Amazon must not release these videos to the police if a paying customer rejects the police request. However, Amazon can introduce a free tier for the customers and instead get paid by the municipalities. Customers on the free tier would opt in for having their doorbell camera footage to be accessible by law enforcement without their prior consent.
If a municipality wants to have a system of distributed cameras installed on the doors of the residents, the municipality should pay to Amazon for the ability to retrieve those videos. Alternatively, the municipalities can deduct this amount from the property tax to compensate homeowners for using their footage by law enforcement.
The current arrangement of the police having feee access to the footage of the paying customers is wrong.
I know people are concerned about their privacy, but the camera is outward facing. It is recording people who come to your door who do not have a reasonable expectation of any privacy being out in public on your property. The same is true for the average person walk or driving past your house. Why do you care, there are all kinds of camera facing the public and no one has pull out the pitch forks and demand it be stopped.
The only issue would be if the police used it to monitor who was coming and going from your own home. If Amazon is in fact sharing this information with police I suspect a number or lawyers have view the legality of the action. The other thing, is Amazon sharing live video or the stored video. If you do not like this kind of cooperation remove device.
True, in general there's no expectation of privacy in public which would include looking at your home/possessions/person from street side (walking/driving/mapping vehicle/police) or outward towards the street from your front door
not sure I have all that much of a problem with this - I have Ring cameras outside of my house as a deterrent but also as a means to assist police should something happen so I can't see why others in the network wouldn't comply with the request if meant the arrest and/or prosecution of someone. Law Enforcement still has to go through channels to get the video and it doesn't appear to be a situation where 100% of all direct requests to Amazon will be fulfilled. If the courts reasonably believes that an individual has information that will lead to a convictions and that individual doesn't comply to testify on request the court can issue a subpoena if there is enough data to support the value of the testimony and likelihood to convict based on it. There are circumstances where even subpoena can't force the testimony but in 90%+ of cases you're going to testify. As far as overall Privacy goes isn't there an argument then that these outdoor camera's are violating the privacy of your neighbors and therefore should be banned? Unless you can contain the field of view to just your property you are more than likely picking up images from an adjacent property and not respecting their right to privacy - I actually informed my neighbors of my cameras and showed them what the cameras were picking up. No one had an issue and appreciated that I let them know...a couple actually bought their own once they saw it.
Anything visible from a public street isn’t covered by privacy laws. If the Ring doorbell shows the same view as one would see from a public street, then it’s not violation of any privacy laws. Now, if the ring doorbell takes footage from the back door into the area of the neighbors’ house not visible from the public street, then the use of this footage by law enforcement may constitute a violation of privacy laws, but law enforcement can come onto your property and go to the back of your house without notifying you. So, it’s not clear if this is illegal. Generally, the men with guns and badges can pretty much do many things that are unconstitutional but have not been challenged in court. Such is life.
not sure I have all that much of a problem with this - I have Ring cameras outside of my house as a deterrent but also as a means to assist police should something happen so I can't see why others in the network wouldn't comply with the request if meant the arrest and/or prosecution of someone. Law Enforcement still has to go through channels to get the video and it doesn't appear to be a situation where 100% of all direct requests to Amazon will be fulfilled. If the courts reasonably believes that an individual has information that will lead to a convictions and that individual doesn't comply to testify on request the court can issue a subpoena if there is enough data to support the value of the testimony and likelihood to convict based on it. There are circumstances where even subpoena can't force the testimony but in 90%+ of cases you're going to testify. As far as overall Privacy goes isn't there an argument then that these outdoor camera's are violating the privacy of your neighbors and therefore should be banned? Unless you can contain the field of view to just your property you are more than likely picking up images from an adjacent property and not respecting their right to privacy - I actually informed my neighbors of my cameras and showed them what the cameras were picking up. No one had an issue and appreciated that I let them know...a couple actually bought their own once they saw it.
Be very careful. The Sheriff's office spokesman says Amazon will "essentially 'subpoena'" the video for them. That doesn't sound like a real subpoena. It sounds like the Sherriff's office asks Amazon for the video and Amazon hands it over without any judicial involvement.
I have no problem with that.... A few years ago, as a member of the Red Cross, I spent time in Pittsburgh's 911 center as they prepared to beef up regional security in preparation for the upcoming G20 summit. It became apparent just how important information was -- while expecting mass protests and some "civil disobedience", they were effectively blind. They had to rely on first person witness testimony to know what was going on.
And the same is true in disaster situations such as fires and floods -- the biggest handicap responders face is a lack of information on what the disaster is, how serious it is, how big it is (One building, one block, one region, etc.). And a major part of any emergency response is knowing how to respond, with what, and where....
But, the center of all of that -- the 911 center -- was effectively blind.
A big part of fear of video surveillance is people's fear that it will be abused. But, I would suggest that a better approach would be to insure integrity within emergency responders -- but give them the information they need to do their jobs.
Part of the problem here is not just the police but the people they are protecting. I am a member of a Ring Neighborhood site where people share videos (mostly porch camera stuff) of suspected criminal activity with police and neighbors. A very large percentage of those videos are people getting crazy because a solicitor knocked on their door or a kid approached their house.
I have no problem with that.... A few years ago, as a member of the Red Cross, I spent time in Pittsburgh's 911 center as they prepared to beef up regional security in preparation for the upcoming G20 summit. It became apparent just how important information was -- while expecting mass protests and some "civil disobedience", they were effectively blind. They had to rely on first person witness testimony to know what was going on.
And the same is true in disaster situations such as fires and floods -- the biggest handicap responders face is a lack of information on what the disaster is, how serious it is, how big it is (One building, one block, one region, etc.). And a major part of any emergency response is knowing how to respond, with what, and where....
But, the center of all of that -- the 911 center -- was effectively blind.
A big part of fear of video surveillance is people's fear that it will be abused. But, I would suggest that a better approach would be to insure integrity within emergency responders -- but give them the information they need to do their jobs.
Yes. Unfortunately there have been enough cases of abuse to make people very suspicious and distrustful of authorities. There absolutely need to be checks and balances as well as consequences for abuse.
Thinking about this and reading the comments here, I think the major concern for most people isn't that the police get to see the video, pretty much everyone would gladly share a video with police if it showed someone stealing their package, vandalizing a car, etc. Rather, it's how the police are getting access - the fact that it seems Amazon is becoming an extension of the police, willingly sharing data without permission or a subpoena so long as they get to use it as an advertisement.
Now, how does everyone feel about all those Amazon Echos sitting on the shelf, listening...?
I know people are concerned about their privacy, but the camera is outward facing. It is recording people who come to your door who do not have a reasonable expectation of any privacy being out in public on your property. The same is true for the average person walk or driving past your house. Why do you care, there are all kinds of camera facing the public and no one has pull out the pitch forks and demand it be stopped.
The only issue would be if the police used it to monitor who was coming and going from your own home. If Amazon is in fact sharing this information with police I suspect a number or lawyers have view the legality of the action. The other thing, is Amazon sharing live video or the stored video. If you do not like this kind of cooperation remove device.
True, in general there's no expectation of privacy in public which would include looking at your home/possessions/person from street side (walking/driving/mapping vehicle/police) or outward towards the street from your front door
There is one except to this and if people are not careful where they point the camera may get them in trouble.
In an old neighborhood I lived in, a neighbor found out the hard way when the police showed up at his house. You can not point your camera on someone's home/property and record what is going on in the neighbor's home through a window or what could not other be seen by the general public. The reason the police show showed up at the neighbors house, was due to the fact one of his security cameras was pointing across the street and had line of sigh to the other neighbors daughter's bedroom. Got the guy on peeking tom charges and child porn since the police found VHS video of the girl changing.
So with this new tool for law enforcement, will it help with catching thieves or another excuse for not being able to do anything because they have too much footage to go thru to make an arrest?
my rule of thumb is, unless you have a closed system where your videos stay secured to be viewed only by you, EXPECT someone else to be watching it.
I have no problem with that.... A few years ago, as a member of the Red Cross, I spent time in Pittsburgh's 911 center as they prepared to beef up regional security in preparation for the upcoming G20 summit. It became apparent just how important information was -- while expecting mass protests and some "civil disobedience", they were effectively blind. They had to rely on first person witness testimony to know what was going on.
And the same is true in disaster situations such as fires and floods -- the biggest handicap responders face is a lack of information on what the disaster is, how serious it is, how big it is (One building, one block, one region, etc.). And a major part of any emergency response is knowing how to respond, with what, and where....
But, the center of all of that -- the 911 center -- was effectively blind.
A big part of fear of video surveillance is people's fear that it will be abused. But, I would suggest that a better approach would be to insure integrity within emergency responders -- but give them the information they need to do their jobs.
Yes. Unfortunately there have been enough cases of abuse to make people very suspicious and distrustful of authorities. There absolutely need to be checks and balances as well as consequences for abuse.
Thinking about this and reading the comments here, I think the major concern for most people isn't that the police get to see the video, pretty much everyone would gladly share a video with police if it showed someone stealing their package, vandalizing a car, etc. Rather, it's how the police are getting access - the fact that it seems Amazon is becoming an extension of the police, willingly sharing data without permission or a subpoena so long as they get to use it as an advertisement.
Now, how does everyone feel about all those Amazon Echos sitting on the shelf, listening...?
True.... But I miss those days when nobody but criminals feared the police -- because they weren't known as "Law enforcement" but as "protectors of the peace".
I know people are concerned about their privacy, but the camera is outward facing. It is recording people who come to your door who do not have a reasonable expectation of any privacy being out in public on your property. The same is true for the average person walk or driving past your house. Why do you care, there are all kinds of camera facing the public and no one has pull out the pitch forks and demand it be stopped.
The only issue would be if the police used it to monitor who was coming and going from your own home. If Amazon is in fact sharing this information with police I suspect a number or lawyers have view the legality of the action. The other thing, is Amazon sharing live video or the stored video. If you do not like this kind of cooperation remove device.
True, in general there's no expectation of privacy in public which would include looking at your home/possessions/person from street side (walking/driving/mapping vehicle/police) or outward towards the street from your front door
There is one except to this and if people are not careful where they point the camera may get them in trouble.
In an old neighborhood I lived in, a neighbor found out the hard way when the police showed up at his house. You can not point your camera on someone's home/property and record what is going on in the neighbor's home through a window or what could not other be seen by the general public. The reason the police show showed up at the neighbors house, was due to the fact one of his security cameras was pointing across the street and had line of sigh to the other neighbors daughter's bedroom. Got the guy on peeking tom charges and child porn since the police found VHS video of the girl changing.
I am sometimes guilty of changing without pulling down the shade...
But then I'm an old fart --- and if they peek, they deserve to get an eyeful of every disgusting body part!
I know people are concerned about their privacy, but the camera is outward facing. It is recording people who come to your door who do not have a reasonable expectation of any privacy being out in public on your property. The same is true for the average person walk or driving past your house. Why do you care, there are all kinds of camera facing the public and no one has pull out the pitch forks and demand it be stopped.
The only issue would be if the police used it to monitor who was coming and going from your own home. If Amazon is in fact sharing this information with police I suspect a number or lawyers have view the legality of the action. The other thing, is Amazon sharing live video or the stored video. If you do not like this kind of cooperation remove device.
True, in general there's no expectation of privacy in public which would include looking at your home/possessions/person from street side (walking/driving/mapping vehicle/police) or outward towards the street from your front door
There is one except to this and if people are not careful where they point the camera may get them in trouble.
In an old neighborhood I lived in, a neighbor found out the hard way when the police showed up at his house. You can not point your camera on someone's home/property and record what is going on in the neighbor's home through a window or what could not other be seen by the general public. The reason the police show showed up at the neighbors house, was due to the fact one of his security cameras was pointing across the street and had line of sigh to the other neighbors daughter's bedroom. Got the guy on peeking tom charges and child porn since the police found VHS video of the girl changing.
I am sometimes guilty of changing without pulling down the shade...
But then I'm an old fart --- and if they peek, they deserve to get an eyeful of every disgusting body part!
I do not think you are alone out there and most people do not care...
In my real life example the guy with the security cameras was feuding with his neighbors thus the cameras, and the guy with the daughter figure out one of the cameras were pointing at his house and has yelled at his daughter for not always closing the blinds so he figure there was an off chance the guy recorded something she should not have and call the police on the camera guy. The rest is history.
If my camera catches a burglar that hit one of my neighbors, and ran across my lawn - the cops are more than welcome to that video. What's more, if they make a 4K camera available anytime soon, I'll happily upgrade.
What happens INSIDE my home, is my private business; what happens on my porch and lawn is PUBLIC DOMAIN. So, if my camera can catch someone robbing a mailbox, exposing themselves to a kid on the street, selling drugs, ... anything .... the cops are welcome to my video.
Call me crazy, but I would rather live in a safe neighborhood, where the criminals are terrified to set foot- for fear that they may recognized - than worry about going to the mailbox to retrieve my mail.
Here’s a thought. My camera, my money paid to a service to store my video footage from my camera on their servers. My video should not be given to someone else without due process or without my permission because it belongs to me. If the Amazon agreement says otherwise then I won’t use their service. Just because it’s on their server doesn’t mean that video footage is theirs. Same goes for the bank and my money, the photo storage service and my photos, the cloud service I store my documents on, the storage unit where I store my dads old photos and film.
Now if if the police wanted to see that video footage they need my permission or go through the courts. Seems like a workable solution.
I personally have no issues whatsoever with the Amazon/Ring/Police cooperative relationship. It's definitely a symbiotic relationship: Amazon/Ring gets more legitimacy as a security service provider and the police get more data feeds to make it a bit easier for them to do their job. As a few others have said, there should be no expectation of privacy in a public space. If this arrangement thwarts a crime or helps me recover from a theft, I'm totally on board with it.
However, I'd feel a bit happier about it if I, as a Ring paying customer, received some sort of compensation for participating in the arrangement. After all, it is my equipment and my internet service that is paying to upload these videos that can be gleaned by law enforcement. What would be more reasonable and probably more widely acceptable by many Ring customers would be the ability to Opt-In to the law enforcement data sharing program and receiving a small subsidy in my Ring camera or Ring Alarm subscription plan for participating in the program. As a rule, people always feel better about being included in something when they have a say in whether or not they are included and they receive some benefit for being part of the program. It's a small PR faux pas.
If this was Opt-In and compensated, even at a very tiny level, many more people would choose to join in and become a small part of their neighborhood security program. It all starts with open and honest communication and treating people with respect and courtesy. Sure, the police can probably take a hard path to get what they want from my security cameras, but why go in that direction when so many of us would willingly help them do their jobs if they just asked us ahead of time and thanked us for our help. The solution is so simple.
I’m a bit confused. What are Ring doorbell owners doing in broad daylight on their front lawns they consider private that shouldn’t be seen by police? Running out front naked and humping the male plum tree? This isn’t like trying to unlock your phone or getting the recordings of Siri or Alexa from inside your house. We are talking about your front yard in public. Of other people coming to your door, not of you coming on it. Yes, oft times police try to go too far, but be reasonable in the ground you stand.
I’m a bit confused. What are Ring doorbell owners doing in broad daylight on their front lawns they consider private that shouldn’t be seen by police? Running out front naked and humping the male plum tree? This isn’t like trying to unlock your phone or getting the recordings of Siri or Alexa from inside your house. We are talking about your front yard in public. Of other people coming to your door, not of you coming on it. Yes, oft times police try to go too far, but be reasonable in the ground you stand.
The more abuses by law enforcement, the more wary people become of potential abuses. It doesn’t take much abuse to fear the police. They have a monstrous imbalance of power over civilians.
Comments
If a municipality wants to have a system of distributed cameras installed on the doors of the residents, the municipality should pay to Amazon for the ability to retrieve those videos. Alternatively, the municipalities can deduct this amount from the property tax to compensate homeowners for using their footage by law enforcement.
The current arrangement of the police having feee access to the footage of the paying customers is wrong.
a public street, then it’s not violation of any privacy laws. Now, if the ring doorbell takes footage from the back door into the area of the neighbors’ house not visible from the public street, then the use of this footage by law enforcement may constitute a violation of privacy laws, but law enforcement can come onto your property and go to the back of your house without notifying you. So, it’s not clear if this is illegal. Generally, the men with guns and badges can pretty much do many things that are unconstitutional but have not been challenged in court. Such is life.
A few years ago, as a member of the Red Cross, I spent time in Pittsburgh's 911 center as they prepared to beef up regional security in preparation for the upcoming G20 summit. It became apparent just how important information was -- while expecting mass protests and some "civil disobedience", they were effectively blind. They had to rely on first person witness testimony to know what was going on.
And the same is true in disaster situations such as fires and floods -- the biggest handicap responders face is a lack of information on what the disaster is, how serious it is, how big it is (One building, one block, one region, etc.). And a major part of any emergency response is knowing how to respond, with what, and where....
But, the center of all of that -- the 911 center -- was effectively blind.
A big part of fear of video surveillance is people's fear that it will be abused. But, I would suggest that a better approach would be to insure integrity within emergency responders -- but give them the information they need to do their jobs.
I am a member of a Ring Neighborhood site where people share videos (mostly porch camera stuff) of suspected criminal activity with police and neighbors. A very large percentage of those videos are people getting crazy because a solicitor knocked on their door or a kid approached their house.
The fear today runs deep.
“Privacy” does not extend to video footage of the outside of your home that you willingly upload to a third-party server. What are you frigging nuts?
Thinking about this and reading the comments here, I think the major concern for most people isn't that the police get to see the video, pretty much everyone would gladly share a video with police if it showed someone stealing their package, vandalizing a car, etc. Rather, it's how the police are getting access - the fact that it seems Amazon is becoming an extension of the police, willingly sharing data without permission or a subpoena so long as they get to use it as an advertisement.
Now, how does everyone feel about all those Amazon Echos sitting on the shelf, listening...?
In an old neighborhood I lived in, a neighbor found out the hard way when the police showed up at his house. You can not point your camera on someone's home/property and record what is going on in the neighbor's home through a window or what could not other be seen by the general public. The reason the police show showed up at the neighbors house, was due to the fact one of his security cameras was pointing across the street and had line of sigh to the other neighbors daughter's bedroom. Got the guy on peeking tom charges and child porn since the police found VHS video of the girl changing.
my rule of thumb is, unless you have a closed system where your videos stay secured to be viewed only by you, EXPECT someone else to be watching it.
I am sometimes guilty of changing without pulling down the shade...
In my real life example the guy with the security cameras was feuding with his neighbors thus the cameras, and the guy with the daughter figure out one of the cameras were pointing at his house and has yelled at his daughter for not always closing the blinds so he figure there was an off chance the guy recorded something she should not have and call the police on the camera guy. The rest is history.
Now if if the police wanted to see that video footage they need my permission or go through the courts. Seems like a workable solution.