Face Recognition at Homes via Ring Doorbells

Murrmurr said:
They need probable cause
Click to expand...

Actually, they apparently don't need probable cause. The thinking here is that Ring users are voluntarily giving up the footage, so probable cause to access it is not required.
 

The Metropolitan Police, in London, are into Facial Recognition,
they park a couple of vans, bristling with cameras outside main
stations, we have 2 here, they capture lots of not very nice people
and take them away, the most that got in the beginning was around
150 people, outstanding warrants, bail skippers, etc., etc.

I agree to their use, those who disagree, must have some fear of being
recognised when they thought that they were safe.

Mike.
 

Mike said:
The Metropolitan Police, in London, are into Facial Recognition,
they park a couple of vans, bristling with cameras outside main
stations, we have 2 here, they capture lots of not very nice people
and take them away, the most that got in the beginning was around
150 people, outstanding warrants, bail skippers, etc., etc.

I agree to their use, those who disagree, must have some fear of being
recognised when they thought that they were safe.

Mike.
Click to expand...

I recall that police forces have also deployed tech that allows them to monitor Smartphones during protests. You can find information if you search for "IMSI Catchers". Essentially, this allows the police vehicle it's being run from to appear as a cell phone tower, thereby capturing local communications.
 
Aunt Bea said:
I’m absolutely fine with it!

Why on earth should anyone that I don’t know or that hasn’t been invited, which would include delivery people, mailmen, etc…, be at my door unless it’s some sort of an emergency? 🤔

I would be ok with personal body cameras, similar to those worn by police officers and I’m sure that someone is probably working on them.

I can see a big market for them with anxious parents that have school age children, elderly in nursing homes, etc…
Click to expand...

I think I would be fine with it too, mostly. What I might not be fine with is a video from a device on my property, running the risk of it automatically being uploaded to someone else's server somewhere, which in the UK at least, might become a Data Protection issue? At the moment, I'm not sure one way or the other on that one.

I'm contemplating what to do with a video I have from my own CCTV on my property. The video shows a woman walking along the pavement from the side to the rear of her car, which was parked in front of my property. She then stepped onto the road behind her car, picked up an empty drinks can from the gutter, reached over my fence, and placed the empty drinks can on top of one of my bushes in my front garden. She then entered her car and drove off. It was completely unnecessary -- interfering with and littering my property.

But as for the video, it is mine, and I wouldn't consider putting it up on YouTube or saving it to someone else's server somewhere. I don't feel i need to make that video public. I will show the woman in question some stills from the video and see what she has to say for herself. She lives across the road from me.
 
Last edited:
Magna-Carta said:
I will show the woman in question some stills from the video and see what she has to say for herself. She lives across the road from me.
Click to expand...
I was going to suggest that she was picking up litter and thought the person who lived nearby could deal with it. Then I saw she lived across the street from you. She could have put it in her own trash can. Rather lazy and inconsiderate of her.
 
Jules said:
I was going to suggest that she was picking up litter and thought the person who lived nearby could deal with it. Then I saw she lived across the street from you. She could have put it in her own trash can. Rather lazy and inconsiderate of her.
Click to expand...

I have had dealings with this woman before -- we don't actually speak, usually. But now I have an opportunity to do so.

The dealings I've had with her in the past surround the way she tells complex stories & lies about herself, and of other people, and plays people off against each other. Then tells more lies about people to keep them apart so they don't compare notes, so to speak.

I know her from the 90s, when one at a time, over that decade, she allegedly had seven terminal illnesses. Needless to say, she is still with us. This is why i'm only contemplating how to best handle this.

It's a funny old world.
 
VaughanJB said:
Actually, they apparently don't need probable cause. The thinking here is that Ring users are voluntarily giving up the footage, so probable cause to access it is not required.
Click to expand...
Cops need probable cause to search one's property or person, but not necessarily during an active criminal investigation; that depends on the circumstances. But if a ring owner refuses to volunteer its data and, due to the circumstances, a warrant is necessary, law enforcement can request one. Meanwhile, they can inquire of ring-owning neighbors.

And, true, if ring footage protects the owner or catches a thief or burglar, chances are very good a warrant won't be necessary. Most people are eager to help catch bad guys.
 
VaughanJB said:
Sure. That's equivalent to saying - why not have a camera in every building, in every room, in every public space, so we can know what's going on. I'm not sure how widely your view is held, but perhaps it's the majority.....
Click to expand...

Ive worked in places that have cameras on everywhere but private rooms - I don't object to that.
 
Murrmurr said:
Cops need probable cause to search one's property or person, but not necessarily during an active criminal investigation; that depends on the circumstances. But if a ring owner refuses to volunteer its data and, due to the circumstances, a warrant is necessary, law enforcement can request one. Meanwhile, they can inquire of ring-owning neighbors.

And, true, if ring footage protects the owner or catches a thief or burglar, chances are very good a warrant won't be necessary. Most people are eager to help catch bad guys.
Click to expand...

Whilst I've not read it, I suspect that voluntary giving of data is hidden somewhere in the docs you get with the device. So it would be a matter of whether someone has seen it, and have actively gone and changed the defaults for the device. Otherwise, you're in. My guess anyway. It's an opt-out system, not an opt=in. I could e wrong.....

Just to make sure we're on the same page - this data is uploaded to the cloud, and is not stored on local devices. So all the authorities need is clearance from Amazon. Once they have that, the owner of that Ring device need not even know it's been seen.
 
Last edited:
January said:
Ive worked in places that have cameras on everywhere but private rooms - I don't object to that.
Click to expand...

That's the thing when it comes to surveillance. There is a line of thought that if you're doing nothing wrong, what have you got to hide? The other side of that coin is, if you've nothing to hide, why would you mind if every company had your personal data?

My impression is that, for the most part in 2025, people aren't bothered about being recorded. As such, worries about "Big Brother" must be low.
 
Surveillance is great technology when it's used to prevent crimes or as evidence against criminals. It's criminal when it's used to restrict the movements and activities of the general public. I'm pretty sure that, like just about anything, public surveillance can become politicized. Could be something as minor as your local Sheriff seeing video of you legally posting signs that support the person running against him (or her) in an upcoming election, and suddenly, you're getting a bunch of traffic tickets.
 
VaughanJB said:
Whilst I've not read it, I suspect that voluntary giving of data is hidden somewhere in the docs you get with the device. So it would be a matter of whether someone has seen it, and have actively gone and changed the defaults for the device. Otherwise, you're in. My guess anyway. It's an opt-out system, not an opt=in. I could e wrong.....

Just to make sure we're on the same page - this data is uploaded to the cloud, and is not stored on local devices. So all the authorities need is clearance from Amazon. Once they have that, the owner of that Ring device need not even know it's been seen.
Click to expand...
Yes, but to get that clearance they need a warrant issued by a judge or the local DA. The issuance is faxed or emailed, so it gets where it has to go quickly. I mean, I am sure Amazon doesn't have the authority to give clearance to go through personal data.
 
Murrmurr said:
I am sure Amazon doesn't have the authority to give clearance to go through personal data.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think they do. They reserve the right to "use [user content] for certain purposes, like marketing or in response to an emergency, without user consent under specific conditions." Users own the copyright, but in using the device they're granting Amazon these rights.
 
VaughanJB said:
Actually, I think they do. They reserve the right to "use [user content] for certain purposes, like marketing or in response to an emergency, without user consent under specific conditions." Users own the copyright, but in using the device they're granting Amazon these rights.
Click to expand...
If that's true, I see lawsuits in Amazon's future. Doesn't matter what people signed, Amazon is not law enforcement and people's personal data is protected under various laws.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top