Amazon’s Ring Is Putting Suspected Petty Thieves in Its Advertisements
vice.com
vice.com
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hopefully, events like this help bring more light to this kind of blanket acceptance.
> 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
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
*or until public ads by Amazon sway the jury with video editing and accusations.
There should have been more positive visions of the future. These idiot companies took the shit from the 80s as script it seems.