I think some of the concern comes from a few areas:
Yes you have to give permission to share your footage but it’s opt OUT instead of opt IN. I’m sure there is research out there that provides numbers on how this increases participation.
Yes data is voluntarily shared however the problem is the atmosphere being created through this app is one of fear and suspicion. This is on purpose to pressure people into sharing data that’s not just from Ring cameras but from any camera. The police requests can also feel like pressure to some people. It might be easier to dismiss a notification but if the police ask you directly it becomes more difficult.
Finally, the participation of the police as part of Ring or Ring lobbying the Police department. This isn’t about your safety for Ring, it’s about profits. So when the public service of LE becomes intertwined with a company that is out there to make millions and millions (and tons of data) off of your fear the water is muddied and likely does not actually make anyone more safe or secure.
I see it sort of like the red light camera issues I’ve read about several times. Police or city teams up with the red light camera company, some of the lights end up being changed so yellow lights are shorter which results in more tickets which results in more revenue which results in more red light cams. But in the end it just causes more accidents for the people of that area and makes nobody safer.
It’s the opposite I think, in fact, it’s a double opt in. You have to opt in to neighbors (and participate). And then if the police request a video from you, you have to say yes.
The Gizmodo article stated that LE needed to make a request to the user in order to gain access to footage. Maybe it’s opt out to remove your device from being listed in the portal altogether? I’d really like to hear from someone who has actually had their footage requested.
Largely agree @knewman. Technically I’d like Ring to look at how they can improve 2FA, intrusion detection on failed logins, sense check the location people are logging in from etc. But reading the Gizmodo article, they seem to have a beef with Ring? Reading the comments, this is not the first time.
Right! And it’s not just Giz, I read a Vice.com article the other day where the author was describing a horror story about how people were watching him through his Ring camera in his home in the first few paragraphs. At the very end of the dramatic “they’re watching me in my own home” paragraphs, he mentions that he gave his user credentials to the people watching him! Come on folks…
I took a look at Vice, it’s full of anti-Ring stories. Have no problem with pulling companies up where their products have shortcomings, but none of the issues described is specific to Ring (other than the neighborhood watch aspect).
When making a video request to Ring, law enforcement must reference a relevant case, and can only request video recordings within a limited time and area. With each request, customers decide whether to share all relevant videos, review and select certain videos to share, take no action (decline), or opt-out of all future requests.
That reads to me like the default is “Yes share all my data”. I would like to see a screenshot of what the dialogue box looks like. I’m glad you can Opt Out of ALL requests though.
Yes it seems that way. I have an image in my head of the request looking like
SHARE ALL, Select Certain Videos
opt out (in grey, transparent text)
But maybe I am being unfair. I still don’t like their push for LE contracts. Reading through the WAPO article about it, I just don’t like it. It’s like “Here is a massive network of Smart Enabled Video Cameras that the police have access to, with zero government oversight or any public input”.
Yeah you can opt out, but that’s at the very END of the chain of events that have led to LE’s having access to your data. They went around the typical procedures for this new type of data collection (public forums, laws and codes/regulations being written) and you only get a say once they’ve gotten to the end of the line. Again, motivation here is my biggest concern. Amazon does not care about your safety.
You can apply this to everything. Car makers, washing machine manufacturers (hi Whirlpool )…
Yes, companies are there to make money, but it’s not a great business plan to kill your customers, or invade their privacy to the extent they throw away/stop buying the product.
Car makers are probably the worst example you could have picked lol. Safety is like one of the biggest reasons people choose their cars.
However I understand your sentiment. But I still hold that position. All companies are beholden to the almighty dollar and that’s probably not a net positive for humanity. It’s true and I still think it’s bad.
what I’m trying to suggest is Amazon does care about producing home security products that are attractive to consumers so they sell. Agreed they don’t care about my own personal safety (I guess, who knows!)
I’ll be interested to see what their ROI is for these LE contracts. I’m wondering if long term contracts with police departments all over the country and data collection is more lucrative than individual hardware sales.
Agreed. The arrangements with the police are described as partnerships, the police get access to a portal that allows them to interact with a neighbourhood and request video in exchange for them publicising/pushing the platform - so publicity and takeup seems to be the benefit for Amazon?
I realised my wife’s access to our Ring installation didn’t have 2FA enabled, just opened the app on her iPhone and this splash screen appeared, so Ring are now pushing it.
So I am in Canada, and I am sure [slightly] different rules apply, but I wonder about my situation in particular. I am not paying Amazon (aka Ring) a dime to store videos. I never intended to, even when I bought the doorbell. Turns out it was a bad buy, based on that assumption, because it takes forever to “hook up” and thus is abysmal at actually having any contact with a person at the door. (But that’s another matter.)
What I wonder is if my videos are still being stored, and the police could get access even though I cannot. Not that I want to allow crime or anything, but that would really peeve me quite a bit.
But again, that’s hardly an issue specific to Ring. At least the unsubscribe isn’t hidden on a hamburger. I’ve seen that before.
@PHolder The description of the police portal says they have a map of Ring cameras (without addresses) they can request video from. Is this all Ring users or just Neighbors users? I’d assumed the latter. Also do Ring store all your video indefinitely irrespective of your subscription? Good point But in your scenario (no subscription) would be noticeable if uploads to the cloud were happening, I’m sure it would have been picked up and reported on.
Well one new to me piece of info is the Neighbors by Ring app is not available in my country according to the Play store… so maybe the Canadian laws make it less feasible here.
)…
But again, that’s hardly an issue specific to Ring. At least the unsubscribe isn’t hidden on a hamburger. I’ve seen that before.
But in your scenario (no subscription) would be noticeable if uploads to the cloud were happening, I’m sure it would have been picked up and reported on.