So the police requests access to the footage for a specific time, the homeowner has to agree to it, and then Amazon/Ring hands it over? If the homeowner declines, then the neighbor agrees, the police can still (most likely) see what they were trying to see. This has got some creepy implications that basically means the more of these Ring cameras are out there, the more power the police has in terms of surveillance. The homeowner's permission is completely useless since there are likely other homeowners in the area that will agree.
Well, in this specific context it is because the police's request is not for the neighbor to provide access to the other's Ring camera footage, it is a request to provide access to that individual's own Ring camera footage. An unfortunately side effect is that both Ring cameras, owned by two separate homeowners, may be pointing in a similar enough direction to still see whatever it is that the police wants to see. Then the whole 'agreement' process is kind of moot.
Or the police request access, the homeowner denies it, the police get a search warrant for certain data on Ring's servers, Ring provides it without comment.
Everyone's happy! The homeowner has preserved their privacy by smugly clicking "no", the police are browsing all the footage from the camera anyway. Job well done.
If a judge approves a search warrant, what's the issue? Your constitutional rights are not being infringed. I am afraid of the police (or CIA, etc) acting illegally but if the judiciary I'm probably ok with it.
This is the problem with this new wave of devices that only work when connected to the manufacturer's cloud service. There needs to be more focus on devices and software that allow you to run completely independently of the manufacturer's servers. The Home Assistant project has been a blessing in this area, but many devices either lack support or must have custom firmware to work in an "offline" mode.
People have no right to get mad that a law enforcement agency wants the video that may have captured a crime, of a product that is marketed to help the consumer catch people in the act of a crime that records everyone that passes in front of it without their permission.
It's not like you go to your neighbors and say "please sign this release so I can record you if you cross in front of my camera".
10 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 34.1 ms ] threadWhy does an "agree" "overwrite" a "disagree" and not the other way round?
Everyone's happy! The homeowner has preserved their privacy by smugly clicking "no", the police are browsing all the footage from the camera anyway. Job well done.
People have no right to get mad that a law enforcement agency wants the video that may have captured a crime, of a product that is marketed to help the consumer catch people in the act of a crime that records everyone that passes in front of it without their permission. It's not like you go to your neighbors and say "please sign this release so I can record you if you cross in front of my camera".