9 ms·

It's interesting how the article accuses Ring and Amazon of selling via fear, but that's also exactly what the article itself is selling. I live in Albuquerque

It's interesting how the article accuses Ring and Amazon of selling via fear, but that's also exactly what the article itself is selling. I live in Albuquerque. We have Ring cameras, and I feel so much safer when I leave town. We caught someone rifling through our pickup truck a few weeks ago and were able to correlate it with other reports in the area so that if/when these thieves are caught, they'll go away for longer. Why did I decide to buy these cameras? We were subject to a massive burglary a couple of years ago in which we lost $30k worth of valuables. There are always downsides to every security-related thing, but I highly appreciate the ability to better police my own property, and I bet a bunch of other people feel the same.

citilife 7y ago
I think the point a lot of other people make, is that you can simply use another camera network that doesn't sell your data, centralize it, and share with 3rd parties without your knowledge or [knowledgable] consent. I have a camera system that is similar, I set it up myself, and I could do exactly what you suggested. All without also telling amazon my neighbor goes to-and-from their house 6 times a day (because my door camera faces them). Or that my daughter comes home from school at 3pm.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Thriptic 7y ago
  You set your camera system up yourself. A lot of people aren't going to be willing or able to do that if we are being real. Do you see the average person wiring up a bunch of cameras or troubleshooting networking, configuring a DVR, standing up a web server to view things, setting up off site backups, ensuring their cameras don't go down if power is lost, configuring mobile alerts, etc? People want a plug and play solution. At least systems from Google and Amazon will probably be reasonably secure so they won't get roped into the next botnet when their owners forget to change default creds.
  - dbalan 7y ago
    That's the central problem, isn't it? Technology only gets more complicated, and we have never bothered much about giving general population effective tools and skills to make informed decisions for themselves. A well-known company vouches for something, and that's all I'd know if I was buying a ring device.
  - deogeo 7y ago
    There's no reason the setup has to be any more complicated - it could work exactly as it does currently, only with the option of pointing it at your own server, instead of Amazon's, or even keep using Amazon's server, but end-to-end encrypt the data, with only you possessing the key. Amazon and others know this. They don't offer it on purpose, because they want to retain control and a new revenue stream.
    - Thriptic 7y ago
      Sure, I agree we should have a local storage option: however, if we are concerned about population level problems then a local storage option isn't going to help because the vast majority of people wouldn't use it.
    - chaostheory 7y ago
      it’s not just revenue. It’s also support. There’s a lot more support involved and it also increases the upfront cost making it even less accessible to people.
- nullc 7y ago
  Exactly this: People who respond with the benefits of having a security camera are arguing a false dichotomy. IP security cameras are inexpensive and readily available, and support things like remote access fine. (And I say this from first hand experience) When you narrow the counterargument to the actual differential features of ring-like solutions-- that they automatically store video offsite mitigating by default the fringe risk that a thief takes the recorder--, the argument in favor of handing this video feed to state and corporate surveillance apparatus alike is much less interesting. It would be trivial for ring to encrypt the video with a password only known to the device and your remote client never to the server... and would avoid a lot of trouble dealing with requests for video and potential civil ligation for leaks. The primary reason these products don't is because surveilling the user is the business proposition. Aside: I have lots of security cameras, I like security cameras. Yet at the same time people radically overestimate their usefulness in stopping crime: The positioning and lighting have to be nearly perfect to get a shot that you can identify a stranger with and it's easy for people to conceal their faces against an unmonitored camera. Even if you do get a clear face shot the police often can do nothing useful with it. With the low prices today I think cameras can well worth their price, ... but where they create mass surveillance risks, the case is far less clear.
  - spamizbad 7y ago
    > Yet at the same time people radically overestimate their usefulness in stopping crime: The positioning and lighting have to be nearly perfect to get a shot that you can identify a stranger with and it's easy for people to conceal their faces against an unmonitored camera. Even if you do get a clear face shot the police often can do nothing useful with it. With the low prices today I think cameras can well worth their price, ... but where they create mass surveillance risks, the case is far less clear. If you already know who you're looking for they can be quite useful. They can be quite effective when they're used to help document violations of an order of protection or restraining order, where even a profile shot at an odd angle is sufficient.
    - nullc 7y ago
      Indeed. I've found cameras super useful in debugging issues with wild animals and contractors, figuring out where something outside went or how it got broken, etc. Anyone interested in cameras should check out the forum at https://ipcamtalk.com/ https://ipcamtalk.com/ One of the reoccurring points there though is actual experience with the low utility of cameras-- especially if they're not very carefully positioned and prolific-- at identifying strangers.
- cpwright 7y ago
  Ideally, I would have an appliance that recorded from my 6 Ring cameras without going over the internet. But the cost of that in terms of setting up and maintaining a server/software is actually higher than just paying Ring $10/month. I work making computers do stuff all day, I don't want to futz around with them on my free time. This is also why Apple TV/Tivo has beaten out MythTV in my home.
- turtlebits 7y ago
  The problem is that there are no good offline alternatives. It's trivial to get a camera setup and recording. The hard part is getting useful data out of that 24x7x365 (per camera) stream.
ehsankia 7y ago
Indeed. People fear monger about the police's ability to request footage from a neighborhood (key point being request, the owner of the Ring still gets to look at the footage and decide to release it or not). Yet no one speaks about all the previously unsolvable burglaries and crimes that can now be prevented or solved thanks to this. A lot of these articles make it sound like Ring gives unilateral full access to the police, which is just plain and simple FUD.
- Spooky23 7y ago
  The "request" is a convenience. Just like any other cloud provider, it's just a subpoena away. It's incredibly dumb to host 24x7 video surveillance of your home and your comings and goings outside of your home.
  - jonathankoren 7y ago
    Self hosting isn't dumb. It is literally what was done for decades. The fact is that most crimes are smash and grab, and they literally do no have the time to wander around your house looking for a DVR. It's fine.
    - awalton 7y ago
      You misread; gp said it was dumb to host this content outside of your home. Self-hosting this content is completely reasonable, as noted.
  - pdonis 7y ago
    > It's incredibly dumb to host 24x7 video surveillance of your home and your comings and goings outside of your home. "Incredibly dumb" is way out of line. Many people (including me) find having such video available to be extremely useful. Yes, there is a tradeoff involved if you are buying the video capability from a third party instead of rolling your own, but many people find it a tradeoff worth making.
    - Spooky23 7y ago
allovernow 7y ago
CCTV cameras have been around for decades and have none of the privacy issues associated with ring. Of course there's a little more overhead in setting them up which I'm sure turns the average person off, but they also won't brick if the manufacturer stops supporting them and don't need internet to work.
- est31 7y ago
  If your CCTV camera setup has no live off site backups, someone burglaring the property could just take or destroy the recorder on-site and delete the record of them breaking into the property.
  - cgsmith 7y ago
    This is a risk. The risk is minimal as most criminals do not destroy the recorder. To minimize the risk the owner could configure the Video Management System to store video offsite. Or the owner could configure the VMS to send an email with video on motion or a digital input paired with a burglar system.
  - e2le 7y ago
    I'm not convinced off-site backups are enough to protect against burglars destroying the footage. There are many options available to them to prevent the camera from functioning. 1) In the case of WiFi cameras, sending of deauth packets or signal jamming the 2.4/5ghz spectrum. 2) Damaging of fibre/copper cables which might be out of view of the camera. 3) Turning off power to the property although this might draw attention. Given the sheer popularity of WiFi cameras, I can't see it being too long before a device capable of spamming deauth packets becomes a common part of the burglars toolset. esp8266's with the appropriate firmware can already be found on ebay for less than £10.
    - est31 7y ago
      Of course in physical security, for every protection there's always a way for attackers to counter it. But it gets more and more costly each time. What I wanted to say with my comment is that off site backups do have value (compared to say cloud based door locks which don't have any advantage over internet free approaches). For 1 and 2, ideally you'd avoid WiFi cameras for the reason you stated and use cable based ones and put everything into view. To 3, actually this happened recently in my country Germany where they stole crown jewels of one of the german states. The alarm system died and allowed for silent entry but the CCTV still worked (no idea why it worked tho, maybe backup power for CCTV only but not for the alarm?). Ideally both your CCTV and alarm system run from some way of backup power.
rhacker 7y ago
I was in an RV park in Albuquerque during the big snow a week ago. The parks over there sit on the west side of town. 30 Minutes into the blizzard a loud SUV rolls up right next to us. My wife and I turned off the lights and opened the windows to watch. They didn't go near our truck. But within 3 minutes they were rifling in someone else's truck bed. They then opened the SUV's back hatch, threw a large box in and drove off, all at a super-fast speed indicating they've done this before. The RV Park replied to the reviews about theft and kinda blamed various people for leaving their stuff outside, unlucked. The larger park next door thought ahead and installed security cameras and security gates. The park next door is about $5-$10 more per night. Well worth it.
matt-attack 7y ago
I’ve never understood how a passive camera is supposed to actually stop such a $30k heist. I get that it records it but it doesn’t stop anything. Unless you include deterrence but an unplugged fake camera does the same.
- rhacker 7y ago
  It stops this shit over time. So, in other words, the people that would be heisting are now in jail, had ring been popular 10 years ago. If, indeed that doesn't change anything, then the blame would at least be on the police or our laws or something.
  - bromuro 7y ago
    So what’s that, a tool to jail people more easily?
    - Thriptic 7y ago
      Are you advocating that people committing burglaries not be punished?
      - braythwayt 7y ago
        Sometimes, yes! Allowing suspects to refuse to answer questions--a/k/a "remaining silent"--means that some people who commit crimes won't self-incriminate, and won't wind up being "punished." Interrogating suspects without a lawyer present is a related tool for solving more burglaries. Allowing suspects to have a lawyer present during interrogation definitely means that some people who commit burglaries won't be "punished." So advocating for the right of suspects to remain silent, and to have a lawyer present during interrogation are both indirect ways of advocating for people committing burglaries to not be punished. Same for advocating that police evidence which is "fruit of the poisoned tree" not be admissible in court. Or really, for any limitation on enforcement. It's all implicitly choosing that allowing some people who commit crimes to go free, serves a greater good. TL;DR The phrase "Advocating that people committing burglaries not be punished" has a lot of nuänce to it. Best not to try to spin it as a simple boolean. --- There's another thing, which is the word "punished." Punishment is not, and should not, be a goal in any civilized society. That's a whole 'nother discussion, but for the purpose of discussing surveillance, let's agree that we are talking about convicting people who commit crimes, and leave the discussion fo what to do after obtaining a conviction for another day.
turk73 7y ago
I think that, in general, there is always a good-sounding case for every form of mass surveillance. The trouble is that overall, mass surveillance is inhumane and turns a nation into a jail, which is something we would like to avoid.
JohnFen 7y ago
> I feel so much safer when I leave town. Good for you, and if Ring cameras are positioned so that they can't see past your property line, then I have no problem with them. However, I have a really serious problem with people who install cloudy surveillance cameras -- especially those from Amazon -- in such a way that they capture innocent people walking by your house. I don't think anyone should have the right to subject such people to surveillance networks like that, and strongly condemn those that do.
- downerending 7y ago
  If you're worried about being caught on camera while walking about in public, I have some really bad news for you...
  - kyboren 7y ago
    It's not so much a worry about being caught on camera while in public. Please forgive me for assuming, but I don't think JohnFen is particularly concerned about cameras owned and exclusively operated by private citizens disconnected from any network with limited retention. Amazon Ring is a different beast entirely. With your help, Amazon has even more data--in addition to every other user's raw video feed--and the computing resources to be able to pinpoint a frighteningly large number of people at any given moment. That's a scary amount of power, and a direct threat to liberty. Aiding and abetting such an enterprise deserves strong condemnation at the least.
    - ctvo 7y ago
      How do you feel about so many people having Gmail accounts? Do you refuse to communicate with them? Imagine the data Google has access to when you send them a message or messages sent about you. You imply Amazon is willing to use the data it collects for liberty threatening purposes, do you think Google wouldn’t? To be explicit: at what point do you draw the line and why now with this product and company?
      - satanspastaroll 7y ago
rdiddly 7y ago
Funny, my opinions/biases are such that on first reading, I read your comment as "We have Ring cameras" (i.e. most people in Albuquerque), and "I feel so much safer when I leave town" (i.e. away from all that surveillance). Minds are funny.
StuffedParrot 7y ago
> It's interesting how the article accuses Ring and Amazon of selling via fear, but that's also exactly what the article itself is selling. Just because something is published by vice doesn't automatically make it untrue (though it broadly is very suspect). However, you've made the great case yourself that these product purchases are motivated by fear, not by material return on investment.
comunekate 7y ago
I ask this question in good faith and it's in no way an attack on you. It's really just food for thought and an invitation for discussion: You say that a person searching through your pickup/ other peoples stuff is going to go away for longer when they are caught because of the ring surveillance network. Do you as a person who uses HN, has the money to buy a Ring and can weather the loss of $30k in valuables (which is a terrible thing and I can only imagine how traumatic it would be, I would probably buy a ring after that as well) really need to make sure that the pickup truck sniffer gets the maximum jail time? Our prisons are supposed to be some of the most crowded in the world.[1] There are networks just for exfelons to try and get jobs because so much of the gen pop turns them away at this instant red flag.[2] Among Americans who aren't in prison >50% can't pay a $500 emergency expense. I'm willing to accept that a lot of these people could work hard and reach a higher level of financial security in life but they choose not to. I have no issues with you having worked hard and wanting to protect what you've earned and making sure others don't pillage your things. Does an extra 5 years in prison for the truck snooper really make you feel safer? Do we really need to make sure that more people are subjected to our prison system that does little to rehabilitate people? Will fear and mistrust bring us a safer nation? What is really gained by you personally by ensuring that the perp get's twice the sentence? Does it bring you twice your lost assets? Do you fundamentally gain in anyway by putting a nonviolent offender into a cage for extra time? Maybe the hope is that we can lock up all the criminals and the streets will be safe of porch pirates. I've heard somewhere that you can't have the top without the bottom. If we get rid of the least violent criminals committing the crimes that have a low and local impact who do we expect to be left to represent that necessary bottom but the mass thieves of fake financial firms and slaughter happy killers? To put it in a very abstract metaphorical way: If you stumble on a hike and twist your ankle and have to break a branch off of a tree to use as a support to get you home... how much should you suffer for breaking that branch? should they also compound all the twigs you stepped on into your sentence? [1]https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2019.html https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2019.html [2]https://exoffenders.net/employment-jobs-for-felons/ https://exoffenders.net/employment-jobs-for-felons/ [3]https://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2016/01/06/63-of-americans-dont-have-enough-savings-to-cover-a-500-emergency/#722ec5c4e0d9 https://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2016/01/06/63-of-...
- 7y ago
P_I_Staker 7y ago
Why do you assume petty thieves "going away for longer" is a purely good thing?

citilife 7y ago

I think the point a lot of other people make, is that you can simply use another camera network that doesn't sell your data, centralize it, and share with 3rd parties without your knowledge or [knowledgable] consent. I have a camera system that is similar, I set it up myself, and I could do exactly what you suggested. All without also telling amazon my neighbor goes to-and-from their house 6 times a day (because my door camera faces them). Or that my daughter comes home from school at 3pm.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Thriptic 7y ago
You set your camera system up yourself. A lot of people aren't going to be willing or able to do that if we are being real. Do you see the average person wiring up a bunch of cameras or troubleshooting networking, configuring a DVR, standing up a web server to view things, setting up off site backups, ensuring their cameras don't go down if power is lost, configuring mobile alerts, etc? People want a plug and play solution. At least systems from Google and Amazon will probably be reasonably secure so they won't get roped into the next botnet when their owners forget to change default creds.
- dbalan 7y ago
  That's the central problem, isn't it? Technology only gets more complicated, and we have never bothered much about giving general population effective tools and skills to make informed decisions for themselves. A well-known company vouches for something, and that's all I'd know if I was buying a ring device.
- deogeo 7y ago
  There's no reason the setup has to be any more complicated - it could work exactly as it does currently, only with the option of pointing it at your own server, instead of Amazon's, or even keep using Amazon's server, but end-to-end encrypt the data, with only you possessing the key. Amazon and others know this. They don't offer it on purpose, because they want to retain control and a new revenue stream.
  - Thriptic 7y ago
    Sure, I agree we should have a local storage option: however, if we are concerned about population level problems then a local storage option isn't going to help because the vast majority of people wouldn't use it.
  - chaostheory 7y ago
    it’s not just revenue. It’s also support. There’s a lot more support involved and it also increases the upfront cost making it even less accessible to people.
nullc 7y ago
Exactly this: People who respond with the benefits of having a security camera are arguing a false dichotomy. IP security cameras are inexpensive and readily available, and support things like remote access fine. (And I say this from first hand experience) When you narrow the counterargument to the actual differential features of ring-like solutions-- that they automatically store video offsite mitigating by default the fringe risk that a thief takes the recorder--, the argument in favor of handing this video feed to state and corporate surveillance apparatus alike is much less interesting. It would be trivial for ring to encrypt the video with a password only known to the device and your remote client never to the server... and would avoid a lot of trouble dealing with requests for video and potential civil ligation for leaks. The primary reason these products don't is because surveilling the user is the business proposition. Aside: I have lots of security cameras, I like security cameras. Yet at the same time people radically overestimate their usefulness in stopping crime: The positioning and lighting have to be nearly perfect to get a shot that you can identify a stranger with and it's easy for people to conceal their faces against an unmonitored camera. Even if you do get a clear face shot the police often can do nothing useful with it. With the low prices today I think cameras can well worth their price, ... but where they create mass surveillance risks, the case is far less clear.
- spamizbad 7y ago
  > Yet at the same time people radically overestimate their usefulness in stopping crime: The positioning and lighting have to be nearly perfect to get a shot that you can identify a stranger with and it's easy for people to conceal their faces against an unmonitored camera. Even if you do get a clear face shot the police often can do nothing useful with it. With the low prices today I think cameras can well worth their price, ... but where they create mass surveillance risks, the case is far less clear. If you already know who you're looking for they can be quite useful. They can be quite effective when they're used to help document violations of an order of protection or restraining order, where even a profile shot at an odd angle is sufficient.
  - nullc 7y ago
    Indeed. I've found cameras super useful in debugging issues with wild animals and contractors, figuring out where something outside went or how it got broken, etc. Anyone interested in cameras should check out the forum at https://ipcamtalk.com/ https://ipcamtalk.com/ One of the reoccurring points there though is actual experience with the low utility of cameras-- especially if they're not very carefully positioned and prolific-- at identifying strangers.
cpwright 7y ago
Ideally, I would have an appliance that recorded from my 6 Ring cameras without going over the internet. But the cost of that in terms of setting up and maintaining a server/software is actually higher than just paying Ring $10/month. I work making computers do stuff all day, I don't want to futz around with them on my free time. This is also why Apple TV/Tivo has beaten out MythTV in my home.
turtlebits 7y ago
The problem is that there are no good offline alternatives. It's trivial to get a camera setup and recording. The hard part is getting useful data out of that 24x7x365 (per camera) stream.

ehsankia 7y ago

Indeed. People fear monger about the police's ability to request footage from a neighborhood (key point being request, the owner of the Ring still gets to look at the footage and decide to release it or not). Yet no one speaks about all the previously unsolvable burglaries and crimes that can now be prevented or solved thanks to this. A lot of these articles make it sound like Ring gives unilateral full access to the police, which is just plain and simple FUD.

Spooky23 7y ago
The "request" is a convenience. Just like any other cloud provider, it's just a subpoena away. It's incredibly dumb to host 24x7 video surveillance of your home and your comings and goings outside of your home.
- jonathankoren 7y ago
  Self hosting isn't dumb. It is literally what was done for decades. The fact is that most crimes are smash and grab, and they literally do no have the time to wander around your house looking for a DVR. It's fine.
  - awalton 7y ago
    You misread; gp said it was dumb to host this content outside of your home. Self-hosting this content is completely reasonable, as noted.
- pdonis 7y ago
  > It's incredibly dumb to host 24x7 video surveillance of your home and your comings and goings outside of your home. "Incredibly dumb" is way out of line. Many people (including me) find having such video available to be extremely useful. Yes, there is a tradeoff involved if you are buying the video capability from a third party instead of rolling your own, but many people find it a tradeoff worth making.
  - Spooky23 7y ago

allovernow 7y ago

CCTV cameras have been around for decades and have none of the privacy issues associated with ring. Of course there's a little more overhead in setting them up which I'm sure turns the average person off, but they also won't brick if the manufacturer stops supporting them and don't need internet to work.

est31 7y ago
If your CCTV camera setup has no live off site backups, someone burglaring the property could just take or destroy the recorder on-site and delete the record of them breaking into the property.
- cgsmith 7y ago
  This is a risk. The risk is minimal as most criminals do not destroy the recorder. To minimize the risk the owner could configure the Video Management System to store video offsite. Or the owner could configure the VMS to send an email with video on motion or a digital input paired with a burglar system.
- e2le 7y ago
  I'm not convinced off-site backups are enough to protect against burglars destroying the footage. There are many options available to them to prevent the camera from functioning. 1) In the case of WiFi cameras, sending of deauth packets or signal jamming the 2.4/5ghz spectrum. 2) Damaging of fibre/copper cables which might be out of view of the camera. 3) Turning off power to the property although this might draw attention. Given the sheer popularity of WiFi cameras, I can't see it being too long before a device capable of spamming deauth packets becomes a common part of the burglars toolset. esp8266's with the appropriate firmware can already be found on ebay for less than £10.
  - est31 7y ago
    Of course in physical security, for every protection there's always a way for attackers to counter it. But it gets more and more costly each time. What I wanted to say with my comment is that off site backups do have value (compared to say cloud based door locks which don't have any advantage over internet free approaches). For 1 and 2, ideally you'd avoid WiFi cameras for the reason you stated and use cable based ones and put everything into view. To 3, actually this happened recently in my country Germany where they stole crown jewels of one of the german states. The alarm system died and allowed for silent entry but the CCTV still worked (no idea why it worked tho, maybe backup power for CCTV only but not for the alarm?). Ideally both your CCTV and alarm system run from some way of backup power.

rhacker 7y ago

I was in an RV park in Albuquerque during the big snow a week ago. The parks over there sit on the west side of town. 30 Minutes into the blizzard a loud SUV rolls up right next to us. My wife and I turned off the lights and opened the windows to watch. They didn't go near our truck. But within 3 minutes they were rifling in someone else's truck bed. They then opened the SUV's back hatch, threw a large box in and drove off, all at a super-fast speed indicating they've done this before. The RV Park replied to the reviews about theft and kinda blamed various people for leaving their stuff outside, unlucked. The larger park next door thought ahead and installed security cameras and security gates. The park next door is about $5-$10 more per night. Well worth it.

matt-attack 7y ago

I’ve never understood how a passive camera is supposed to actually stop such a $30k heist. I get that it records it but it doesn’t stop anything. Unless you include deterrence but an unplugged fake camera does the same.

rhacker 7y ago
It stops this shit over time. So, in other words, the people that would be heisting are now in jail, had ring been popular 10 years ago. If, indeed that doesn't change anything, then the blame would at least be on the police or our laws or something.
- bromuro 7y ago
  So what’s that, a tool to jail people more easily?
  - Thriptic 7y ago
    Are you advocating that people committing burglaries not be punished?
    - braythwayt 7y ago
      Sometimes, yes! Allowing suspects to refuse to answer questions--a/k/a "remaining silent"--means that some people who commit crimes won't self-incriminate, and won't wind up being "punished." Interrogating suspects without a lawyer present is a related tool for solving more burglaries. Allowing suspects to have a lawyer present during interrogation definitely means that some people who commit burglaries won't be "punished." So advocating for the right of suspects to remain silent, and to have a lawyer present during interrogation are both indirect ways of advocating for people committing burglaries to not be punished. Same for advocating that police evidence which is "fruit of the poisoned tree" not be admissible in court. Or really, for any limitation on enforcement. It's all implicitly choosing that allowing some people who commit crimes to go free, serves a greater good. TL;DR The phrase "Advocating that people committing burglaries not be punished" has a lot of nuänce to it. Best not to try to spin it as a simple boolean. --- There's another thing, which is the word "punished." Punishment is not, and should not, be a goal in any civilized society. That's a whole 'nother discussion, but for the purpose of discussing surveillance, let's agree that we are talking about convicting people who commit crimes, and leave the discussion fo what to do after obtaining a conviction for another day.

turk73 7y ago

I think that, in general, there is always a good-sounding case for every form of mass surveillance. The trouble is that overall, mass surveillance is inhumane and turns a nation into a jail, which is something we would like to avoid.

JohnFen 7y ago

> I feel so much safer when I leave town. Good for you, and if Ring cameras are positioned so that they can't see past your property line, then I have no problem with them. However, I have a really serious problem with people who install cloudy surveillance cameras -- especially those from Amazon -- in such a way that they capture innocent people walking by your house. I don't think anyone should have the right to subject such people to surveillance networks like that, and strongly condemn those that do.

downerending 7y ago
If you're worried about being caught on camera while walking about in public, I have some really bad news for you...
- kyboren 7y ago
  It's not so much a worry about being caught on camera while in public. Please forgive me for assuming, but I don't think JohnFen is particularly concerned about cameras owned and exclusively operated by private citizens disconnected from any network with limited retention. Amazon Ring is a different beast entirely. With your help, Amazon has even more data--in addition to every other user's raw video feed--and the computing resources to be able to pinpoint a frighteningly large number of people at any given moment. That's a scary amount of power, and a direct threat to liberty. Aiding and abetting such an enterprise deserves strong condemnation at the least.
  - ctvo 7y ago
    How do you feel about so many people having Gmail accounts? Do you refuse to communicate with them? Imagine the data Google has access to when you send them a message or messages sent about you. You imply Amazon is willing to use the data it collects for liberty threatening purposes, do you think Google wouldn’t? To be explicit: at what point do you draw the line and why now with this product and company?
    - satanspastaroll 7y ago

rdiddly 7y ago

Funny, my opinions/biases are such that on first reading, I read your comment as "We have Ring cameras" (i.e. most people in Albuquerque), and "I feel so much safer when I leave town" (i.e. away from all that surveillance). Minds are funny.

StuffedParrot 7y ago

> It's interesting how the article accuses Ring and Amazon of selling via fear, but that's also exactly what the article itself is selling. Just because something is published by vice doesn't automatically make it untrue (though it broadly is very suspect). However, you've made the great case yourself that these product purchases are motivated by fear, not by material return on investment.

comunekate 7y ago

I ask this question in good faith and it's in no way an attack on you. It's really just food for thought and an invitation for discussion: You say that a person searching through your pickup/ other peoples stuff is going to go away for longer when they are caught because of the ring surveillance network. Do you as a person who uses HN, has the money to buy a Ring and can weather the loss of $30k in valuables (which is a terrible thing and I can only imagine how traumatic it would be, I would probably buy a ring after that as well) really need to make sure that the pickup truck sniffer gets the maximum jail time? Our prisons are supposed to be some of the most crowded in the world.[1] There are networks just for exfelons to try and get jobs because so much of the gen pop turns them away at this instant red flag.[2] Among Americans who aren't in prison >50% can't pay a $500 emergency expense. I'm willing to accept that a lot of these people could work hard and reach a higher level of financial security in life but they choose not to. I have no issues with you having worked hard and wanting to protect what you've earned and making sure others don't pillage your things. Does an extra 5 years in prison for the truck snooper really make you feel safer? Do we really need to make sure that more people are subjected to our prison system that does little to rehabilitate people? Will fear and mistrust bring us a safer nation? What is really gained by you personally by ensuring that the perp get's twice the sentence? Does it bring you twice your lost assets? Do you fundamentally gain in anyway by putting a nonviolent offender into a cage for extra time? Maybe the hope is that we can lock up all the criminals and the streets will be safe of porch pirates. I've heard somewhere that you can't have the top without the bottom. If we get rid of the least violent criminals committing the crimes that have a low and local impact who do we expect to be left to represent that necessary bottom but the mass thieves of fake financial firms and slaughter happy killers? To put it in a very abstract metaphorical way: If you stumble on a hike and twist your ankle and have to break a branch off of a tree to use as a support to get you home... how much should you suffer for breaking that branch? should they also compound all the twigs you stepped on into your sentence? [1]https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2019.html https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2019.html [2]https://exoffenders.net/employment-jobs-for-felons/ https://exoffenders.net/employment-jobs-for-felons/ [3]https://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2016/01/06/63-of-americans-dont-have-enough-savings-to-cover-a-500-emergency/#722ec5c4e0d9 https://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2016/01/06/63-of-...

7y ago

P_I_Staker 7y ago

Why do you assume petty thieves "going away for longer" is a purely good thing?