
Ring used video captured on Halloween for PR - robbya
https://mashable.com/article/ring-halloween-surveillance/
======
godelski
> Mashable asked Ring whether the people featured in the videos gave their
> consent to be used in a publicity stunt. Ring did not immediately respond,
> and we'll update this story if they do.

That seems like a clear answer...

> "The company is able to do this thanks to a broad terms of service agreement
> that grants it the perpetual right to use footage shared with it for 'any
> purpose' it chooses," BuzzFeed wrote.

I always find this odd. Lots of people tell me that they make these TOS to
"cover their asses" with the assumption that everyone sues left and right over
everything. So do these people realize that that's not exactly what's
happening? Do people think of this usage of footage as abuse of the TOS?
Because I sure do. I'm not sure how it is really different from copying
someone's art and claiming it as your own and (successfully) selling it.

~~~
watertom
Go read the terms for Grammerly.

They own the rights to everything you type into a browser that has their plug-
in installed. If you types a novel in google docs using a bowser they actually
own the rights to that novel.

They capture everything that comes into the browser, everything.

After having a 2 hour call with Grammerly and their lawyers, it was pretty
clear that they believe they own in perpetuity everything you type, bu they
look at everything that is sent to the browser.

If you work for a healthcare company Or a financial services company Grammerly
is seeing all of your data, they think they own it, and can sell it.

~~~
brobdingnagians
For those interested, appears to be the last paragraph under "User Content"
[1]

The "royalty-free and fully-paid, transferable and sublicensable, perpetual,
and irrevocable license to copy, store and use your User Content" part is
pretty broad. It has the caveat "in connection with the provision of the
Software and the Services and to improve the algorithms underlying the
Software and the Services", but that is also pretty broad, and I wouldn't be
surprised if they interpreted it generously.

If you were building a competing service and typed code into the browser
somewhere, apparently they would have a license to use that to improve their
own service.

[1] [https://www.grammarly.com/terms#user-
content](https://www.grammarly.com/terms#user-content)

~~~
grabeh
I think there's a few points:

a) at what point is content uploaded to Grammarly. Is it uploaded
automatically as you input (if you have the Chrome extension), or is it
uploaded only where a user activates the extension. Clearly if the latter,
then no one is going to be using Grammarly to check their code so no issue.
Even if the former, it's still debatable whether or not the terms of use would
even grant rights. It's still limited to content 'in connection with the use
of the services or software' \- content uploaded passively without any user
action (aside from the initial act of installing the extension) doesn't fall
neatly into that bracket.

b) The likelihood of Grammarly taking a decision to incorporate third party
code into their service or to improve their service on the basis of the
license granted in the terms of use is extremely slim. The reputational hit if
it were to come out, and the lack of legal certainty over the status of the
third party code would both act as a strong disincentive to do this.

~~~
godelski
> or is it uploaded only where a user activates the extension.

What if the extension is always running? Looking in every text field it finds?
Because that would be convenient, but clearly we aren't "using the service" in
all instances (as in ignoring what it suggests because it is easier than
turning it off).

~~~
grabeh
For sure - that was my thinking on the alternative scenario. If that happens
then that certainly changes the picture somewhat although my other points
remain true around what Grammarly would decide to do with that content I would
say!

------
Zod666
I like the idea of ring and other home security solutions, but I do not want
companies having access like this. I'd like a service where you pay for remote
storage but it's encrypted and they have no access.

Are there any alternatives that would meet those requirements?

~~~
stevenjohns
I don't own a Ring, nor have I used one, so perhaps I don't really understand
what makes it so special.

Using Home Assistant[0], you can use the motion detection found in many IP
cameras to trigger various events[1]. This includes recording video or sending
you notifications[2] about it so you can watch it live. If you don't have
motion detection in your camera, you can buy a motion detection module for
about $10.

The cost of setup is the price of the camera and a machine (such as an R.Pi)
to run Home Assistant on, or perhaps a Zigbee base station as well (about
~$30) depending on what you want to do.

I had a fairly decent-sized setup, including sensors on every door and window,
temperature/pressure/humidity sensors in every room + outside, every single
lightbulb (exc. bathrooms) was RGB and network connected, as well as light and
motion sensors across different parts of my house. I had wireless buttons
connected that would do various things depending on how they're interacted
with and an IR-emitter that I eventually used to start programming my fan and
to interact with my TV.

I think I spent about $200 in total on all of it.

[0] [https://www.home-assistant.io/](https://www.home-assistant.io/)

[1] [https://www.home-assistant.io/integrations/camera/](https://www.home-
assistant.io/integrations/camera/)

[2] [https://www.home-assistant.io/integrations/notify/](https://www.home-
assistant.io/integrations/notify/)

~~~
asutekku
I know this is hacker news but the fact that you don’t need to build the
system yourself is the reason why it is so special. Most people want the
product to work out of the box without any additional configuration.

~~~
stevenjohns
I appreciate that. When I wrote "perhaps I don't really understand what makes
it so special" I meant that insofar that I might not completely understand,
and therefore might miss, the key features of Ring within the alternative
solution I proposed.

------
dangus
In the end the promotional weirdness isn’t Amazon’s fault. The majority of
their potential customers who just see the ads on their social media feeds
don’t know or care where the images came from, and Amazon is legally in the
clear. As long as the ads bring out the intended emotion it’ll sell Ring
doorbells.

The actual culprit is that we in the USA don’t have sufficient laws that force
companies to clearly explain the kinds of rights people sign away by using
various services.

Making terms and conditions long, boring, and often not automatically expanded
or viewed is all a part of the scam.

It should be mandatory for things like this to be opt-in instead of opt-out.

It should be mandatory for the terms to be summarized in a clear fashion in
about a sentence or two.

It should be mandatory for services like this to provide a convenient
alternative if the service gives up a defined amount of rights.

So in this case, my proposal would be, if the sharing features require giving
up copyright protections like this, Ring should be forced to provide an
alternative social media sharing function that does not give up those rights.
If the sharing function didn’t give up those rights, then Ring wouldn’t have
to provide this alternative under this hypothetical law.

In any event, with all this said, it’s a commercial. It’s staged. Why go
through the effort of finding all these clips, making sure they’re not only
entertaining but recorded with decent video quality, if you can just spend an
afternoon with nearly-free child actors making the commercial in ideal filming
conditions. The only reason Ring is not being forthcoming about the video
source is that they don’t want to admit it’s staged (not that they want to
confirm or deny that they got permission to use some home footage).

------
hinkley
Are we as an industry really so socially awkward that we can’t ask people to
cooperate in market research?

Is it really easier for us to creep around spying on people like some stalker
or peeping Tom? Maybe we should sort this out, before someone does it for us.

~~~
quickthrower2
i doubt it is a social awkwardness issue. Sucking up data is just profitable.
Market research is expensive, and honestly would just be outsourced anyway.

------
scarejunba
It would be so easy to ask. Most people would just say yes. That would be
enough.

------
elif
Oh no, CHILDREN dressed up for public display to strangers will be publicaly
displayed to strangers! All moral decency is lost. America seems to go crazy
when kids are involved.

~~~
mattigames
You realize employees had to watch a lot of cameras footages (internal and
external) until they found the ones at doors right?

~~~
elif
No, I didn't know that ring made internal cameras nor that those products have
no differentiation.. though your account appears to be supposition to me.

Based on the low quality of their selections, I would postulate about 20.

------
ahbyb
I think it's a great and funny publicity stunt, I don't know what exactly I
should be mad about? Or the "won't someone think of the children" argument
doesn't work both ways?

~~~
DanBC
People are annoyed that footage from their home was used, without their
permission or any payment to them, by Ring for adverts.

People are annoyed that footage from their family trick-or-treat session was
used, without their permission or any payment to them, by Ring for adverts.

People are annoyed that millions of unregistered surveillance cameras are
being installed with few protections or oversight. They're realising that
creating a panopticon might also need to include some protection for how the
data is used.

~~~
ahbyb
>People are annoyed that footage from their home was used, without their
permission or any payment to them, by Ring for adverts. People are annoyed
that footage from their family trick-or-treat session was used, without their
permission or any payment to them, by Ring for adverts.

They should have read the terms of service. Really I'm tired of this argument.
"X service should not exist because nobody reads the terms of service"? What
about the people who read them? Why should they be deprived of using this
service?

>People are annoyed that millions of unregistered surveillance cameras are
being installed with few protections or oversight. They're realising that
creating a panopticon might also need to include some protection for how the
data is used.

People should be able to put whatever they want in their lawns.

Anyway I'm sceptical about this being actual footage from Ring; I'd say they
recorded it with actors.

~~~
DanBC
> They should have read the terms of service

A child puts on a costume and visits someone's home to trick-or-treat them.
That child's image is now used by ring in adverts.

When did that child read and accept a ToS?

Where in the Ring ToS / Privacy statement does it say that they'll use Ring
video for adverts? Please could you link to the page and quote the text?

I think my protection from being surveilled should not rely on my neighbour's
ability to read and interpret a ToS.

> People should be able to put whatever they want in their lawns.

I tend to agree, but lots of ring cameras are installed so that they also
capture stuff that happens off the installer's property. They can capture the
neighbour's lawn and driveways, or they can capture the public street.

