• Crotaro@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s crazy! The rules of the contest are so hard to enforce in favour of contestants, let alone the whole issue of pressuring people into installing cameras that automatically send footage to police and probably Amazon as well.

    I really hope a team of VFX artists (who already has cameras installed anyway, so no additional cost for them) makes incredibly convincing footage and somehow makes it look like it was part of the raw camera capture.

        • jarfil@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Technically, “automatically” would mean it gets sent all the time, while “without consent” would mean it might’ve got sent on request, just without consent.

          • Crotaro@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Fair enough. In both cases, it’s without the camera “owner” consenting, and that’s the main problem.

          • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            “Automatically” would be a perfectly reasonable word choice if a request from the police is granted without interaction. In all honesty even if a human has to send it, if the process doesn’t allow them any kind of autonomy or authority to decline the request, that probably qualifies, too.

            • jarfil@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Hm, I guess you’re right. That’s an interesting reflection on the concept of “automation”.

        • Devi@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          As Jarfil said, it’s not automatically doing anything. The police can get a court order to get footage. It’s only given in very limited circumstances, like if the owner goes missing, or the camera might have spotted a significant crime, and it’s not just ring but basically anything. If you are suspected of a serious crime police can get your internet browsing history, they can bug your house, they can dig through your bins, and yes, can request the clips taken by your ring camera.

          It’s happened 11 times this year. That shows how rarely courts give these orders.

          The idea that Ring is some evil thing that’s doing anything different is just scaremongering.