100% coverage seems like an inevitability in a country where filming in public is a constitutionally protected right and networked ALPR capability is possible (if not regularly offered yet) in commodity doorbell cameras.

▲

autoexec 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> 100% coverage seems like an inevitability in a country where filming in public is a constitutionally protected right a

It really doesn't have to be though. The rights of individuals to record in public doesn't have to translate to the right of corporations (flock, amazon, etc.) to do it without restriction. Time, place, and manner restrictions on our rights already exist, it just needs to be found that this manner is unacceptable as an imposition on our freedom which should be protected under the fourth amendment.

▲

hamdingers 3 days ago | parent [-]

If a home or business owner sets up Ring cameras, is it fair to say Amazon is recording in public? That feels like blaming Canon for the behavior of a paparazzi, but perhaps there are reasons those aren't equivalent I'm not aware of.

▲

autoexec 3 days ago | parent [-]

> hat feels like blaming Canon for the behavior of a paparazzi, but perhaps there are reasons those aren't equivalent I'm not aware of.

The difference between ring cameras and paparazzi using a canon camera is that the photos recorded to film/local storage can't be automatically compiled with the footage captured from everyone else's canon camera to create databases of people and track their movements, activities, attributes, etc.

It really depends on where the data goes and who can access it. I'd even go so far as to say that keeping that data on the cloud is fine as long as the data is encrypted, amazon doesn't access it beyond storage and deliver to the customer (meaning that they can no longer mine it for personal data) and amazon cannot give access to anyone else (including police who should have to request footage directly from the camera owners).

▲

hamdingers 3 days ago | parent [-]

We seem to have strayed into your opinions on how things ought to be, while my comment was meant to acknowledge the reality (unfortunate though it may be) that we live in.

The law doesn't make this distinction you're making. If you replace Canon with "iPhone/Android with cloud photo backup enabled" then your issue with Ring cameras applies to all smartphones. Maybe you'd prefer that not be the case, but it is.

In any case, I'd prefer we not get hung up on this lossy analogy since neither activity is restricted by current law which is my actual point.

	▲	autoexec 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Our current reality is that the photos taken with my Canon aren't being handed over to police without my knowing it, and aren't used to track people. The same can't be said about footage from people's ring cameras. It's not clear to me that photos taken with an iphone with cloud backup enabled are compiled into national databases that track people's movements like ring and flock cameras are today either. Currently flock and ring cameras are tracking people at a scale that canon cameras just aren't. Therefore it is fair to blame Amazon and flock but not cannon for the manner in which amazon and flock uses the footage their cameras collect to violate our rights.

▲

stronglikedan 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> filming in public is a constitutionally protected right

As with everything, there's much nuance to this "right".

https://consumerrights.wiki/w/Common_Questions,_Arguments,_%...

	▲	hamdingers 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Only the government is bound by the fourth amendment, as long as the people setting up the cameras and running the network are private citizens it's fair game (correct me if I'm wrong). Imagining a universe where companies are also bound by that is an interesting thought exercise. Many products (cloud photo backup, foursquare style "check-ins," location sharing with friends, etc) would be simply impossible because the aggregated data amounts to comprehensive surveillance.

▲

fortran77 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm a private citizen. On my house we have an ALPR Axis camera pointing down the street (in addition to Axis cameras around the whole perimiter.) And when the police ask, we almost always provide them with data. I feel perfectly justified doing this, and we've helped solved several crimes.

	▲	ruthie_cohen 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Most people would do the same in your situation, we should expect citizens to want to help victims of crime, especially crimes against the person. However I think there’s a significant difference between a single household and a centralised network of cameras across dozens of states. For me the core issue of this is private enterprise holding gigantic amounts of PII, and the forms that is taking.
	▲	crims0n 3 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Sounds like a rough neighborhood, stay safe.
	▲	Computer0 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Hi enemy! :)

▲

tptacek 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

It is an inevitability, because a critical mass of municipalities are going to roll these out such that there isn't a practical route to take through any major metro without being recorded.