Amazon's Ring and Google Can Share Footage With Police Without Warrants (or Your Consent) (cnet.com) 70
U.S. law let's companies like Google and Amazon's Ring doorbell/security camera system "share user footage with police during emergencies without consent and without warrants," CNET reported this week. They add that after that revelation "came under renewed criticism from privacy activists this month after disclosing it gave video footage to police in more than 10 cases without users' consent thus far in 2022 in what it described as 'emergency situations'."
"That includes instances where the police didn't have a warrant." "So far this year, Ring has provided videos to law enforcement in response to an emergency request only 11 times," Amazon vice president of public policy Brian Huseman wrote. "In each instance, Ring made a good-faith determination that there was an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to a person requiring disclosure of information without delay...." Of the 11 emergency requests Ring has complied with so far in 2022, the company said they include cases involving kidnapping, self-harm and attempted murder, but it won't provide further details, including information about which agencies or countries the requests came from.
We also asked Ring if it notified customers after the company had granted law enforcement access to their footage without their consent.
"We have nothing to share," the spokesperson responded.
CNET also supplies this historical context: It's been barely a year since Ring made the decision to stop allowing police to email users to request footage. Facing criticism that requests like those were subverting the warrant process and contributing to police overreach, Ring directed police instead to post public requests for assistance in the Neighbors app, where community members are free to view and comment on them (or opt out of seeing them altogether)... That post made no mention of a workaround for the police during emergency circumstances.
When CNET asked why that workaround wasn't mentioned, Amazon response was that law enforcement requests, "including emergency requests, are directed to Ring (the company), the same way a warrant or subpoena is directed to Ring (and not the customer), which is why we treat them entirely separately."
CNET notes there's also no mention of warrantless emergency requests without independent oversight in Ring's own transparency reports about law enforcement requests from past years.
CNET adds that it's not just Amazon. "Google, Ring and other companies that process user video footage have a legal basis for warrantless disclosure without consent during emergency situations, and it's up to them to decide whether or not to do so when the police come calling...." (Although Google told CNET that while it reserves the right to comply with warrantless requests for user data during emergencies, to date it has never actually done so.) The article also points out that "Others, most notably Apple, use end-to-end encryption as the default setting for user video, which blocks the company from sharing that video at all... Ring enabled end-to-end encryption as an option for users in 2021, but it isn't the default setting, and Ring notes that turning it on will break certain features, including the ability to view your video feed on a third-party device like a smart TV, or even Amazon devices like the Echo Show smart display."
The bottom line? [C]onsumers have a choice to make about what they're comfortable with... That said, you can't make informed choices when you aren't well-informed to begin with, and the brands in question don't always make it easy to understand their policies and practices. Ring published a blog post last year walking through its new, public-facing format for police footage requests, but there was no mention of emergency exceptions granted without user consent or independent oversight, the details of which only came to light after a Senate probe. Google describes its emergency sharing policies within its Terms of Service, but the language doesn't make it clear that those cases include instances where footage may be shared without a warrant, subpoena or court order compelling Google to do so.
"That includes instances where the police didn't have a warrant." "So far this year, Ring has provided videos to law enforcement in response to an emergency request only 11 times," Amazon vice president of public policy Brian Huseman wrote. "In each instance, Ring made a good-faith determination that there was an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to a person requiring disclosure of information without delay...." Of the 11 emergency requests Ring has complied with so far in 2022, the company said they include cases involving kidnapping, self-harm and attempted murder, but it won't provide further details, including information about which agencies or countries the requests came from.
We also asked Ring if it notified customers after the company had granted law enforcement access to their footage without their consent.
"We have nothing to share," the spokesperson responded.
CNET also supplies this historical context: It's been barely a year since Ring made the decision to stop allowing police to email users to request footage. Facing criticism that requests like those were subverting the warrant process and contributing to police overreach, Ring directed police instead to post public requests for assistance in the Neighbors app, where community members are free to view and comment on them (or opt out of seeing them altogether)... That post made no mention of a workaround for the police during emergency circumstances.
When CNET asked why that workaround wasn't mentioned, Amazon response was that law enforcement requests, "including emergency requests, are directed to Ring (the company), the same way a warrant or subpoena is directed to Ring (and not the customer), which is why we treat them entirely separately."
CNET notes there's also no mention of warrantless emergency requests without independent oversight in Ring's own transparency reports about law enforcement requests from past years.
CNET adds that it's not just Amazon. "Google, Ring and other companies that process user video footage have a legal basis for warrantless disclosure without consent during emergency situations, and it's up to them to decide whether or not to do so when the police come calling...." (Although Google told CNET that while it reserves the right to comply with warrantless requests for user data during emergencies, to date it has never actually done so.) The article also points out that "Others, most notably Apple, use end-to-end encryption as the default setting for user video, which blocks the company from sharing that video at all... Ring enabled end-to-end encryption as an option for users in 2021, but it isn't the default setting, and Ring notes that turning it on will break certain features, including the ability to view your video feed on a third-party device like a smart TV, or even Amazon devices like the Echo Show smart display."
The bottom line? [C]onsumers have a choice to make about what they're comfortable with... That said, you can't make informed choices when you aren't well-informed to begin with, and the brands in question don't always make it easy to understand their policies and practices. Ring published a blog post last year walking through its new, public-facing format for police footage requests, but there was no mention of emergency exceptions granted without user consent or independent oversight, the details of which only came to light after a Senate probe. Google describes its emergency sharing policies within its Terms of Service, but the language doesn't make it clear that those cases include instances where footage may be shared without a warrant, subpoena or court order compelling Google to do so.
Didn't I call this one too? (Score:1)
I'm sure I can't be the only one who isn't shocked.
Scratch the surface (Score:2, Interesting)
The interesting bit is that the footage is typically of yet other people, who didn't get much of a choice whether to be recorded much less whether the footage was sent to (US-based, for dem dam furriners) servers, scrutinised and considered for "sharing" with law enforcement without judicial oversight or consent.
This is a bit like someone "shares" DNA material with a "find your ancestry" service and as a consequence someone else gets fingered for murder, except without the familial ties and the strong smel
Re: (Score:1)
(US-based, for dem dam furriners)
As well they should be watched. Those furries are always up to no good [avclub.com].
Oh wait, you meant FOUR-IN-ERS? Not gonna go there.
Privacy gets weird when "private" entities (Score:2, Insightful)
The only practicable solution is rigorous anti-trust enforcement. Only way to stop corporations from becoming de facto paramilitary intelligence agencies against the people.
Re: (Score:2)
As they say, "All rights are reserved."
Re: (Score:2)
um,, we're governed, not governed for.
there's an illusion they're OUR government, but they keep secrets from us, so clearly, they're not.
Secrecy and unaccountability has allowed corruption to thrive. The witchhunt for whistleblowers has shown this corruption is now embedded in institutions and is governing policy.
The surveillance mechanism that OUR data has enabled should be scaring the hell out of all of us. But some of us are happily dancing our way blindfolded into traffic.
Re: (Score:2)
um,, we're governed, not governed for.
That's a very weak and self-defeating belief. You're basically conceding authority over the meaning of government to whoever is willing to tarnish it the worst. But that misunderstands the entire concept of society: Freedom doesn't come from politicians giving the public permission. It comes from the simple understanding of what a politician is: They don't want your permission, they need it and will do whatever they can to get it, including dishonest methods.
Our problems and solutions come from us al
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly.
What we actually need are non routable networking protocols being the NORM for our private security, and routable protocol capabilities be removed completely from them.
Most users (Score:3, Interesting)
Most users of Ring doorbells would be happy to hear that the police are using their footage to solve crimes. Usually you can't get the police to do anything about it even if you do have footage.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Most users of Ring doorbells would be happy to hear that the police are using their footage to solve crimes.
If the cops think they can solve any crimes by watching my doorbell's recordings of peoples' asses walking away from my house, and cars driving by, they're welcome to it.
To anyone who has never owned a Ring doorbell: there is a delay from when it detects motion to when it actually begins recording, so you frequently get videos of visitors only from their back side as they're leaving. The motion sensitivity also is such that no matter how much you mess with it, if your home is close to the street, your sens
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't disagree, the point it there is no way to opt out. It should be the users choice if the hardware they bought and the service they pay for can be accessed by the police.
I would be quite happy to agree to the police to access my security camera to save a life, the thing that annoys me is they are not asking.
Recording audio (Score:4, Insightful)
"Our customers expect and appreciate audio functionalityâ"as they do with other devices that
capture video, like their smartphones. Setting the default setting to not capture audio would be a
negative experience for customers and might, for example, prevent a customer who never visited
the settings from hearing audio in an emergency situation"
Isn't this illegal in two-party consent states?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes (Score:2)
Does that apply to security devices though?
Yes, and if you (owner of the device) are not part of the private conversation you're recording, then zero parties have given consent, so by federal law it'd be illegal in every state.
Expectation of Privacy (Score:3)
Isn't this illegal in two-party consent states?
For this reason, I'm careful to never buy home security cameras with microphones (instead of putting myself in a situation where I'd have to prove the mic was turned off). The only place I'd consider a camera with a mic is the front door (with a speaker too, for intercom functionality).
Something that nullifies eavesdropping law is when there's no "reasonable expectation of privacy," and usually there'd be no expectation of privacy on someone else's front doorstep. I'm sure these mics can often pick up
Re: (Score:3)
>"For this reason, I'm careful to never buy home security cameras with microphones (instead of putting myself in a situation where I'd have to prove the mic was turned off). "
I would never install a camera/system, even WITHOUT a microphone, that is not 100% totally under MY control. I am just amazed how people have no concern, whatsoever, that some outside entity has access to all their footage. I asked someone just a few days ago, using one of these "cloud enabled" systems who was looking at his dog i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Expectation of Privacy (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I would think it depends upon how obvious the camera is to the persons in the conversation; how close those persons are to that camera; are those persons located on YOUR property; are those persons walking in a public right-of-way like a sidewalk or street; and maybe other things.
If somebody is standing at my front door, on MY PROPERTY, and I hear them saying things through that closed door or maybe a nearby open window, do those persons have ANY Presumption of Privacy while on MY Property? In that case I t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't this illegal in two-party consent states?
Sure, and so is CSAM, bit Apple is allowed to collect and look at it while you would be locked in a cage.
Laws for thee, and laws for me.
Technically it's not your data (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
it's the companies data (I'm sure it's in the fine print somewhere, I'm too lazy to look). So they can share it whenever they want. This is why I'll never own a device like this, if I do I'll roll my own.
I think you pointed out the most important fact in this topic: it's in the fine print somewhere
Abuse? (Score:5, Interesting)
"So far this year, Ring has provided videos to law enforcement in response to an emergency request
only 11 times. In each instance, Ring made a good-faith determination that there was an imminent
danger of death or serious physical injury to a person requiring disclosure of information without
delay"
Since just about every capability provided to police is eventually abused, this will also eventually be abused. Finding out whose dog pooped in front of someone's house will become "imminent danger of death".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well maybe it's your dog and it pooped on the sidewalk, you don't care but your neighbor does. The point is this could be used for other more trivial things like tax evasion, you pay a contractor but they never declare the tax. Although this is the slippery slope argument I do think in this case it will apply. If this is allowed without strict transparent rules, then whats stopping companies simply updating their terms and conditions (What choice do you have not to accept them) to allow ever more trivial th
Re: (Score:2)
The only way to avoid having a cloud provider turn over data for law enforcement purposes is to not store data in the cloud. There are plenty of slashdot users who refuse to use any cloud service.
The flip side of that argument is that the cloud providers are better at managing the data, backing it up, and crucially securing it. My data is safer on an Amazon/Google server than it is on any internet-conne
Re: (Score:2)
https://abcnews.go.com/Interna... [go.com]
https://www.newsweek.com/town-... [newsweek.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are taking this way too seriously.
The original comment about dog poop was kind of a joke. Not that it won't be abused, but I really doubt that the abuse will ever get to the level of dog poop.
Re: (Score:1)
I agree with your main point, but:
Finding out whose dog pooped in front of someone's house will become "imminent danger of death".
Doesn't sound like abuse to me, that sounds like a really great and important way to use the system.
Well, I mean... (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that I know where my cameras are, and I'm definitely not committing crimes in front of them. It's not clear to me that Amazon or Google giving that data to the police for any reason that isn't helping me or my neighbors. Given the context, if it's helping my neighbors, it's a net benefit for me. If someone doing illegal stuff in view of my driveway gets caught because my camera recorded it, then my neighborhood is improved and it's a net win for me.
If you're not behind a closed door, your re
Re: (Score:2)
Not important to enough people (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
You make the assumption that there are things they can do to change things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Not important to enough people (Score:1)
surveillance normalized... (Score:2)
That's where we are at, as a society - not that it's particularly unusual, historically, just that the means to do it has become so sophisticated and vanishingly easy. (on the surface, at least)
The question then, is who exactly is the surveillance for - where is the line drawn.
The premise is as old as human society - "keeping watch for bad things."
But the lines are now blurred, considerably so.
We know facial recognition tracking is being used for market research, that the idea of a security camera in a stor
Doubleplusgood (Score:2)
Never buying Amazon's Ring (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Never will buy Ring or ANY in home device that can monitor me and tattle w/o my permission. My house will stay "dumb" to any such device. Won't use any Google products either. I have devices that monitor my home that I have control over.
Don't worry, when your neighbors got a Ring/Nest camera facing towards your home, Amazon/Google already have got you covered.
Re: (Score:2)
so I guess you do not have a smart phone, computer, cable box or any other electronic device that collects and shares your personal data.
Re: (Score:1)
so I guess you do not have a smart phone
Goodness, no.
computer
Computing got by just fine for decades without the mass-hoovering of end-user data. Not all of us just bent over and took it when Microsoft's Win10 shenanigans hit their stride.
cable box
Oh, lord, cable TV. One of these is not like the others...if anything, this is the easiest to do without, now.
or any other electronic device that collects and shares your personal data.
Please, this is doable without the dire Robinson Crusoe-esque look that you might be going for, here.
Re: And (Score:1)
This is why I only trust Blink (Score:2)
Different Article, Same Breathless Claims (Score:3)
Slashdot (July 13, 2022): https://yro.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]
First, we all have to recognize that everyone storing any data can be served with a legal requirement (subpoena, court order) to release that data for use in an investigation. Ring stores videos on their servers and thus will get subpoenas. It's their data. It doesn't matter who owns the cameras, what matters is who stores the data. If you don't want your video accessed by law enforcement, obscure your cameras and store your video locally.
Second, everything about their releasing video to law enforcement is on their website and not at the bottom of of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard.” (Thanks, Doug.)
https://support.ring.com/hc/en... [ring.com]
Ring will not release user information to law enforcement except in response to a valid and binding legal request properly served on us. Ring objects to legal requests it determines to be overbroad or inappropriate. For example, Ring would object to a subpoena requesting a list of all Ring device locations in a city. Ring rejects requests that do not provide sufficient information to locate responsive records.
and
Emergencies. Ring reserves the right to respond immediately to urgent law enforcement requests for information in cases involving imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to any person. Emergency disclosure requests must be submitted to emergency-le-requests@ring.com. Such requests must include “EMERGENCY” in the subject line and be accompanied by a completed emergency request form.
Here's the emergency access request: https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
their data. It doesn't matter who owns the cameras, what matters is who stores the data.
Only when its serves the corporations interest, make that argument when its a DVD that you purchased see how far that gets you.
Re: (Score:2)
It has nothing to do with serving corporate interest. The interest is from law enforcement who, with the support of the judiciary, present a compelling government interest to receive a copy of narrowly described video/audio data. You haven't seen any lawsuits about this because this is a 100% reasonable way of getting security camera footage.
The ONLY novelty is that it's a cloud storage system.
make that argument when its a DVD that you purchased see how far that gets you.
Your apartment's being raided under warrant claiming you possess stolen governmental data. The police are told to s
Re: (Score:2)
Most people here fully understand this. The question is not do you fully understand this, but is it right, do we want to live in a society in which this accepted and can be used by a tyrant if they come into power. What should be the right balance between privacy and security?
Choose to trash them (Score:2)
You have a choice (Score:1)
Cloud (Score:2)
Don't let your data flow into the cloud, or you may find yourself rained upon one day.
I'm sure you consented when you clicked that EULA (Score:2)
...didn't you read that?
HomeKit Security (Score:2)
If you've done nothing wrong .. (Score:2)