Hacker News Reader

Huh? How did you get something entirely different from the article. The article says police will have access to the neighborhoods law enforcement portal, which only gives them access to public posts of Ring users. The only addition that the law enforcement portal appears to give is the fact that they can request video clips from homeowners.

There are some valid concerns there but you’re mischaracterizing this tool and how it works.

> There is no encryption. There is no 2FA. There is no legal protection for privacy of citizens face's caught in these cameras and added to their facial recognition algorithms.

Those are some interesting claims. Where is this information sourced from?

the engineering team

> There is no encryption. There is no 2FA. There is no legal protection for privacy of citizens face's caught in these cameras and added to their facial recognition algorithms.

Yes and no lawsuit will be won either. Every judge will strike it based on being in public assumption of lack of privacy. If you walk on public street, don't assume your privacy is protected :(

It's way more complex than that. For instance here the evidence from a webcam filming from a public vantage point was struck down.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/cops-illegally-n...

I've also seen SCOTUS rulings that they see a difference between public ancillary recordings, and mass surveillance of all public actions.

Great example +1; however in this example cops assumed Mr. Vargas to commit crime and hence setup cam to watch aka surveillance his property 24/7. Very difference from situation where average citizens records their front yard 24/7 not expecting or assuming a crime will occur, and then having that video being obtained when the crime happens.

In other words, this case is about active surveillance, versus Ring cams are more passive (record everything all the time for no specific reason)

Ring is marketed as a security camera, and one of it's primary use cases is providing video recording in the event of a crime.

Exactly! Not marketed as a tool to surveillance your neighbor 24/7.

These are cameras installed in doorbells on private property, there wouldn't be any expectation of privacy.

Except that my house is across the street and the Ring camera points into my windows and can record my private actions inside my own home without my permission.

Are you in the US, do you live on a public street, and does your state have Peeping Tom laws?

It's not cut and dry, but if what you're doing is in clear view of a public street, then it's unlikely you will win an argument based on having a reasonable expectation of privacy.

You of course can bring this argument in front of the courts, but my non-legal opinion is that you wouldn't prevail.

There are a few contrived examples:

A cop walks by and sees you assault someone in your house through the window. That's enough PC to enter without a warrant. You can try to argue your privacy was violated and , but it was in clear view of the public.

You perform a lewd act in your home in front of the window, that is in clear view of a school bus stop where children are awaiting the bus. It would be doubtful that you could use privacy as a defense against indecent exposure laws.

If the ring camera was somehow zoomed in to ONLY film your actions through the window, then perhaps you may have cause.

If you walk on public street

No, this is not public property, it's if you walk on private property. Ring cams are placed on private property and are targeted at homeowners. They usually don't record or activate outside of a range of 30 feet or so. So if someone drives by my house the ring cam doesn't capture it but if someone walks by my door it does.

> They usually don't record or activate outside of a range of 30 feet or so.

30 feet is often more than the distance from the front door to a sidewalk, and often well into the actual street.

30 feet is often across the street.

They usually don't record or activate outside of a range of 30 feet or so.

The Ring videos my neighbors post show their yards, the sidewalk, and all the way to the cars on the other side of the street.

It seems to be all about how your doorbell is positioned, though.

> Ring is just giving this to cops for free and offering customers a discount for letting their video surveillance from their home / doorbell be shared with the police in this portal

That's a hell of a market strategy. Do you have a source on that discount story? Because I'm not able to find one right now.

Do you have a source on that discount story? Because I'm not able to find one right now.

Not the OP, but my neighborhood's Nextdoor message board is filled with both Ring discounts, and pleas from the local PD for people to buy them. I have no proof that they're related, but if the marketing is being done through hyper-targeted methods like this, it might explain why it's not Googleable.

I think I misunderstood OP's meaning. I though they were claiming the police were paying directly for video signal; it appears police or Ring are offering discounts to get the hardware in the belief that citizens will volunteer the video when the local police need help to stop a crime.

No encryption? You can siphon the videos from the ring device by just connecting on the same wifi?

The concerns of allowing a surveillance state are real. I hope Jamie addresses all these concerns.

do you have a mirror to this? video has been taken down.

found a mirror: https://vimeo.com/290482418

I'm a Ring customer. The Ring Portal is optional and opt-in. People want this. This is similar but not the same as Yc's Flock https://www.flocksafety.com/ but it doesn't require a home owner's association to set up and it's inexpensive. (Flock focuses on storing license plates.)

Stuff like this helps police do something about robberies and burglaries. It's harder to ignore and file away when there's video evidence.

Megapixel IP cameras are getting cheaper and cheaper every day. We already live in a mass surveillance society with microphones and cameras in almost all of our rooms, with some people even installing Echos in their bathrooms. Instead of bad Big Brother, we get helpful Little Sister (Alexa, Siri, Kortana, ...). imo The only real way to completely escape it, is to avoid technology and live outside of large metros; away from civilization

> The only real way to completely escape it, is to avoid technology and live outside of large metros; away from civilization

This is an incredibly subservient, defeatist attitude.

I do not allow devices like Alexa into my home. I do not own a smart TV. Besides studio recording equipment, the only microphone in my house is on my phone.

If I have my own cameras, and a burglary takes place, I will share that part of the video with the local police.

Letting them just hook in is positively insane. Saying it's OK to let Big Brother into my house on the basis of fear and because Little Sister is already there is not only completely irrational, but cowardly as well.

As the saying goes, "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."

> This is an incredibly subservient, defeatist attitude.

It's reality if you use a smart phone or own a tablet, or are around others that do. Do your friends and family own one? Do you not own and use a smart phone? You know the device that tracks your location and pushes your data to the cloud. Pretending that doesn't exist is just another instance of cognitive dissonance. Besides what happens when people take a picture of you? They post it to the cloud along with datetime and location data, and even names.

A lot of people who value convenience above all do not realize what they are trading it for. Many of these people don't even realize that's what they value most. It's hard not to be in that category if you use almost any kind of cloud connected service. I'm only making blissfully ignorant people aware of it. Maybe you should reexamine the digital aspect of your own life before strongly judging me.

> I do not allow devices like Alexa into my home.

What about Siri, Google, or Kortana? Siri is on both iPhones and Macs now. Kortana is on every Win 10 machine. Google Assistant / Ok Google is on Chrome OS and Android.

Do you own any IoT device? Even if they don't have a mic or camera, they can still track you and your habits.

> "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."

I'm not sure how I've traded my liberty on this one. It's not like I voted for a Patriot Act, where I don't have a choice on what I'm willing to share.

> Letting them just hook in is positively insane. If I have my own cameras, and a burglary takes place, I will share that part of the video with the local police.

They don't "hook in". It's just NextDoor for Ring owners where it's easier to share video with other Ring owners and now police. You CAN pick and choose what you want to share on Ring Neighborhood. That's how it works. Again no one is forced to even join Ring Neighborhood and you pick and choose what you want to share. Most importantly, even after you join - you can opt out at anytime.

People now have a better chance of getting police to deal with people who steal their packages.

I'm a Ring customer. The Ring Portal is optional and opt-in.

I'm not a Ring owner, but several of my neighbors are. Two have told me that they have been pressured by police officers — in person — to join some kind of surveillance program. I'm not sure if it's this one, or something else.

I also don't know how the cops found out that they had Ring devices, but the local PD advocates for it heavily on my neighborhood's Nextdoor group.

Were they forced to join? Was it compulsory? You do know even after you join, you choose what clips to share right?

All I know is that they were creeped out that the police asked them directly.

I didn't ask if they signed up or not. But the average person isn't some internet pretend lawyer, and will go along with anything someone with a badge says. Just the request is intimidation enough for most people.

even after you join, you choose what clips to share right?

You choose what you want to voluntarily share. But since the videos are on Ring's server, when the homeowner says "no," the courts say, "yes."

If the courts are saying yes there has to be a justifiable reason. A crime has to have happened. It isn't the 'if you don't have anything to hide...' argument at that point, it's 'if you don't have a crime to hide'. That said I'm avoiding such technology as long as possible for other reasons.

I say as I type this on my phone with a camera and microphone pointed at me.

> You choose what you want to voluntarily share. But since the videos are on Ring's server, when the homeowner says "no," the courts say, "yes."

1. If this is true, then it applies to all data in the cloud, including stuff everyone already stores from their smartphone. Are you going to stop using your smart phone? Are you going to stop using Waze and online maps? Do you maintain your own personal email server? Do you use IM? Law enforcement would also have to make a formal request for the data. They don’t have instant access to it.

2. Again, this is completely opt-in and you can leave when you want.

3. To keep your video clips longer than a few hours, you need to pay for a Ring subscription. Again this is optional.

4. no one is forced to buy Ring devices

5. Mass surveillance has been here for years now. It doesn’t matter if you use Facebook or not. As long as your friends, family, and coworkers use it; they will have data on you. Is it possible to avoid? Of course but it would require such as drastic change in life that it would be impractical for most techies