Follow

Holy what!

"Amazon's home security company Ring has enlisted local police departments around the country to advertise its surveillance cameras in exchange for free Ring products and a “portal” that allows police to request footage from these cameras, a secret agreement obtained by Motherboard shows."

vice.com/en_us/article/mb88za/

@maxeddy potentially unconstitutional.

If people did not know about this agreement with the police it could open the door that this is a warrantless search or some sort of database collection not allowed by the Constitution.

And they can't hide behind the idea that third parties have this information because this is not accounting that there is an agreement with police and the customers haven't waved any rights explicitly to the police. :backfromgab:

@zemichi It seems like the requests for footage go to the Ring owners directly. But given that there's an incentive to push the cameras and the Neighborhood app, it creates an environment of fear where individuals may be more likely to agree to handing over their data to police.

Regardless, it's a mechanism that appears designed to circumvent the courts, disguised as user consent.

@maxeddy fear is not a factor in this

The point that matters is police are promoting a object for public use and gathering information (which includes information not related to a crime). That act may be unconstitutional on its own as searches have to be based on something and they are providing an object which monitors your property without a reason (like you are suspected of a crime and have a warrant out for you).

The simple act of chalking cars for parking violations was ruled unconstitutional because the chalking of tires was considered a "search" and tresspass of property. That case was also based on a case that ruled that putting devices on publicly parked cars was unconstitutional. This is a device, promoted by police with an agreement, that tracks information on your property, possibly without your knowledge. Even if you did know about the agreement you may not be aware of your rights and the ease of use of ring gathering information to be used by the police later (with your agreement) may still be considered a search because it makes things easier for the police.

All I can say is there is a reason why this agreement wasn't public, they may have known it would be unconstitutional.

@zemichi It's a very gross situation, I agree.

I think this instance might be slightly different from the ones you describe since it seems police are contacting individual users and requesting access to the cameras directly from the camera's users. I'm not a constitutional lawyer, so there may be other issues here as well!

@maxeddy I'm surprised that they were able to get a copy of the agreement through a state records request. Often times those agreements are declared "trade secrets" or other such nonsense, making them exempt from the request for the public to see them. Ran into it a lot when I was a journo. Good on motherboard for pursuing this. And yes, it is gross.

@maxeddy

> Amazon's home security company Ring has enlisted local police departments around the country to advertise its surveillance cameras in exchange for free Ring products and a “portal” that allows police to request footage from these cameras, a secret agreement obtained by Motherboard shows.

Wow, #ring really seems to be *trying* to be maximally evil—this comes right on the heels of that time they were paying for scare mongering local news google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlant

Surveillance capitalism 

@maxeddy I'm not even in the thought of "ACAB", but we don't need something that enables the bad ones and doesn't do anything for the good ones.

@maxeddy 🎵 this fucking bullshit needs to be illegal 🎵

@maxeddy Amazon is an arm of the #DeepState. What private citizen in their right mind would trust them with home security or spybot #Alexa? #InfoSec
#amazoncloudcomputing

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Infosec Exchange

A Mastodon instance for info/cyber security-minded people.