Amazon’s Ring now reportedly partners with 2k US police and fire departments | Hacker News Reader

Amazon’s Ring now reportedly partners with 2k US police and fire departments

theverge.com

85 pointsCorrado76 comments

For some background information, "Amazon's Ring wants police to keep these surveillance details from you"[1] and "Activists are pressuring lawmakers to stop Amazon Ring’s police surveillance partnerships"[2][3] explore the consequences of Amazon's law enforcement partnerships.

[1] https://www.cnet.com/news/amazon-ring-wants-police-to-keep-t...

[2] https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/10/8/20903536/amazon-ring-do...

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24586362

For those who like podcasts, Citations Needed did a great episode on the topic.

https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-97-porch-pirate-p...

Well, that I call a literal foot in the door. I am waiting for the "I have nothing to hide" folks to call for "privacy and personal space is sacred" when people are going to start to incriminate themselves with domestic abuse/violence or tax evasion, etc. Internet-connected "smart homes" are beyond stupid.

I have no problems with the police doing their jobs, and were I the police I'd be definitely looking for these devices to aid an investigation.

What I don't like or want is these multinational, but US based, companies spying in my home. And I don't want my neighbours doing the same.

Were I to have cameras installed they would not be from an internet ad network.

Beyond stupid is correct!

People can just NOT buy these things. We vote with our money, if we keep buying then they will keep invading our privacy.

Why should we only vote with out money. We have other means to vote why are they vilified?

Like what? How can you "vote" against what a giant corporation does?

I suspect he/she means we have the ability to vote in our political system, which _does_ have the ability to influence what corporations are/aren't allowed to do.

That's far harder to do tho. It's not uncommon for politicians to deprioritize issues after getting elected or even use certain events to strengthen the state security apparatus. If 49% voted for more privacy, they'd lose to the 51%, but if 49% stopped using those service, it'll force the companies to implement better privacy options.

Well, voting for one thing.

My mayor doesn’t have a ton of control over what the police department does; but they obviously can influence it. Similarly for the state legislature.

We also have laws defining advertising standards and protecting privacy. You can vote for people who would require that relationships like this be disclosed, or ban police use of private cameras without the owner’s direct consent. Or define ownership of the videos from cameras like this to say that the manufacturer has no right to use or share the footage.

Problem is, people have unrealistic expectations of privacy from the marketing these companies do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqFWcI7TcTs

The main issue is that people that are disturbed by this and the people buying connected IOT such as this are not vastly overlapping groups.

Assuming a front door ring camera scenario, the main privacy invasion is not inflicted upon you but on your front door neighbour, which, at least in many European terraced house neighbourhoods, is literally a living room window a few meters away.

> People can just NOT buy these things.

You cannot sell yourself into slavery. You cannot sign a contract if you are a child. You can’t give up your right to basic work safety standards. The government does not allow people to enter into fundamentally abusive or exploitative agreements. I’m all for voting with your money when it comes to quality. When it comes to basic rights to privacy for you and those around you, this is not a free market issue, it is a rights issue. The police are overstepping and it should not be allowed.

What's the difference between selling yourself into slavery and working a job? In both cases, you're getting paid to do labor, and you're doing so voluntarily

Most slaves don’t get to leave when the work loses it’s luster

If you ever interact with law enforcement in a non-friendly way, even something like being depressed and someone doing a invoking a wellness check, or getting SWATted, you'll know very very quickly how invasive cops are, and how they give themselves uninvited access to everything in your apartment, smartphone and anything else they find. Doesn't matter if six months later it's admissible or not to court, the damage would have already been done, if not legally, then mentally and psychologically on you.

The "I have nothing to hide" is similar to the "I don't need a gun" or "I don't need a car" that people living in big safe cities with plenty of police/transit say, ignoring the fact that the other half of the country is living in areas with nearby forests/wild animals and less law enforcement and plenty of crime and everything is far apart. Plenty of people out there have issues in their lives and they do need the privacy to keep themselves sane.

I regularly inject UFOs landing into my shared Ring camera feed. Can't wait to see if Mulder show up.

What happens if you get a couple of guys wearing blue gloves instead?

Ask if they're hiring?

:0 Not good. Only a matter of time until a police person misuses the system to spy on his/her Ex

Thankfully I live in a country where you can't easily point a camera on someone else property or public space.

There's no such place, smart cameras will be ubiquitous. They are too useful and inexpensive.

No, I mean it's against the law for privacy reasons.

I can't just film random people walking past my house.

What about dashcams and street photography?

AFAIK you can take street photos, if people are not the main subject. You can't take pictures of specific people, up close. I don't know the specific of where exactly the line is.

I don't know how dashcams are handles here in DK I know in Germany there was a long debate and forbidden for a long time. I think in Germany they are allowed now, but you can't just drive around and video everything, only if you are involved in a situation. I think the idea is they don't want people driving around, recording everything to be some kind of vigilante police. Even a good driver breaks some minor rule by accident at times.

Edit: In DK you are not allowed to release the Dashcam footage if there is a person in focus / the main subject. And I assume recognizable. Also only on public roads. Not sure how they handle numberplates.

In Germany you can have a dashcam and it can be recording all the time, but any and all video recorded by it is inadmissable in court, and you can't share it online without bluring out faces and licence plates. So it's a bit useless. You can have it if you want to record for the sake of it.

Ah yes. Thank you for the correction. That also stops people from driving around and "playing cop"

I’m curious as to why that’s considered bad. I imagine there must be a reason, but from where I am some locations on this planet could really benefit from people literally driving around and filming rampant traffic violations, with law enforcement making use of it.

Is this a forward-looking law that presumes such video evidence may be faked in an undetectable way? Or is there really an expectation of privacy even while you are in a public place (e.g., street)?

It's about the potential for abuse. The police can use it as an excuse to charge or arrest you when they don't have anything else on you.

Most of the places with really bad traffic situation (e.g. India) already have cameras and infinite footage of violations, and they don't have any impact on law enforcement.

India aside, surely if you get arrested for actually breaking a law that’d be net good for society? Whether law enforcement wants you for an unrelated offence doesn’t matter; they won’t be able to charge you on that (if they had enough evidence, they’d have already done so).

I just looked it up. It appears the "stop people from playing cop" was my interpretation.

It is all about privacy.

Germany has very strict privacy laws. Probably because of our recent history in East Germany and the Stasi who systematic monitored the people. Similar to the NSA, but the state collapsed and people could read their own record. And a bit more "personal" because people where extorted to spy on their own friends and family. Movie suggestion: "Das Leben der Anderen" / "the lives of others"

You also can't film / take photo of people in public or put a camera in front of your house if it has view of the public street.

Thanks for clarifying. I watched that film (though a long time ago), and I’m familiar with the issue. In my mind, coordinated surveillance by the state or any single entity is highly undesirable, but is a different concern. Surely if one can be held liable for, e.g., using a visible act of filming in an attempt to make someone [physically stronger or better equipped] stop breaking the law, one may end up feeling fairly powerless in a variety of situations.

Any and all video is inadmissible? In criminal and civil court?

Even if it shows someone intentionally hurting someone? Or someone trying to pretend to be hurt or pretend to be a victim and defraud someone else?

I think his statement is based on pre-2018 law. I quickly read up on it, and I understood it as that it can be used in curt. But you are not allowed to permanently record everything. A record buffer that overwrites itself is ok though.

But even as a native German speaker. It's hard to understand what exactly is allowed and what not.

https://www.finanztip.de/dashcam-urteil/ https://www.adac.de/verkehr/recht/verkehrsvorschriften-deuts...

> A record buffer that overwrites itself is ok though.

That makes sense now.

Though I don't know the specifics about dash cams in Germany, evidence proving guilt being inadmissible isn't exactly rare.

> only if you are involved in a situation

Isn't the whole point of a dashcam to pre-emtively record all the time in case a situation happens? Otherwise I would just use my phone after the fact if I am still able to after an accident.

What? Sure you can, unless you're in some weird jurisdiction where you don't have the right to film people in public spaces.

Edit: I see you're located outside the US, which is the subject of this article.

> I see you're located outside the US, which is the subject of this article.

I know, that is why I said "I live in a country where .."

This is a beautiful HN classic, they immediately look up your profile after having failed to read a crucial part of your comment.

considering the ever mounting respect and trust that American policing has earned over the last decade you can certainly see how this is a really good business decision on Amazon's part.

Taking walks around the neighborhood, I've stared to notice just the sheer number of these cameras. It bothers me that I end up on probably 10+ doorbell cameras, possibly showing up as an alert on someones phone.

I live in a suburb where basically nothing ever happens. Sure, there's the occasional clip posted on nextdoor of a rude driver or some kids stealing a lawn ornament. But I highly doubt that the grainy unfocused video of a doorbell camera was ever pivotal in solving these crimes.

I just don't understand why so many people want to record the front of their house, and pay someone like Amazon a monthly fee to do so.

Fear is incredibly profitable.

I live in a decent/nice neighborhood too. For me, its about easily tracking deliveries and general security with a bonus of cool storm footage.

That being said, my camera alone has stopped multiple porch pirates (one even got to the door and yelled "he's got a NAME BRAND CAMERA" and then they snapped 180 and bolted.

I've also recorded gunshots when a drunken party got out of hand and helped confirm with police the exact time of the shooting.

I watched a fedex driver jump my 6ft fence TWICE to deliver a package to my back door. Completely idiotic here in the south...

I've captured multiple crashes as well as a hit and run at my neighbor's house from a distracted driver.

I captured footage of a thief sneaking into and out of my neighbor's house as well which led to an arrest.

A single one of those instances would have been worth it to me to have a camera let alone these and more.

I think most people have no idea what is happening in their little neighborhood and having photographic evidence can really change your perception of the area as well as potentially provide footage/evidence (at your discretion) to the relevant authorities.

Great. You can share your security footage with your neighbors on Ring, but when I see footage in my neighborhood I always hope local law enforcement is also informed.

> which lets law enforcement ask users for footage from their Ring security cameras to assist with investigations

that seems fine

> law enforcement made some 1,900 requests — such as subpoenas, search warrants, and court orders— for footage or data from Ring cameras even after the device owner has denied the request

aaah

In fairness, if they have enough evidence to get a court order then they should get the footage.

I think its important to have a barrier to break people's privacy, but I don't want an absolute barrier, just one that stops its use on cases that matter less than people's privacy.

Court orders aren't much of a barrier, especially when many judges effectively rubber stamp police requests.

Yeah, but you at least have to go and ask, and get it and bring it back.

Dumb as it sounds, making it difficult means it's only used for important cases.

I'd like to see a lot more consideration. I'm not sure how we can get it though given the current climate...

It’s definitely not just used for important cases, and the bar to getting a warrant in a lot of jurisdictions is so low as to be nearly meaningless. Unless you and I have different interpretations of what cases are important, which is totally possible too

No, I agree, it should be more difficult!

Is it opt-in for end users?

Sancta simplicitas

Not if your next-door neighbour has one.

Who is the "end user" of a camera? In this case, it's apparently the curious police officer.

What are the concerns here? Obviously police should be able to get warrants and obtain relevant security camera footage for a crime, and obviously owners of security cameras should have the right to volunteer their recordings to the police or to neighbors if they wish to in the absence of a warrant.

I think there are two concerns. First is that many people might not want to have their lives recorded by a camera to which a massive global corporation has access to. And I don't mean the people volunteering the recordings, but other houses which might be in the camera's field of view without consent.

Second concern is the same, but for the authorities. Warrants are well and good, but if the access is easy, it's highly likely in time they will just drop the warrant pretense and just monitor the streams 24/7 'for our safety'.

For the second concern it seems like there might be a constitutional issue in the US, but who knows how courts would rule on it?

If you said "should the police build an omnipresent system of surveillance cameras", people might see the problem. Somehow if a giant megacorp and lots of local concerned citizens are interposed, people lose sight of this.

The two big concerns are (a) use of footage against things that aren't actually crimes and (b) highly selective enforcement.

I don't know how this is implemented or monitored, but what would stop a police person from requesting data from his/hers ex neighbor? Or daughters boyfriend neighbor.

The neighbor just sees "police requested footage" and says yes.

I would rather see some data on how helpful this is before it get's implemented. AFAIK video surveillance is often not as helpful as people think it is. Thanks to shows like CIS. I could be wrong.

With "normal" CCTV you control the data. If the police want it, they are very welcome to obtain a warranty and I'll be more than happy to give them copies of everything. No problem at all.

But with something like Ring, you don't control the data. Police will have special arrangements where they can view recordings whenever they like, sometimes without a warrant, based on "suspicion" or some other nonsense like that. I'm also guessing that Ring doesn't tell you when this happens. That is a system prone to abuse.

As to your last point - of course you should be able to volunteer the data if you want to. That was never in question.

Doesn't this comment contradict the article?

Exactly. The police should have to ask for every single piece of footage and present a case for it in front of a judge to get a warrant. Their job should be hard, so they only do it if they really have to.

If they publish this article it means theres no news in tech area. There's no crisis, it's good.

uh oh!

Awesome. We need to equip police and fire departments with tools to catch criminals and enforce the law. It also requires government cooperation so that perpetrators are prosecuted and face actual consequences, but having footage available is way better than expecting best good to randomly chance upon a suspect.

I assume you're not in a minority regularly persecuted by the police?

Isn't this opt-in though? i.e you can choose not to share

Your neighbour who has “nothing to hide” opts in. Their camera points directly at your property (after all you’re dodgy - come and go at all times of night, “don’t fit in” (nothing to do with black skin), etc.

Totally valid point but I'm also conflicted here.

I live in Washington DC where crime definitely happens (there was a double shooting 150 feet from my house 3 weeks ago).

I have cameras installed so I can monitor my house along with an alarm system.

My cameras are angled so as to preserve my privacy (e.g. no cameras inside the house) although they do capture anytime someone enters or leaves my house.

My backyard camera captures several other people's front porches and I've thought about that as I have no interest in capturing their front porch and monitoring them. I have drawn my polygons for the event captures to only trigger if some one enters my yard.

That being said, the city of DC has a program where if you register your camera with them so they know where they are and you have 2 days of 24/7 recording history, then they will reimburse cameras up to $500 total. [1]

I just signed up for that rebate program as $500 is $500. Free money.

And honestly if my camera would have been setup and registered with them prior that that shooting earlier this month, I would have happily given them that footage to aid their investigation.

But again, I have no interest in spying on my neighbors.

So how could this be resolved so this data doesn't proliferate in usage by the police for minor crimes but is still available for serious crimes. If someone breaks into my house, I definitely want their face to be on camera.

[1] https://ovsjg.dc.gov/page/private-security-camera-rebate-pro...

If I have a camera with evidence of a crime is probably give it to the police. That’s different from the police going straight to amazon, and different to the police giving free doorbells to people

For police to install a cctv camera requires a due process and safeguards against misuse. They can bypass this by using private cameras - but to actually pay for them is a massive abuse.

The city paying for the cameras doesn't give them the right to the footage whenever they want.

The footage is still private and they have no easier access system. Instead, the value is (1) I'm required to have at least two days of 24/7 recording history on the cameras and (2) they now know where these cameras are and the direction that face.

Thus, if a crime happens, they can come subpoena the footage. Simply knowing that there might be footage that could help solve a crime is super helpful to the police. But they don't get automatic access or anything of the sort.

> My backyard camera captures several other people's front porches

Many cameras also have features to block out private areas entirely (since that's required in many places).

Presumably this is to catch recorded crime, versus pestering random people out of the blue?

The people who stole my old startup's hardware prototypes and thousands of dollars of electronics from a storage unit were recorded. Didn't help.

Minorities aren’t “regularly” persecuted by police. You need to define what “regularly” means and show your evidence if you want to make such a hyperbolic claim. Criminals are regularly persecuted by police, however. It happens to be that some demographic groups have higher crime rates and therefore have more frequent police interactions. And if they choose to resist the police or refuse their lawful orders, bad things will happen. But keep in mind the police have hundreds of millions of interactions with people each year. The number that end tragically due to an unjust application of policing (like the Philando Castile case) are incredibly rare. And in case you aren’t aware, black Americans want more policing not less, so don’t speak for them as a white person: https://news.gallup.com/poll/316571/black-americans-police-r...

We need to give the police additional powers? These unelected people appear to have more power than our elected official already. Steeply and swiftly reducing their power sounds way more appropriate.

I always find it funny how there's a mainstream political opinion in the US that strongly distrusts the government AND wants the police to have unlimited unencumbered power without any oversight.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com