A company has an international market. In one country, where they probably don't have a law against facial recognition, does research on facial recognition in their product.
In their home market, they are asked if they do Facial Recognition in their product, which probably meant in the USA, and they rightfully said they don't. The most likely scenario is that the spokesperson is not even aware that on one market they do facial recognition _research_.
Seems like a manufactured outrage over nothing.
Is that why Ring has it's RnD in Ukraine, to be away from US and EU privacy laws?
Where I work there is a policy of no org charts ever because it just tells other companies who to poach.
Because I wouldn't want to work somewhere for years whilst being unable to talk about what I've worked on.
And company, description, roles etc?
This just seems fundamentally anti-labor. Don't you want to be poached, if the opportunity is right?
Call me a dinosaur, but no.
I expect doorbells to make a sound when someone pushes a button, and that's all. I don't expect a doorbell to recognize the person ringing the bell and share that data with third parties, and then potentially decide whether or not to unlock the door for them.
>It's almost too obvious an idea.
I can't argue that Ring itself isn't a billion dollar idea... and in the context of the concept itself, facial recognition makes sense.
But please let's not pretend this is just what anyone would expect from a "doorbell maker," and potentially push the Overton window even further in the direction of ceding personal autonomy and liberty to third parties for the sake of convenience. Ring doesn't make doorbells, they run a social network and video content distribution platform that monetizes people's front porches and faces, for which a doorbell is just a gimmick.
It's an obvious idea for Ring but I still find the entire premise of smart doorbells and smart locks to be a dark pattern in the IoT.