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.
 
VaughanJB said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree, most people are used to being seen on camera in shops, public areas of large work places etc.

I am not bothered by that.
 
Murrmurr said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, let's see..... because of you, I read the User Agreement for Ring in full. I've had better starts to my day. :D

As usual, lots of interesting stuff in there such as:

"If you Share Content through Ring Offerings, including through the Ring App or via a share link, you grant Ring an unlimited, nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable right to use, store, delete, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, perform, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, and display such Content throughout the world for any purpose in any media.. You grant Ring and sublicensees the right to use the name that you submit in connection with such Content."

"Subject to your compliance with this Agreement, Ring grants you a limited, non-transferable, non-exclusive right to access and make personal and non-commercial use of the Ring Offerings."

"You agree to indemnify Ring for all claims, demands, actions, suits, damages, liabilities, losses, settlements, judgments, costs, and expenses, including but not limited to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, arising out of or related to your Content or your or any Covered Party’s use of Ring Offerings in violation of this Agreement."

The agreement also allows for your data to be used by AI.

Still, that's not the entire story.

Elsewhere on the Ring site there is a section that supports your assertion:

"Community Requests is a privacy-protected service that enables public safety agencies to put out public requests for help and efficiently and securely collect and manage digital evidence. Public safety agencies can post a request in the Neighbors feed asking community members within a specific area to share Ring video footage or information that may help their investigation. Videos customers choose to share in response to Community Requests go directly to Axon Evidence, a secure evidence management system where they can be verified for authenticity and integrity. This also creates a complete audit trail of how and when public safety agencies collect information."

Finally - sorry for the long post - I found an interesting news story:

"The ACLU warns that Flock’s network is building a “dangerous nationwide mass-surveillance infrastructure.” Media reports note that federal authorities—including ICE, the Secret Service, and the Navy—have already accessed Flock camera data through local partners. Ring’s own record has been troubled: in 2023 it agreed to a $5.8 million FTC settlement after regulators found contractors had unrestricted access to customers’ videos. Taken together, these developments underscore the privacy risks of sharing home camera footage with third parties."

The latter further supports your assertion that this is a bit of a minefield. Let alone, you can find contradictory evidence depending if you're looking at the User Agrreements for Ring, Flock, and Amazon.
 
I'm on @VaughanJB's side of this issue.

First I don't live in an area that it's a large concern about having a camera focused on the outside world 24/7. I have dogs and a gun to take care of what these online cameras are supposed to be protecting us with. And they are not available for bad actors to access.

There are cameras that don't rely being tied to the internet to function. If I was to install cameras that would be what I choose.

Someone refresh my memory here, didn't some home appliances get hacked that allowed a DDos attack on websites a few years ago? None of these devices are as protected from unwanted access like our computers are. Yet our computers can also be vulnerable to those determined enough to gain access.

Blindly believing what you're being told is a good thing without thoroughly investigating what you're being told is the truth is just plain dangerous.
 
VaughanJB said:
Well, let's see..... because of you, I read the User Agreement for Ring in full. I've had better starts to my day. :D
Click to expand...
😂

What a trooper! (y)
VaughanJB said:
"If you Share Content through Ring Offerings, including through the Ring App or via a share link, you grant Ring an unlimited, nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable right to use, store, delete, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, perform, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, and display such Content throughout the world for any purpose in any media.. You grant Ring and sublicensees the right to use the name that you submit in connection with such Content."

"Subject to your compliance with this Agreement, Ring grants you a limited, non-transferable, non-exclusive right to access and make personal and non-commercial use of the Ring Offerings."

"You agree to indemnify Ring for all claims, demands, actions, suits, damages, liabilities, losses, settlements, judgments, costs, and expenses, including but not limited to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, arising out of or related to your Content or your or any Covered Party’s use of Ring Offerings in violation of this Agreement."

The agreement also allows for your data to be used by AI.
Click to expand...
Pretty much the usual terms of service with the "I agree" box at the bottom...that most of us click on without reading the terms.

This doesn't give Amazon full rights to or ownership of your ring footage, only certain data that you input, like your address, phone number, full name....data they can share and sell. Laws dictate what kind of data a seller can share and sell. For ex, they can't use data like a bank or credit card number for any purpose other than purchases you make associated with the ring, like additional features, extended warranty, etc..
VaughanJB said:
Still, that's not the entire story.

Elsewhere on the Ring site there is a section that supports your assertion:

"Community Requests is a privacy-protected service that enables public safety agencies to put out public requests for help and efficiently and securely collect and manage digital evidence. Public safety agencies can post a request in the Neighbors feed asking community members within a specific area to share Ring video footage or information that may help their investigation. Videos customers choose to share in response to Community Requests go directly to Axon Evidence, a secure evidence management system where they can be verified for authenticity and integrity. This also creates a complete audit trail of how and when public safety agencies collect information."

Finally - sorry for the long post - I found an interesting news story:

"The ACLU warns that Flock’s network is building a “dangerous nationwide mass-surveillance infrastructure.” Media reports note that federal authorities—including ICE, the Secret Service, and the Navy—have already accessed Flock camera data through local partners. Ring’s own record has been troubled: in 2023 it agreed to a $5.8 million FTC settlement after regulators found contractors had unrestricted access to customers’ videos. Taken together, these developments underscore the privacy risks of sharing home camera footage with third parties."

The latter further supports your assertion that this is a bit of a minefield. Let alone, you can find contradictory evidence depending if you're looking at the User Agrreements for Ring, Flock, and Amazon.
Click to expand...
"sorry for the long post"

No sweat, bud, that is interesting.

The data laws in place are fairly new because, when it comes to litigation, this is all new territory, right? And the justice system is still feeling its way around as the tech evolves. Some new issue comes up all the time, and several major corporations have had to bite the bullet while paying out multi-millions for data-breach lawsuits and whatnot, and that's almost always because some law was too ambiguous and some legal firm jumped on it. It's nearly never intentional.

I just got a thing in the mail a few days ago asking if I want in on a class-action lawsuit against the phone service provider I had 4 years ago...the big one, AT&T. Statutes of limitation is another thing the justice system is still ironing out.
 
robin416 said:
There are cameras that don't rely being tied to the internet to function. If I was to install cameras that would be what I choose.
Click to expand...
That's what I have - a hardwired CCTV system and monitor, without an internet connection. They have certain important drawbacks such as vulnerability to power outages, and lack of remote access - but they have the advantage of continuous recording without reliance on motion activation, and all recordings are saved for 30 days before the system writes over the oldest. I don't even lose the oldest, since I periodically back them up on USB drives. More than once, it has been helpful to refer to old footage.

It would be nice to be able to check my phone and see if anything is going on at my house when I'm away, but then I'd probably become obsessed with it. I'm mainly concerned about my safety when I'm at home, and want to be able to check the monitor for any activity if I hear a noise outside, without having to "peek" out of windows or open doors (especially at night).
 
MACKTEXAS said:
That's what I have - a hardwired CCTV system and monitor, without an internet connection. They have certain important drawbacks such as vulnerability to power outages, and lack of remote access - but they have the advantage of continuous recording without reliance on motion activation, and all recordings are saved for 30 days before the system writes over the oldest. I don't even lose the oldest, since I periodically back them up on USB drives. More than once, it has been helpful to refer to old footage.

It would be nice to be able to check my phone and see if anything is going on at my house when I'm away, but then I'd probably become obsessed with it. I'm mainly concerned about my safety when I'm at home, and want to be able to check the monitor for any activity if I hear a noise outside, without having to "peek" out of windows or open doors (especially at night).
Click to expand...
You can use car dashcams for doing the CCTV, and then back them up on a regular basis. That way, you can also connect the dashcams to a powerbank or 12v leisure battery in order to overcome any problems with domestic power. The other thing about dashcams is that you can buy ones that can input from more than one camera. So use the reversing camera feature on one door and the front facing camera on another.

I believe you can also buy daschams that can input from 4 cameras at once, so two of them and you've got 8 camera coverage of your home, that if you move you can easily dismantle and take with you to your new property.

Oh, just one more thing. My dashcam records in 5 minute chunks onto a large capacity SD card. The card overwrites the oldest recording when it runs out of room, so if you get a large enough capacity SD card you might find that the oldest recordings go back more than 30 days.
 
MACKTEXAS said:
but then I'd probably become obsessed with it. I'm mainly concerned about my safety when I'm at home, and want to be able to check the monitor for any activity if I hear a noise outside, without having to "peek" out of windows or open doors (especially at night).
Click to expand...

I think this is actually a very interesting aside to this. Personally, I think people ARE getting both paranoid and obsessed with such things. As I noted earlier, we all grew up in an era where today's options weren't a thing, and was it really that terrible? The question for me is, are things simply worse today (crime wise), or are we all more paranoid and afraid in our own homes?

The same thing sort of came up with tracking children, or attaching a camera to them. I can see it being useful for young children, but for teenagers? At what point does someone need space to mature on their own, to grow some independence, to have a life of their own without their parents being able to peer into their movements 24/7? I know I'd of hated that as a teenager.

Personally I feel secure in my own home. If someone knocks on my door while I'm out, then no-one will answer. No big deal. But those with a more paranoid bent will ask, "but what is it's a burglar? What if it's a thief? What is someone is casing the joint?" In such cases, I've not seen evidence that a Ring Video Doorbell is statistically a deterrent.

It's a mix of new capabilities and fear, and I wonder what is fueling it.
 
BJintheUK said:
You can use car dashcams for doing the CCTV, and then back them up on a regular basis. That way, you can also connect the dashcams to a powerbank or 12v leisure battery in order to overcome any problems with domestic power. The other thing about dashcams is that you can buy ones that can input from more than one camera. So use the reversing camera feature on one door and the front facing camera on another.

I believe you can also buy daschams that can input from 4 cameras at once, so two of them and you've got 8 camera coverage of your home, that if you move you can easily dismantle and take with you to your new property.

Oh, just one more thing. My dashcam records in 5 minute chunks onto a large capacity SD card. The card overwrites the oldest recording when it runs out of room, so if you get a large enough capacity SD card you might find that the oldest recordings go back more than 30 days.
Click to expand...
I have multiple cameras that monitor the entire perimeter of the house, and they display on one monitor with split screens. But I didn't set them up. A contractor did all that, and at the time, I didn't ask about available options or a battery back up plan. Thanks for your ideas. I've made a note of what you wrote - my system is soon to be 3 years old, and that's a good length of time for something that's working 24/7. Everything may need re-doing in the not too distant future.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top