First, it should be emphasized that no warrant or even probable cause seems needed for LE to obtain video from Amazon directly when a customer refuses or ignores a request.[1] Secondly, there is valid reason for concern if a customer declines compliance and is identified/profiled as a result.
Yes, I don't particularly have an issue with sharing email response rates. The police can figure it out if they want to. They can just divide the amount of footage received by the number of ring doorbells on front doors.
The subtext of that is that such data is collected and stored, and can thus become the object of a warrant request at some future date. Your disinclination to assist today could be redefined as a crime tomorrow.
This is weird to be because I would share in most cases. I'm for pretty massive reforms in policing in the US but there are also burglaries, missing persons, and other investigations where I would definitely help when I could.
It's really dumb. The only thing dumber is using cloud-hosted surveillance of your home. There are any number of solutions that store surveillance camera hits in your home on an SD card or hard disk.
Police can subpoena this information if they want it. They will if they need it for a prosecution. This whole practice is all about saving Amazon money on discovery requests. If there's a serious event they'll canvass neighborhoods and look for cameras anyway and approach you directly.
There are obvious issues with participating in something like this. The rules can change at any time, and you might find yourself in a pickle if you meet some vague description at a particular time of the day.
I probably wouldn't share -- I'd much, much prefer that the police actually get a warrant. But I also wouldn't be willing to install a surveillance camera that can be accessed by anybody except for me in the first place, so that's meaningless.
It says users can review footage before sharing, so I could see situations where users reviewed footage and had no problem sharing the result. Doesn't seem like a big deal as long as its voluntary.
The Snowden revelations were 6 years ago and since then there there has been no meaningful reigning in of federal surveillance power or of public/private surveillance "partnerships". The world in which Amazon/Ring would respect your wishes regarding the footage is not the one we live in.
All it takes is one person holding out in a neighborhood with a child kidnapping for enough hysteria to build for this to become legislated as mandatory.
If someone who lives across the street from a Ring door bell, hasn't given permission to be filmed by Ring/their neighbor/etc, shouldn't they have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" on their own property?
Unfortunately (?) there is no reasonable expectation of privacy for activities visible from public areas. That reasoning is used for everything from license plate scanners to upskirt videos.
Huh. Not OP, but if the view is constant, I would be very pissed off. If I walk naked out my front door right now, chances are low anyone will see me (quiet neighborhood, it's past midnight), but if OP does it, boom, there s/he is on camera.
And the camera owner can extrapolate when OP/their family members are home or not, when people visit, etc, etc. Could that not be considered surveillance?
The law has not defined it as such. In reality, we absolutely expect our neighbors not to film our front doors 24/7 and give police access to the feed. The law is outdated and ought to be updated to protect against new abuses.
Clearly some forms of observation are abuse, while others aren't. If I repeatedly hide inside the bushes right outside your land and look into your house, I'm merely observing. I'm still a stalker.
If I set up a camera to do the same, why is that better? People are constantly recording their neighbors' comings and goings, their visitors and associations, and sending that data to a bureaucratic megacorp that actively cozies up to law enforcement. "Observation of public space" is reductive, that's a cyberpunk nightmare. It's poisonous to free society.
This is actually my major objection to Ring. I'm glad that Ring surveillance gear has a unique light on it, so I know what neighborhoods to avoid. I'd want to avoid those neighborhoods partly to avoid being surveilled, and partly because if a neighborhood has more than the occasional Ring installed, that seems like a major indicator that the neighborhood has a high crime problem.
well also... assuming "maybe" or "skip" are not valid answers, if you have the people who answered "yes", don't you indirectly also have those who said "no"?
