
Ring has partnered with 400 police forces - catacombs
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/08/28/doorbell-camera-firm-ring-has-partnered-with-police-forces-extending-surveillance-reach/
======
vorpalhex
This headline leaves out an important detail from the article:

> Officers don’t receive ongoing or live-video access, and homeowners can
> decline the requests, which Ring sends via email

It's not as if the police are pulling a Batman and watching every ring
simultaneously, but instead they can do the digital equivalent of going door-
to-door and asking "Hey, did you catch footage of your neighbors house being
broken into last night?"

Frankly, I actually trust a bunch of random citizens to have video footage
more than I trust any company or government organization.

~~~
rchaud
With previous generations of home security systems, the recordings were stored
in an on-premises hard drive. Ring doesn't give you that option, all video is
stored on their cloud, "for the customer's convenience" of course.

The result of that is the random citizens won't have much leverage to say no,
because the police can likely figure out a way to get the video from Ring
directly.

~~~
zymhan
> because the police can likely figure out a way to get the video from Ring
> directly

That's quite the legal or technical assumption.

~~~
jdeibele
There was an article just a few days ago about the CEO of a genetic testing
company handing over information to the FBI.

It doesn't seem a reach at all for the FBI or state or local police to ask for
or subpoena stored footage.

------
5440
My ring camera caught a murderer breaking a door down last year and it's been
a headache for me ever since. Even though I didnt actually see the murder,I've
been called to several depositions and had to take three unpaid weeks off of
work because of trial stuff. It's so frustrating. All I say everytime, is
"Yes, I own the camera" I regret ever buying it at this point.

~~~
vgoh1
Not sure what country you are in, but that's called civic duty, and helps
society work.

~~~
loteck
Why can't society compensate this person fairly for his help?

~~~
garmaine
It can. He should be able to invoice the DA for his time. The taxpayers
(society) foots the bill.

~~~
threwawasy1228
As someone who just served Jury Duty in the USA. I can tell you the 'bill' for
my services was barely minimum wage.

~~~
authoritarian
Fortunately it's incredibly easy to get eliminated during the selection
process if you know how to answer the questions

~~~
xeromal
Then we end up with a jury that has only people that have nothing better to do

------
panarky
Welcome to the private free-market Stasi.

You can try to opt out by not using Facebook or Ring cameras, but your friends
and neighbors opt you in without your permission.

~~~
yters
Indeed. Mass surveillance. Police brutality. Weapons confiscation. Seems to be
a pattern.

Both sides of the political spectrum are enabling different portions of this
pattern.

~~~
inscionent
Who is confiscating weapons?

~~~
cc439
The police via Red Flag laws which are incredibly easy to abuse.

~~~
inscionent
The police are using red flag laws to seize weapons because the 'private free-
market Stasi' told them to?

Red flag laws are mostly used to prevent suicides and domestic violence. They
are formal proceedings and due process of law. If the problem is with the law,
organize and change it.

~~~
rbritton
There is no due process. Due process would be (1) a hearing prior to your
property being confiscated; and (2) the ability to face your accuser. None of
these happen with any existing red flag laws and violate multiple items in the
Bill of Rights. Additionally, in most states' implementations of these laws,
there are no codified repercussions for false reportings. It's effectively
legalized SWATting.

They have led to the death of one man in Maryland [0] and an erroneous
confiscation of one man in Florida [1] so far.

[0]: [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/maryland-officers-serving-
red-f...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/maryland-officers-serving-red-flag-gun-
removal-order-fatally-shoot-armed-man/)

[1]: [https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/08/19/red-
fla...](https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/08/19/red-flag-law-
failure-guy-is-stripped-of-his-gunsbecause-of-another-mans-criminal-
activity-n2551921)

~~~
LorenPechtel
That first one sounds like someone that should have been red flagged--I
wouldn't call that a failure of the system. The police were there, he had put
the gun down and then picked it up again.

Yeah, family members said he wouldn't hurt anyone. It's very common for family
members to side with abusers over victims.

The second, however, is the sort of problem that plague red flag laws.

------
fpgaminer
I had an idea for a responsible mass surveillance system.

Say you have cameras all over the city, feeding to the local police station.
That's helpful in catching criminals, but obviously easy to abuse. Well
suppose instead that the DVR in the police station is encrypted and contains a
secure enclave. All the camera feeds are E2E encrypted from the camera to the
box. The secure enclave in the DVR enforces rules for how the footage can be
accessed. It only allows X amount of video footage to leave the box over time.
Say watching 4 camera streams continuously or something (in a city of hundreds
of cameras).

So a crime occurs; police know the rough time frame and can easily query
footage from the box. But mass surveillance, watching all the camera streams,
dumping them to an AI cloud for facial recognition tracking of all your
movements, etc, isn't possible.

The secure enclave can also enforce logging; anyone viewing the footage
submits authentication, creating a permanent paper trail of who viewed what.

There are endless possibilities for the rules we want to establish, but the
thrust of my idea is that we can enforce them using that concept of a secure
enclave and encrypted footage, so that we can be reasonably sure that the
system can't be abused.

Anyway, it's just an interesting idea I had. I'm not really trying to make an
argument for or against widespread surveillance like that. Just, if soceity
wants it, there are ways to build systems that enforce rules on how those
cameras are used. And what Ring offers is kind of in this vein too; allow
camera owners to share footage on a case by case basis when requested. I think
it'd be even better if Ring footage was encrypted so that Ring actually really
couldn't access the footage without your consent.

------
danepowell
The headline neglects to mention that the system is opt in and per-incident,
which I think is a critical detail. It's not like police have 24/7 involuntary
access to everyone's video.

~~~
inscionent
Remember you don't own or control anything you upload to a third party.

From the ring privacy policy:

> We also may disclose personal information about you (1) if we are required
> to do so by law or legal process (such as a court order or subpoena); (2) in
> response to requests by government agencies, such as law enforcement
> authorities; (3) to establish, exercise or defend our legal rights; (4) when
> we believe disclosure is necessary or appropriate to prevent physical or
> other harm or financial loss; (5) in connection with an investigation of
> suspected or actual illegal activity; or (6) otherwise with your consent.

> We reserve the right to transfer any personal information we have about you
> in the event we sell or transfer all or a portion of our business or assets
> (including in the event of a merger, acquisition, joint venture,
> reorganization, divestiture, dissolution or liquidation).

~~~
panarky
Imagine if the privacy policy simply said:

 _We will disclose your personal information if it benefits us._

Adding more words doesn't strengthen privacy one bit:

 _We will disclose your personal information to comply with a court order, or
to save someone 's life, or if it benefits us._

------
maximente
all in all a great (if not disgusting) business strategy, showing the power of
leveraging the state to succeed in a so called "free market":

\- get powerful, vocal .gov entity involved in your product as
easily/thoroughly as possible while you perform typical statup "disruption"
activities

\- when any issues with regulation, rights violations etc. come up,
immediately "shell out" to your .gov spokeperson who sings your praises and
how we cannot touch this entity ("helped catch all these bad guys", "used in
xx criminal cases that led to convictions", "would you really want to let
someone in your home /without/ one of these?")

\- repeat ad nauseum as frustrated citizens complain - "we would LOVE to
comply, but... it's no longer just about us, you'd be hindering crime-
fighting! so we can't do it"

\- you now have impenetrable air cover as any random .gov entity with power
will trump citizen outrage

------
darkcha0s
At the time of this posting, the link above this one was "China’s CCTV network
took just 7 minutes to capture BBC reporter (2017)." I find that very ironic,
especially because the comments inside are calling China a surveillance state.

~~~
rchaud
But we can split hairs about that forever because this isn't the action of an
authoritarian government, but rather the invisible hand of the free market,
which in this case is a company owned by American's richest industrialist
working hand in hand with law enforcement to link together a network of
surveillance systems.

It's completely different. /s

------
mrbonner
My city’s police department is actually very transparent about this. They have
a campaign on social media and snail mail to inform citizen to sign up for the
use of outside cameras to assist law enforcement in case they need footages
for a crime in an area covered by your cameras. Once they determine that your
camera footages could help they would send you a request to share the videos
with them for investigation. I think pretty much everyone in my community
welcomes this idea as we have had an uptick in car break ins lately.

~~~
rdtwo
Bet they don’t tell you that if your footage turns out to be useful you might
end up tied up in the legal system for weeks and missing work and income

------
scohesc
So it's not government sponsored surveillance, it's company sponsored
surveillance, paid for by the people who don't want to be watched. Grand! And
then Ring can charge the police forces money to use the service! :\

------
dustfinger
The first product that popped into my mind when I read the subject's name in
the title was Gnu Ring. My jaw dropped several inches before I remembered that
Gnu Ring changed its name from Ring to Jami in Jan of this year.

> [https://blog.savoirfairelinux.com/en-ca/card/ring-becomes-
> ja...](https://blog.savoirfairelinux.com/en-ca/card/ring-becomes-jami/)

------
somethoughts
Is this an example of Paul Graham's concept of a submarine article? [1] At
least they are honest about the relationship:

"Ring is owned by Amazon, which bought the firm last year for more than $800
million, financial filings show. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos also owns The
Washington Post."

[1]
[http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html)

------
cypherpunks01
> To seek out Ring video that has not been publicly shared, officers can use a
> special “Neighbors Portal” map interface to designate a time range and local
> area, up to half a square mile wide, and get Ring to send an automated email
> to all users within that range, alongside a case number and message from
> police.

Is "half a square mile wide" supposed to mean a square that's half a mile on
each side?

~~~
balls187
No, it means total area of 1/2 a square mile.

The sides of the square would be sqrt(0.5).

------
Trias11
If Ring is being compensated by the government agencies - I'll happily
participate too - providing Ring and/or law enforcement agency (let them
decide between) will compensate me as well for supporting their business model
every time i share my video.

Optionally i can decide to share on a good will basis of course - but this is
going to be optional.

------
guelo
Police don't need this to fight crime. Crime is at historical lows.
Civilization has gotten by just fine without pervasive surveillance for
centuries.

In a way this is worse than what China is building since it's distributed.

------
JohnFen
I like that the Ring surveillance devices has a glowing indicator visible from
the outside. It lets me know what neighborhoods I should avoid.

------
rpmisms
So, a capitalist surveillance state.

Is it better if the Government forces surveillance, or if people are duped
into _buying it for themselves_?

~~~
dole
Buying it for themselves? I don't know whether Ring is paying the various
police departments for their "partnership", but it's been in the news locally
here (an "at-risk", "high-crime" area, call it what you will) in the last few
days that the local police department is _giving_ away 50 Ring cameras and the
winners are chosen by a lottery system.

Ticks all the boxes: "free" and entertaining element of gaming for the public,
good police PR, field data for Ring. Much like the supposed value (and
tentacles) of the Red Light Camera industry. Nevermind the constant barrage of
ads through Nextdoor and other channels.

------
neotek
No shit.

------
option
If I put a camera outside of my house I want police to be able to access/react
to what it’s captured. Our PD even has an app where you can register a camera
with them (not direct access though)

~~~
moate
Great. You pointed that camera directly at my house and are now infringing on
my right not to have it watched by the police 24/7.

Please explain why your rights are greater than mine.

~~~
lotsofpulp
>right not to have it watched by the police 24/7

I'm not aware of any legislation in the USA that would make a video feed of
the exterior view of a property from one's own property illegal.

~~~
gameswithgo
The person you are responding to never mentioned laws. I believe he or she
would be referring to certain ethical rights we _should_ have.

~~~
logfromblammo
The right to privacy is the right to wear a mask, not the right to go around
poking out other people's eyes.

There is no ethical distinction between installing a camera to record, and
watching with one's own eyes and remembering what was seen.

We _might, perhaps,_ have an ethical right to be informed when someone is
watching us, that we might take reasonable privacy countermeasures if
necessary. On the presumption that people may look in as easily as we look
out, we typically put blinds and curtains in our windows. It is not so
difficult to do similar things with sight-lines around the exterior of
buildings. An umbrella here, an awning there, a fence around, planting some
bamboo or arborvitaes--the further away the observer, the smaller their
potential viewing angles, and the easier it is to block their view in without
also blocking your own view out.

While it may be unsettling to think about our neighbors monitoring our comings
and goings, it might also be comforting that they would notice any unusual
activity around our property, and maybe also take action to interrupt it, or
at least report it. If you put up a screen such that no one else can see it
when you go in and out of your front door, likewise no one can see it when a
housebreaker is patiently picking its lock. So you put up a camera that you
control, to monitor your own threshold, and the surveillance/privacy arms race
can stop there. Your neighbor can no longer either look out _at_ you, or look
out _for_ you.

~~~
homonculus1
>There is no ethical distinction between installing a camera to record, and
watching with one's own eyes and remembering what was seen.

Yes there is, simply by the fact that you can't stand in multiple places and
remember everything all the time. The problem with _mass_ surveillance is the
scale.

~~~
logfromblammo
Where is the cutoff point, then? At what number of cameras, or cameras per
square meter, is it no longer ethical to record what is visible from your
property? Exactly one camera? Can you multiplex multiples, so the video feed
simulates a person walking around the property?

Are the ethics limited by human capabilities, or by human intent? Or it
strictly a matter of outcomes?

~~~
homonculus1
If you were to stand on your porch with phone in hand, on the line with the
police, and narrate aloud that your neighbor is out getting the paper, and
what he looks like, and that he has a strange car in his driveway from the
night before, etc. it would be immediately obvious how socially inappropriate
and unacceptable this degree of surveillance is. The fact that we have not
already codified a specific right or social norm against it is an accident of
the fact that nobody has the time to do this manually, and most people don't
know or fully realize that their neighbors' doorbells are doing so
electronically. Any networked camera continuously filming a field of view off
your own property is bad.

~~~
logfromblammo
It would not be obvious _to me_ that the narrating neighbor is doing anything
unacceptable. Your appeal to obviousness (bandwagon fallacy) leaves out any
meaningful ethical argument as to _why_ such behavior should be socially
unacceptable.

One neighbor has a right to record, memorialize, or journalize anything they
may observe. The other neighbor has a right to privacy, sometimes.

But that does not include those times when they are out and about in public.
If you don't want neighbors tattling on your activities, be somewhere where
they can't see you without trespassing. There is a case to be made for a right
to pseudo-anonymity in public, to not be gratuitously identified by strangers,
but this does not apply to your hypothetical.

Please take a moment to think past obviousness, and consider the non-obvious
implications of establishing a right to privacy based on invisible-to-the-
human-eye private property lines and the potentially obfuscated ownership or
unpublished tenancy rights in those properties.

The only question that needs to be answered is whether the owner of the camera
has the right to be where the camera is while it is recording. Opening it up
beyond that, to what the camera might be able to capture from there, is a
whole new can of worms. That introduces the potential for censorship based on
the content of the recordings, a possibility far more unacceptable (to me)
than having a relentlessly snitchy, nosy, tattling neighbor.

There is definitely an argument to be made against police being able to _use_
all those shared video feeds without getting explicit permission from a judge,
but I believe the doorbell-camera owner has an absolute right to record
anything it can see, 24-7, and publish all of it, or none of it, to whomever
they choose to share it with, or no one at all, to include turning it over to
police. It is not meaningfully different from the nosy old fart that watches
everyone in the neighborhood from their front window, and then gossips about
what everyone is doing to their friends, who are doing exactly the same thing
on their own streets. They can tattle to the cops whenever they like. We have
always needed to draw the curtains to keep Peeping Tom and Bertha Busybody at
bay. Preventing them from looking anywhere off their own property is not an
ethical option. We can restrict the police from _acting_ on those tips without
independently verifiable evidence, because the cops are nominally public
servants.

And that's where the focus needs to lie. Restrict the cops from even looking
at any of those shared feeds without some record of reasonable suspicion.

