is not light-skinned'). It seriously degrades actual claims of racism.
And I didn't bring race into this, the parent comment to my own did.
It's a symptom. And it's not like black folks don't get shot for knocking on doors [0, 1, 2]. So when major corporations advertise, preying on fears and taking advantage of societal preconceptions, they're reinforcing and legitimizing the bias that gets people killed.
Racism is a spectrum, from explicit to implicit. Yes we need to be louder about the disproportionate extrajudicial killings of black people by police, their targeted disenfranchisement, etc [3]. But none of these emergencies invalidates criticism of the milder, more pervasive forms of racism.
That's nowhere near "the extent of 'racism' in our society at this point". You must be from a pretty affluent area if you believe racism is a non-issue. Racism is fucking disgusting, coming from a white dude. I've had to pick up tables as a server because certain (infrequent) people "don't want a nigger to touch their food".
I bought my co-worker lunch that day. He felt completely destroyed by not being able to make money because he wasn't born with peachy skin.
> You must be from a pretty affluent area if you believe racism is a non-issue.
I'm not, and I'm also not white.
But hey, keep your eyes on the prize and focus on the actual racism out there, rather than diversion tactics like people complaining about other people complaining about strangers coming to their door.
I apologise for assuming anything about you. Sincerely. I just wanted to remind people how vitriolic real racism can be, even in just day-to-day interactions.
The "racism discussion" keeps being skimmed on by these sorts of articles/observations, rather than directly confronting the issues, and it's upsetting.
That kind of language and treatment of staff should result in ejection from the premises and a permanent ban, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Not indulgence!
Wasn't trying to get fired, frankly. I made up to $40/hr there at 20 yo. My boss was black, too. It was in the South, so it was more of a bad fact of life and treated as such by management. I agree with you, though. Nowadays, I wouldn't hesitate to refuse service.
I didn't mean to suggest that you, personally, should have refused them. But perhaps your boss should have. When was this? I didn't think naked racism was tolerated in public even in the South in past few decades. Perhaps I'm naive.
>You must be from a pretty affluent area if you believe racism is a non-issue.
It's the affluent areas that tend to be the worst about this, except maybe the ultra liberal ones around certain cities where the racists dare not let their opinions be known so they tend to focus on social class instead.
That's a very naive and limited view, definitely not the extent of racism in the US. You're seeing it as the upper bound, when it's really more of the lower bound, and it's indicative of much deeper and serious problems.
Perhaps in my area it's only non-whites who come to the door with clipboards as that's all I see posted to Ring Neighbors. Or what's posted is a reflection of what scares those neighbors, not who comes to their door.
I see this all the time too, but it's people of all skin colors. Basically, anyone walking up to the door of some houses for any reason gets reported and accused. I'd be interested to see the data that supports the "but his skin tone is wrong" part of your statement, because it doesn't seem to be applicable or relevant in my experience with the app. (Although, I'm sure if anyone could manufacture that data, it would be Vice.)
I know people in the retail door-to-door canvassing business (home renovations), and it's very obvious to them that there is a strong racial bias towards non-white door-to-door canvassers. Fewer people answer the door, more belligerence at the door, etc. It's consistent and it's sad, but that's reality in a lot of places.
Door to door electricity sales people are almost always criminals (fraudsters) trying to trick you into signing up for something they are intentionally misleading about.
The door to door electricity sales are often scams -> and always totally misleading.
They claim to be working for your electric company (not true), they claim to keep your service you need to pick a provider (not true - you can keep your existing provider even with retail choice and even if you do nothing). They always seem to lie about the price (sometimes its ridiculous).
I've had them at our door. We have a locked building - the guy claimed that a neighbor suggested he talk with us. But he couldn't tell me which neighbor (this is a small condo - I know everyone, all our doors are within 30 feet of each other). He couldn't even point out which neighbor it was.
I do know of some folks who signed up with these guys and bragged for a bit about how much they were saving. Then they went radio silent.
> is it legal for ring/amazon to use faces of people, suspected BY THEIR CUSTOMERS to have done crimes, in an advertisement? especially given they haven't consented or been convicted or anything. seems uhhh not right
This really comes down to the consequences.
"A calculated risk betting that the people shown allegedly committing crimes won't risk identifying themselves to sue"
In the video, the woman’s face is clearly visible and there
is no obvious criminal activity taking place. The Facebook
post shows her passing between two cars. She pulls the door
handle of one of the cars, but it is locked.
Yeah that's pretty clearly attempting to steal vehicles / contents of vehicles, that's 100% what that looks like.
It wouldn’t have been suspicious if she had just walked between the 2 cars, but she tried to break into one of them, and at about 8 seconds in you can clearly see her scanning the parking lot to see if anyone is watching her.
I've had embarassing situations where an outsider might misinterpret my behaviour such that I would scan around for a good moment, good in the sense of not being bothered needlessly:
1. one time I lost the key to my bicycle lock, so I had to cut it free, ... obviously I looked around for a calmer moment, even though it simply was my bike.
2. another time I (or a friend, I can't remember) threw my frisbee on the roof of a small entrance building with elevator to the underground parking lot under a public square. Although the height could be scaled by climbing some structure besides it, we didn't because it was too busy... then I told my brother about what happened without asking him to get it... the next day I decide to get it, but there was a police car doing a patrol and passing every 7 minutes, ... so I doubt for a while, then stop the police car on its next tour, ask the cops if I can go fetch my frisbee from the roof,... very hesitant to give any explicit permission they subtextually indicate they don't care, as long as I do it quickly while they are there... so climb the structure, then the roof, ... no frisbee! later I would learn my brother had already retrieved it...
For a few years my only vehicle was an old, beat up Volvo station wagon. The door locks were damaged and would only lock ~50% of the time. Since I parked the car on the street I would always check to ensure that the doors were locked by pulling on a door handle.
One time I did this as a car passed by and a number of people started yelling out of the car at me accusing me of breaking into my own car and even threatening me if I continued.
Just because a small, cut down clip "looks like" attempted robbery does not mean that it is.
Well the Ring ad on facebook says "this woman was caught on camera breaking into a vehicle". So I don't think it could be a false report of attempted robbery, unless Ring is lying.
Despite it being VICE News (who do not quote Sgt. Tim Dahl in the article for some reason), and despite one video of some person we know nothing about and lack all context for, the article is actually a good dive into some strange stuff that is occuring between Amazon, FB, and MVPD.
Everyone should actually read the article and go look at the FB post by MVPD.
Agreed it’s overall a good article & the topic is nuanced for sure, it’s a great intro article and worthy of debate. But it’s also editorialized so do breathe.
As far as I know, it has never been a requirement that when the police would like the public to help find a person accused of crime X, the photo they give to help the public recognize the person must be a photo of the person actually committing crime X.
The app itself is entertaining, but a lot of false alarms. My favorite so far was a county worker who tripped my camera with his...i want to say water collection tool...from off camera before hanging a doorknob sign warning of mosquitoes. I took a screen capture while at work and zoomed in on his shirt to see the familiar county symbol.
Most of the crimes are petty...the older generation doesn't always lock their cars..., although one guy shot up a barbershop a mile or two away, killing several barbers. Good to know. Also, I know why that police chopper is circling or what caused that fire in the distance. My neighbors are pretty good at being on the DL, but this is a lot faster. Not as good as a scanner, but my local PD refuses to be on the internet scanner apps anyway.
Not to say that even the police reports get it right. Shoplifting and armed robbery aren't the same.
>Amazon purchased Ring in 2018. The company sells surveillance camera systems, and recently filed two patent applications for facial recognition technology in its cameras that would automatically alert law enforcement to "suspicious" people.
next version will feature a drone quietly deployed to follow the "suspicious" person and to tazer the person upon the "suspiciousness" crossing the pre-determined threshold (established by the neighborhood).
Somehow this reminds me of the "Running Man" movie.
There was a comercial playing that said something like: "Citizen, denounce your neighbor, and get some extra dollars"...
There should have been more positive visions of the future. These idiot companies took the shit from the 80s as script it seems.
Can we talk about the fact that in the US you are granted no right to privacy in public spaces? I don’t think this is universally good. Companies have used this fact to build databases of license plate locations and much more. Our anger shouldn’t primarily be directed at Amazon, but rather at the acceptance of public surveillance.
Hopefully, events like this help bring more light to this kind of blanket acceptance.
168 comments
[ 6.4 ms ] story [ 237 ms ] threadFor example, California has a right of publicity law. It's my understanding that even photos taken "in public" can't necessarily be used for commercial purposes:
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-right-publicity-l...
(And what's the definition of an ad you ask? Good question, I'm not sure if the FTC has a specific definition)
Think like this: what if Amazon was putting the same information into a newspaper?
It's posted by a corporation to sell a product. I think it's disingenuous to claim it's not an ad, though whether the content of the ad is illegal is admittedly debatable.
(As an aside, it's my understanding the "Promoted" tag is added specifically to comply with FTC guidelines that paid content be labeled.)
It would be a very unusual circumstance for a person caught on camera performing a criminal act to incriminate him/herself by admitting guilt for the purpose of prevailing on a right-to-publicity action.
Moreover, every case involving right to publicity/right of likeness thus far has had a "famous" person as the plaintiff, where there's a sort of "brand goodwill" in the person's likeness and that goodwill is being misappropriated specifically to recommend or endorse a product. That's not the case here, for sure.
But the person wasn’t caught on camera performing a criminal act afaics. She was caught walking between two cars and pulling at a door handle, the car was locked, person continued. Is this criminal? Kids do that all the time.
It’s alleged that the person did perform a criminal act elsewhere but was not caught on camera.
So it is a calculated risk that they won't sue, absolving Amazon of any actual negative consequence.
If that’s the standard that legal and ok gets measured on, yes, then that’s likely legal and ok.
Hell entertainment/production companies exist just to create shows that run these kinds of stories and solicit information from the public. Think of the host of FBIs most wanted who’s own child was famously kidnapped from a sears department store...you think sears, the FBI, or even the father have no right to show videos/images, public or private, that depict the suspect and solicit information from the public? Or even offer a reward for information leading to arrest?
If the video is fine, the post wording still isn't.
The presumption of innocence in American society died a long time ago, with Gitmo, CIA black sites & NSLs. What little was still left, is being killed every day with asylum seeker kids being abused in border ‘shelters’.
Long live habeas corpus & the American conscience.
Example : Driving used to be considered a right, it has since been reduced to a privilege that gets revoked simply by accusation
Given the fact the constitution says the govt cannot limit the freedom of movement.
The govt cannot make laws limiting freedom of movement regardless of the method as they were not given that right by the constitution. Therefore driving as a form of movement cannot be regulated.
There are also precedents discussing it
Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” –
Well, sorta.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Interstate travel cannot be regulated by the states and since freedom of movement is a right protected by the constitution.
You have to conclude interstate travel is a right. Granted the commerce clause can be used to regulate commercial travel but private travel cannot be ;)
The right to do it as the driver of a car is less clear, given that one can freely move between states in a bus, plane, boat, taxi, or as a car passenger.
Virginia law notwithstanding, elsewhere in the U.S., driving is not a right and never has been. Per U.S. Supreme Court law, freedom to travel includes the freedom to cross state lines, but that right does not extend to any particular mode of travel. You're free to walk, but not necessarily to drive or fly (notwithstanding 49 U.S.C. 40103, because Congress subsequently restricted that right in 49 U.S.C. 44901-44902). Otherwise, you'd just be able to walk into an airport and board any flight you'd like without presenting identification.
Similarly, if driving were a right, states would be forced to allow anyone behind a wheel (ok, at the helm of a 2-ton killdozer) without being properly trained or insured first.
You have to drive a car to travel interstate.
Try walking around the nation and see how much police interaction you get :)
No, no they don't. Private property does; and controlled-access highways do; but definitely not ordinary public highways.
https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/illinois-state-...
It's orthogonal to the general right to travel freely, but the story does demonstrate how overly broad procedural laws end up being selectively and inappropriately enforced to persecute under the color of law.
The parent is correct in that pedestrians ARE allowed alongside an "ordinary public highway" like IL-29 or a county highway.
Uh… Airports? Trains? Walking? Taking the ferry?
You can literally touch four states at once at Four Corners.
Consider attending law school; it's very eye-opening.
Asking the king permission to sue the king seems a bit like what the founders fought against than what they founded.
I doubt I have time to attend law school, get a degree and sue the govt before things change drastically. Not sure for the better.
Enjoyed the discussion.
This is often brought out as if to imply that the courts are correct. But why wouldn't government courts tend to malinterpret the Constitution in favor of the government?
> The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets
Thompson v Smith
You are prohibited from walking on most rights of ways not to mention if you do you will be harassed by police as a potential indigent.
Undue burden is also a metric ;)
That's practically a Black Mirror episode, and I would hope that everyone can see this, but judging from this comment thread, that's clearly not the case. Disturbing.
OJ was tried criminally and was found not guilty (I assure you the state of California has more money than OJ, yet he prevailed).
OJ was then sued civilly for wrongful death by the Goldman’s (OJ probably had more money than the Goldman’s) and yet the Goldman’s prevailed in the civil suit.
You asked what the difference was with the social media post vs. TV: The difference is that COPS, etc., don't want to be sued, so they get releases, because they realize that they could potentially be sued (and sometimes for good reason!) I sincerely doubt the person in the post signed a release from Amazon.
If you argue that it's technically legal, the OP wasn't specifically arguing that either.
> Even if one claims the video is fine (and I'd disagree), it's still a very very very bad idea for Amazon, or any large company, to be enforcing the law and conducting mass shaming via advertising.
I totally agree with that principle, but I think they presumption of innocence ship sailed a long time with modern social media and news cycles.
Not only because under the pressure of competition some company in this sector will attempt to manufacture fear by any means available. If by misdirection, or by direct action of some sort, but we'll all be so much worse for it.
The case of Ring is particularly disturbing. When its inventor appeared on Shark Tank, he said he wanted to create a way to hear his doorbell from the garage. Since Amazon bought the company for $1B, it's pivoted to a surveillance tool that's being offered to police as a way to freely record and review neighborhood camera views.
It's sad to see that unicorn companies today believe that surveillance capitalism is the way forward. Personally, I long for a return to old-fashioned values in business, namely making a product or service that people care about and want to pay for rather than pandering to fear and courting easy money from our soon-to-be robot overlords.
(I agree with your main point.)
So what, then?
Video recording law is probably the worst combination of misinformation and actually coming up in someone's life.
https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/cctv/
Also, in Europe being in a public place doesn't mean you automatically lose your right to privacy.
For defamation, for example, the claim would be that by including someone's face in an advertisement about home security videos, Amazon is implying that the person pictured is someone whom you would not want snooping around your house because he's a criminal. This would tend to hurt that person's reputation, which is the legal test for defamation.
Second, there's no "false light" if the recording shows the plaintiff plainly performing a criminal act.
Finally, a disclaimer of innocence until proven guilty would likely tend to negate such a defamation claim.
I haven't seen an episode of COPS in almost two decades, when I was a kid, but if I recall correctly, a lot of suspects faces on the show were blurred out so that they wouldn't be identified. I don't know if that is because they didn't sign a consent form from the show (or if the show even needed that), or what, but a lot of faces we're definitely censored.
Yup. Faces of suspects were often blurred. Victim/witnesses would also have their faces blurred sometimes, I assume they were offered some compensation in exchange for showing their face.
I'm sure the attorneys at Ring have already been through this discussion to decide whether similar actions were warranted, and concluded otherwise.
Also, a big difference between COPS and the instant case is that in the TV shows, law enforcement have already identified the suspect, while here, the suspect is at large. I think it would be difficult to convince a court that you were the intentional target of defamation when the defendant hasn't identified you yet.
While pulling on the handle of a locked car door and then moving on is certainly shady, I expect it's not a criminal act, right?
There is an additional nuance as to whether a sponsored post is an ad or not. They are paid for posts to reach a larger audience, but not necessarily to advertise a product. In this case, the police are asking for more information about this person, and Ring has paid Facebook to reach a larger audience.
The companies that insert themselves into every equation are the ones that make me upset. "Registation required to enable", "cloud based device", etc.
Also, Telsa cars now have 8 cameras and users have access to the footage with Dashcam Mode (while driving) and Sentry Mode (while parked). Lots of youtube videos are showing up, showing interesting things like autopilot saving the car, or people keying parked cars.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
Where I come from it's a known scheme where one guy gets you distracted at the front door with some semi-plausible sales pitch like re-sealing your driveway while his accomplice goes behind the house and robs you blind. Of course, even when the apparent salesman is a genuine salesman, that doesn't mean he's a nice person. Door to door salesmen praying on politeness to get unsuspecting victims into high pressure sales situations in their own living room is common enough that my blanket response to all salesmen knocking on my door is telling them to fuck off. In a certain sense, calling a salesman a thief might actually be giving him the benefit of the doubt.
This sounds like precisely the sort of pearl-clutching urban legend the parent comment is describing. The wealthy neighborhood I grew up in had all sorts of stories along these lines - "be on the lookout for gypsies" etc., despite a vanishingly small crime rate.
Of course, they’re buying the electricity from the local utility, so the contract generally looks something like a monthly price of U - x for a couple months (U being the price set by the utility, x the promised discount), followed by a number of months of U+z, z>>x.
They don’t mention the U+z; that’s left to the fine print.
"Retail choice" is the ability of individual households to buy directly from retail suppliers[2], and the history there is a bit spottier and less conclusive. It's not as widespread and participation has actually declined[3].
[1] http://www.caiso.com/Pages/default.aspx
[2] https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/68993.pdf
[3] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37452
Imagine single shared spectrum easy to setup eSIM, easy to terminate contracts. Unfortunately most countries want your ID nowadays when you sign up for internet...
In reality that hasn't been true for decades, beginning with the initial work on spread-spectrum communications in the WWII timeframe. But the regulatory system has yet to catch up fully with the technology's potential.
https://www.reddit.com/r/amateurradio/comments/49yuwx/til_gp...
The whole idea behind SS and UWB techniques is that the noise floor is under your control, rather than Boltzmann's.
There are optimum codes to use, such and Gold (GPS) and Walsh (IS-95 CDMA), but they still have non-zero cross-correlation, so your users are limited. Still no free lunch.
Point being, the obstacles are regulatory, not technical.
4G & 5G uses OFDM, essentially distributing the data over slow, narrow band channels to get around the multi-path issues with trying to use even wider band CDMA. Then MIMO to actually increase the capacity, which only works when you have multi path.
This gives a good summary, specifically page 32, but CDMA is essentially dead soon.
http://www.pitt.edu/~dtipper/2720/2720_Slides9.pdf
Channel capacity is not the problem. Do you own a radio capable of VHF/UHF reception? Turn it on. Tune it to a randomly-chosen frequency between, say, 600 and 1000 MHz. What do you hear? Now, repeat this exercise 5,000 times, and let me know how many of those iterations yield anything but white noise from your receiver's own front end and IF strip.
There's your "channel capacity."
This problem is purely regulatory. Everything should be frequency-agile at this point in time, but it's not. Never mind CDMA or TDMA, we haven't even picked the lowest of the low-hanging FDMA fruit yet.
There's one network (ran by one gov agency) and rest of the players are basically MVNO's, doing customer support, marketing and negotiating peering. Just like traditional ISPs work in many western countries.
don't feel bad though, English vocab can be tricky for native speakers too. for example, "in-" usually means "not", like "indestructible" means "can't be destroyed", but "inflammable" and "flammable" mean the same thing...
net neutrality certainly implies more regulation, but at a local level the monopolies/duopolies are often propped up by regulations.
If you see someone getting abused or needs help, I think you should do the right thing and try and help them, because everyone helping each other reduces risk for everyone and makes a better society.
On a related note, I went with Griddy, which is actually a cool startup approach to it.
https://www.gogriddy.com/
I'm happy this is pretty close to the extent of "racism" in our society at this point. Really grasping at straws if you have to keep reminding people about the horrors of racism when it comes out as, "Some people are upset that a wrong-colored stranger showed up at their door."
And I didn't bring race into this, the parent comment to my own did.
Racism is a spectrum, from explicit to implicit. Yes we need to be louder about the disproportionate extrajudicial killings of black people by police, their targeted disenfranchisement, etc [3]. But none of these emergencies invalidates criticism of the milder, more pervasive forms of racism.
[0] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/03/31/georgi...
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Renisha_McBride
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/10/11/teen-missed...
[3] https://www.vox.com/2019/6/7/18656568/usa-human-rights-repor...
I bought my co-worker lunch that day. He felt completely destroyed by not being able to make money because he wasn't born with peachy skin.
I'm not, and I'm also not white.
But hey, keep your eyes on the prize and focus on the actual racism out there, rather than diversion tactics like people complaining about other people complaining about strangers coming to their door.
The "racism discussion" keeps being skimmed on by these sorts of articles/observations, rather than directly confronting the issues, and it's upsetting.
That kind of language and treatment of staff should result in ejection from the premises and a permanent ban, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Not indulgence!
It's the affluent areas that tend to be the worst about this, except maybe the ultra liberal ones around certain cities where the racists dare not let their opinions be known so they tend to focus on social class instead.
They claim to be working for your electric company (not true), they claim to keep your service you need to pick a provider (not true - you can keep your existing provider even with retail choice and even if you do nothing). They always seem to lie about the price (sometimes its ridiculous).
I've had them at our door. We have a locked building - the guy claimed that a neighbor suggested he talk with us. But he couldn't tell me which neighbor (this is a small condo - I know everyone, all our doors are within 30 feet of each other). He couldn't even point out which neighbor it was.
I do know of some folks who signed up with these guys and bragged for a bit about how much they were saving. Then they went radio silent.
*or until public ads by Amazon sway the jury with video editing and accusations.
> is it legal for ring/amazon to use faces of people, suspected BY THEIR CUSTOMERS to have done crimes, in an advertisement? especially given they haven't consented or been convicted or anything. seems uhhh not right
This really comes down to the consequences.
"A calculated risk betting that the people shown allegedly committing crimes won't risk identifying themselves to sue"
or a paid actor.
generally a win for everyone
1. one time I lost the key to my bicycle lock, so I had to cut it free, ... obviously I looked around for a calmer moment, even though it simply was my bike.
2. another time I (or a friend, I can't remember) threw my frisbee on the roof of a small entrance building with elevator to the underground parking lot under a public square. Although the height could be scaled by climbing some structure besides it, we didn't because it was too busy... then I told my brother about what happened without asking him to get it... the next day I decide to get it, but there was a police car doing a patrol and passing every 7 minutes, ... so I doubt for a while, then stop the police car on its next tour, ask the cops if I can go fetch my frisbee from the roof,... very hesitant to give any explicit permission they subtextually indicate they don't care, as long as I do it quickly while they are there... so climb the structure, then the roof, ... no frisbee! later I would learn my brother had already retrieved it...
One time I did this as a car passed by and a number of people started yelling out of the car at me accusing me of breaking into my own car and even threatening me if I continued.
Just because a small, cut down clip "looks like" attempted robbery does not mean that it is.
Despite it being VICE News (who do not quote Sgt. Tim Dahl in the article for some reason), and despite one video of some person we know nothing about and lack all context for, the article is actually a good dive into some strange stuff that is occuring between Amazon, FB, and MVPD.
Everyone should actually read the article and go look at the FB post by MVPD.
The VICE headline is pure clickbait.
That said, yeah, that looks shady.
Most of the crimes are petty...the older generation doesn't always lock their cars..., although one guy shot up a barbershop a mile or two away, killing several barbers. Good to know. Also, I know why that police chopper is circling or what caused that fire in the distance. My neighbors are pretty good at being on the DL, but this is a lot faster. Not as good as a scanner, but my local PD refuses to be on the internet scanner apps anyway.
Not to say that even the police reports get it right. Shoplifting and armed robbery aren't the same.
next version will feature a drone quietly deployed to follow the "suspicious" person and to tazer the person upon the "suspiciousness" crossing the pre-determined threshold (established by the neighborhood).
Except of course, the Magnavolt Car Security System from Robocop: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRNVxHPJ0hM
The one on the picture might have, but what about anyone who to overzealous neighbours looks like the person on a rather crappy picture?
What should they do to avoid being accosted on the street, or worse?
There should have been more positive visions of the future. These idiot companies took the shit from the 80s as script it seems.
Hopefully, events like this help bring more light to this kind of blanket acceptance.