
Amazon’s Ring Is Putting Suspected Petty Thieves in Its Advertisements - nwrk
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/pajm5z/amazon-home-surveillance-company-ring-law-enforcement-advertisements
======
bdcravens
On the Ring Neighbors app, you see all sorts of videos where the posters are
making criminal accusations all the time. (usually it's a guy selling
electricity door to door, but his skin tone is wrong, so they assume he's
there to rob the house)

~~~
mc32
What is “selling electricity doir-to-door?” Is that offering solar on roof
services? Cuz I can’t imagine actually selling electricity door to door.

~~~
paulgb
In some states (including NY and CA) electricity is partially deregulated so
you can choose from different providers, even though it all goes through the
same grid. There are actually sales people who go door to door or set up
booths to encourage people to switch, usually pitching it as cleaner energy
and/or cost-saving.

~~~
discreditable
These guys are a big part of why I rarely answer my door anymore.

~~~
jliptzin
I never open the door unless it is for someone I am expecting, no exceptions
whatsoever. It is a textbook case of something that has marginal upside and
unlimited downside.

~~~
mruts
I mean, having someone die on your doorstep because you didn’t help them seems
like a large downside to me.

~~~
pmiller2
Multiply that by the probability of it happening to get the risk, though.

~~~
mruts
You could make the same argument about helping someone change their tire on
the side of the road. Or helping a blind person cross the road. Life is full
of risks but constantly worrying about them isn’t worth it, especially if it
comes at the expense of actually helping someone who is in danger.

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.

~~~
pmiller2
Ok, also factor in the probability that the person at your door isn’t dying or
in desperate need of help, but is actually out to take advantage of you (or,
at least waste your time).

~~~
mruts
Well, fortunately, doors have peepholes.

------
awinder

      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.
    

Yeah that's pretty clearly attempting to steal vehicles / contents of
vehicles, that's 100% what that looks like.

~~~
emusan
For a few years my only vehicle was an old, beat up Volvo station wagon. The
door locks were damaged and would only lock ~50% of the time. Since I parked
the car on the street I would always check to ensure that the doors were
locked by pulling on a door handle.

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.

~~~
turtlebits
Well the Ring ad on facebook says "this woman was caught on camera breaking
into a vehicle". So I don't think it could be a false report of attempted
robbery, unless Ring is lying.

~~~
elliekelly
We don’t live in a world where you can presume truth in a Facebook
advertisement.

------
codezero
Can we talk about the fact that in the US you are granted no right to privacy
in public spaces? I don’t think this is universally good. Companies have used
this fact to build databases of license plate locations and much more. Our
anger shouldn’t primarily be directed at Amazon, but rather at the acceptance
of public surveillance.

Hopefully, events like this help bring more light to this kind of blanket
acceptance.

------
rolltiide
from linked tweet:

> 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

------
trhway
>Amazon purchased Ring in 2018. The company sells surveillance camera systems,
and recently filed two patent applications for facial recognition technology
in its cameras that would automatically alert law enforcement to "suspicious"
people.

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).

------
schaefer
What's Amazon Ring selling? Fear? No thanks, I'll pass.

~~~
m463
That's what pretty much all security products sell.

Except of course, the Magnavolt Car Security System from Robocop:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRNVxHPJ0hM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRNVxHPJ0hM)

------
man2525
The app itself is entertaining, but a lot of false alarms. My favorite so far
was a county worker who tripped my camera with his...i want to say water
collection tool...from off camera before hanging a doorknob sign warning of
mosquitoes. I took a screen capture while at work and zoomed in on his shirt
to see the familiar county symbol.

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.

------
ltc5505
Aren't we at the stage where we can generate faces? Like the This Person Does
Not Exist website?

------
kyleblarson
If only there were a way for her to not be put in this situation in the first
place.

~~~
lostmyoldone
Which woman?

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?

------
lacraig2
I honestly can't see a problem with this so long as police posted a BOLO
before ring.

------
mimixco
I smell a lawsuit coming. How can Amazon think it's ok to use people's faces
in an advertisement when those people haven't been convicted of a crime?

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.

~~~
throwawayatty
As an attorney (this is not legal advice), I would like to know what law might
be violated by publishing these videos. They're owned by the person who
recorded the video; and presumably they gave Ring a license to use them for
such purposes. The subject of the video, as far as I can tell, has no rights
that might be recognized in law. There's no privacy right, as there's no
reasonable expectation of privacy under such circumstances. There's no right
of publicity being violated AFAICT, as there's no "brand goodwill" in the
person's likeness to misappropriate.

So what, then?

~~~
gnicholas
Former attorney here. I'd guess it would be a claim like defamation or false
light. These laws aren't typically used in this way, but I could see them
being applied here.

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.

~~~
throwawayatty
If others similarly situated could prevail on similar theories, TV shows like
"COPS" and the like wouldn't be possible. The fact that they've been
successfully running for over 20 years suggests that this is not the case.

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.

~~~
kelnos
> Second, there's no "false light" if the recording shows the plaintiff
> plainly performing a criminal act.

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?

~~~
throwawayatty
Attempted burglary is a criminal act.

------
lern_too_spel
I don't see a problem. The police department posted the same video.

~~~
pwinnski
The police department stated that she was a suspect; Amazon identified her as
a thief, breaking the presumption of innocence that is a bedrock of American
society.

If the video is fine, the post wording still isn't.

~~~
Bud
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.

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.

~~~
throwawayatty
What's the practical difference between a TV show like "COPS" (or any of its
various descendants), which features police recordings of its interactions in
public with possibly-innocent suspects, and what's happening here? Is it
merely the association with a commercial product?

~~~
ppseafield
COPS like any TV show blurs people's faces unless they sign a release.

~~~
throwawayatty
This is out of an abundance of caution, not necessarily because the law
requires it. This explains it: [https://www.quora.com/Does-the-Cops-TV-show-
need-to-get-sign...](https://www.quora.com/Does-the-Cops-TV-show-need-to-get-
signed-releases-from-arrestees)

~~~
geggam
As an atty I am sure you are aware folks can sue and typically he with the
most money wins, regardless of law (see:OJ)

~~~
will_brown
What does OJ have to do with a lawsuit and money?

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.

~~~
lern_too_spel
The standard for winning a civil case (preponderance of evidence) is lower
than the standard for winning a criminal case (beyond a reasonable doubt), so
the two are not comparable.

~~~
will_brown
What does that have anything to do with the point being made of the OJ Simpson
case as an example of money winning cases? In both the civil and criminal case
the parties with more money/resources lost respectively.

~~~
lern_too_spel
The party with less money had the easier side in both cases. GGGP's point is
that even though the party with less money had the easier case in the OJ
trial, they had enough money to win what somebody with less money would have
certainly lost. Though the state has more money, it could not afford OJ's
lawyers. Similarly, at the time of the civil trial, OJ could not afford the
lawyers he had in the criminal trial.

------
givinguflac
Innocent until proven guilty.*

*or until public ads by Amazon sway the jury with video editing and accusations.

------
jmsflknr
Posted this yesterday with same source, same headline:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20117905](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20117905)

~~~
dang
Reposts are fine on HN if a story hasn't had significant attention yet.
There's a lot of randomness in what gets traction, and allowing reposts is a
way to mitigate that.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html)

~~~
jmsflknr
Oh I see. Did not know that. All good.

------
hn23
Somehow this reminds me of the "Running Man" movie. There was a comercial
playing that said something like: "Citizen, denounce your neighbor, and get
some extra dollars"...

There should have been more positive visions of the future. These idiot
companies took the shit from the 80s as script it seems.

