Amazon Ring sounds death knell for surveillance as a service Surveillance doorbell maker Amazon Ring on Wednesday announced it is discontinuing an option that allowed law enforcement agencies to request video footage without a warrant. The internet-connected security vendor is sunsetting the Request for Assistance (RFA) tool – a feature of its Neighbors app that enables authorities to …
I find it slightly odd. Maybe US/International laws are different to UK.
Police have always been able to ask for evidence without a warrant, and often do by way of either signs by the road or via media. A request isn't legally binding, the owner can ignore it if they choose.
Is the issue the Police using an app to email people directly? Is that different to a knock on the door? Do Police need a warrant to do door-to-door enquiries?
I support the concept of Police not being able to have access directly to footage without a warrant, but not sure this is the case here?
Can someone cleverer than me verify exactly what the issue is?
It's a big noise over not much change.
The authorities used to be able to use the Ring app to send a public request to a user for footage. Now they have to go to the user directly and ask for footage.
So the app no longer facilitates asking publicly. Not sure why anyone thinks that is an improvement. It reduces visibility of warrantless searches.
(sorry, got bored waiting for someone cleverer than you to show up!)
They can always ask, but without a warrant, you can refuse without consequence.
It's just that Ring, apparently, has never refused a request before, with or without a warrant.
A warrant is not just a word, it is proof that the police has determined that specific data would help a specific case, and a judge has approved. Thus, a warrant has the force of law, you cannot refuse to hand over the data.
There can be no warrant for gratuitious surveillance without cause. That's called snooping, not police work.
But these weren't requests to Ring, they were direct requests from the police to the camera owners that Ring just happened to facilitate. Ring didn't play any part in the yes/no decision. If the owner said no, the police didn't get their footage (at least not without pursuing other channels, but that's not unique to this situation).
I very much doubt I'm the smartest mind in the room, but I have a strange feeling that the program was used so much it was costing them a lot of money. Money which they decided belonged in the bonus paycheques paid to c-suite executives, rather than paying for law enforcement getting a free ride.
"Do Police need a warrant to do door-to-door enquiries?
I support the concept of Police not being able to have access directly to footage without a warrant, but not sure this is the case here?
Can someone cleverer than me verify exactly what the issue is?"
The laws will vary according to where you live. In the US, a warrant is required for a LEO to search a non-public area or to seize evidence. If a cop knocks on the door and a person opens it and the cop sees a table loaded with drugs and zip-lock baggies, they don't need a warrant as a crime is happening in plain view. The person could have talked with the officer through a closed door or just cracked it open enough to be heard. If the officer pushed the door open that was only opened a couple of cm, that would be a problem. If the officer can look over a fence and see naughty things happening, that one thing. If they have to bring a stool or a ladder to see over, that might cross a line. Using a drone to see over the fence could be a problem where taking photos from an aircraft might not.
The police do not need a warrant to knock on a door and talk with whoever answers it. If they ask for CCTV footage and the owner of the cameras hands it over without any coercion, no warrant is needed. If the police want to require a copy or make any sort of threat, they need a signed warrant and making threats is always a problem as a judge may toss out the evidence and anything that might have been generated from it.
A warrant is not just a word, it is proof that the police has determined that specific data would help a specific case, and a judge has approved.
In the UK it's a piece of paper that gets rubber stamped without reading. As admitted by a judge recently who was busy knocking out 150 a day for the 'leccy company to force prepayment meters.
Or. to put it another way, no judge has ever refused a warrant from our blameless police.
Courts waved through warrants to forcefit prepayment meters
Courts waved through applications by energy firms to forcibly install prepayment meters in people's homes, according to internal advice from a top magistrate leaked to the BBC.
Previous guidelines required careful scrutiny of warrant applications, but new advice to courts deems those rules "disproportionate".
I hope we're all reminded of the law being changed in 1999 to assume that all computers and computer software operate correctly unless proven otherwise by the defence and the consequential shitshow that was the Post Office's Horizon and the effect that had on people's lives.
By the way, there was talk of social energy tariffs as used in other countries but that's been quietly dropped:
Social energy tariff plan that would have slashed bills 'quietly scrapped' by Government
Can we spot a theme about who the justice system is serving?
Justice is always for those with money, connections, or...
For the little guy: admit to these crimes you haven't done and we'll go easy on you, otherwise you're going to go to jail.
There's something institutionally wrong there: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/25/ex-post-office-operator-british-asian-theft
Dropping a 'social tariff' doesn't surprise me at all. Energy companies (via Ofgem) are already supposed to help the vulnerable, but Ofgem's only other remit is to protect the stability of the energy market, not provide the lowest bills for non vulnerable customers.
A social tariff is a Tory vote loser, even if it would help many people. So the social tariff helps people, but immediately it's necessary to add a taper, because if a hard cut off is used it breeds resentment by those just outside the cut off who end up worse off than those inside it.
The taper is logically much larger than immediately expected, because paying for the social tariff or taper is probably going to be from increasing bills for those outside the social tariff or taper. This increase has to either be considerable, or lower but for an extended number of years. If it's for an extended number of years it has to be administered, which has a cost, and people will try to game the system.
At the point consumers who are most definitely outside the social tariff and the taper are reached it's already moving towards a large minority of the population. No idea on the numbers, but wouldn't surprise me if it starts working out at those on the higher rates of tax.
I'd also bet a small amount of money that those with increased bills are more likely to vote Tory. They can afford the bills but they might notice the difference in their budget, and simply don't like the fact that some people are paying much, much less than them.
There's already (rightly) a huge amount of resentment at the large increase in the daily standing charge, to force consumers to pay for the failures of Ofgem to regulate, and manage companies that have gone bankrupt. Ramping up bills for a social tariff would I suspect have an even larger impact.
To add, as the edit post feature doesn't seem to be working today: There are plenty of judges who take a great amount of pleasure from going out of their way to find any reason to refuse a warrant (and arguably rightly so) whether or not that suits your narrative.
"In the UK it's a piece of paper that gets rubber stamped without reading. "
That happens often enough in the US too and I expect everywhere else. There should be some repercussions on the judges when they sign off on a defective warrant. There are stories often enough in the news when the police get a warrant to raid the wrong house or a residence the person they are looking for moved from months in the past. I can recall one instance of a no-knock raid where a woman was shot and killed since the police crushed into the house in the wee hours with everybody screaming and torches beaming. If you are violently awoken from sleep with that going on, it's no different than a home invasion robbery. The lady's boyfriend shot at the police and was hit, but he survived where she didn't. The really stupid thing was the severity of the crime being investigated wasn't violent and as she worked as an EMT, she could have been arrested or detained for questioning with little fuss. The judge should be on the hook for her death for approving the warrant/raid. It didn't seem to have been proper for it to go down the way it did.
Same reason why people buy in-home spying devices from Big Tech - because Big Tech have successfully convinced them that the devices meet a 'need' which they have been persuaded they have.
Plus many are completely ignorant of privacy concerns and / or don't care!
Only useful if you are at home though. Not much use if you need to tell the courier what to do with the package while you are elsewhere. Or if you need to tell the Conservative canvasser to shove his manifesto where the sun don't shine while you're having a grunty.
"Being able to speak to whoever is at the door while not being physically present is genuinely useful sometimes."
Many can be convinced that it's useful, but I'm old enough to remember a time when there were no such devices. Hell, I'm old enough to remember when there was no internet. I have a sign on my door that tells people not to knock (no bell) and visitors are only by appointment. Casual visitors are not appreciated and my friends and family know that my schedule is quite erratic so just dropping by isn't a good thing so they should call in advance to make sure I'm in and have time to be social. Such is the life of somebody that does field service and is infrequently dressed to receive unexpected visitors when home.
I have CCTV around the house mainly to be able to see out rather than poke my head outside if I hear something. All deliveries go to the post office (in the US, if you have a PO Box and fill out a permission form, they can accept packages from anybody for you). I really don't want any camera inside as that's just evidence that could be used against me in most cases.
"Having to cross town to go to the post office is a right royal PITA."
I find the inconvenience better than having something expensive being left on the porch that goes missing due to my being out in the field on a call out. The post office is a mile away and near to the local market, pharmacy and auto parts store. I don't go every day. I know when the different bills show up and I have tracking numbers for shipments so I know when they arrive. If nothing is coming in that excites me (new toys), I might only visit the post office once a week. When I worked in the next town over, I had my box there as I drove by the post office 2-4 times each day. If you get all of your post and shipments going to a PO Box and move a couple of times, you break a fair amount of Big Data tracking. Companies such as UPS and FedEx sell their lists and "share data with their partners" (same thing) so it's important to not have anything delivered to your home if you want to keep that tracking broken.
Yeah, who needs one when all the neighbours have them anyway.
Like the householder who complained about neighbours ring doorbells point at their house, then suffered a break in and went round the same neighbours asking if their doorbells recorded anything.
1. Current society's value system places "feelings" above "facts" and "truth."
2. Many of current society's members want to "feel" safe, regardless of whether or not action/policy/device X makes them be safer or not.
3. Pervy doorbells with remote viewing features makes the owners feel "safer" and "more in control".
4. Privacy consequences, as much else, are viciously, even angrily ignored. "Shut up! Stop talking about facts and asking questions. You're ruining everything!"
Leila walks into the room and sees Fry seated in front of the video phone. The display shows a series of sideways-scrolling advertisements and is playing a Muzak'd version of Paul Simon's Greatest Hits. "Hey, Fry, what are you doing?"
Fry: "I'm on hold with Blamazon. I'm trying to order one of their video-camera doorbell answering things. The call it, The Ding. I'll put the camera over our front door, and the control unit in the bathroom."
Leila: "In the bathroom?!"
Fry: "Yeah, it's the one spot here I can't easilly answer the door from. My pants are around my ankles and that makes me take really-small steps."
Leila: "Do you realize those devices record video and sound from both sides of the conversation? And then sends it all to Blamazon's computers?"
Fry: "So?"
Leila: "Do you remember what happened when you forgot to put on pants before you answered the door?"
Fry: "Not really. I sort-of remember seeing Mrs. Ridgewick's purse up close, and that it was very heavy."
Leila: "Those Dings are an invasion of everyones' privacy."
Fry: "I don't care. It makes me feel safer at night knowing that if the Boshamsky brothers show up at our front door, I'll know about it."
Leila: "I know a way to make you feel safer at night, and you won't have to spend any money."
Fry: "Really? Okay, what do I have to do?"
Leila: "Just close your eyes and stand still." Leila rummanges around in a toolbox, then pulls out a roofing hammer and holds it up.
Dr. Zoidberg enters the room. "Hold it, Leila. I think I know what you're about to do, and it would be wrong. If you knock Fry unconscious with that hammer, he might dream, and in that dream, he might feel unsafe. Your method is not guaranteed to relieve Fry of his anxieties."
Leila: "I can fix that." Leila puts the hammer back in the tool box, rummages some more, then pulls out a sledgehammer, and holds it up.
There are two aspects. One is what benefit they get, or think they get, from having them. I think others have covered this. The other is why they use these in particular, and the answer is that, like most hardware, there is not an available option that includes privacy by default and doesn't require technical knowledge the average consumer doesn't have.
If I decide I would like a camera on my door or a remote intercom, I can buy some stuff to build one myself, host the server on my own infrastructure, and set up the networking. Even then, I'm likely to have to deal with hardware that's not built to take the conditions that the consumer stuff is, for example how much weatherproofing the case has. Still, I can do it and I know many people here who have, often involving a Raspberry Pi. If someone who has less knowledge than I do wants to set that up, it's quite difficult for them. Self-host on your own Linux server is not a convincing selling point for most people who don't have any servers and don't really want to learn how to use them. Activate by installing this app on your phone and holding your phone and the camera near each other makes setup really simple. However, all of the places that have such a thing have fifty pages of privacy documents that have lots of holes through which data can be taken. I'm not sure whether you could successfully make a business selling privacy-respecting devices with ease of use, but I am sure it's not been tried much.
It's my feeling that cheap security cameras are made as loss leaders to push a cloud service.
Once upon a time cameras used to have built in servers that you could visit with a browser. Kind of crappy, some wanted to offer you an ActiveX control (which stopped being a thing how long ago?) but at the very least there was a method that just repeatedly threw JPEGs at you.
Now you're lucky if those things support ONVIF. They're intended to be used with their app, and only their app, an app which will try it's hardest to get you to enter into the free trial period of their cloud service. Which can be pricey.
I guess it's the security equivalent of printer ink. Make the camera cheap, make it incompatible with anything else, upsell some storage on a server farm in god knows where...
Just an anecdote of where Ring helped a relative of mine out (this is the UK).
They had been driving along the road when their car door was hit by a child on a bike who had ridden straight off the pavement, not paying attention to the road. My relative stopped, made sure the child was OK, and after some discussion, drove them home. They spoke to a parent of the child, who apologised, later texting that the child had done this before.
A couple of days later, the parent posted on FB that, not only was it my relative's fault, but they had failed to stop. So far, so facebook.
The police got involved around this point. I'm not sure whether the parent called them. Luckily they took the time and were able to obtain ring footage of the incident from a nearby house, which corroborated my relative's version.
As I understand it, the accusation was intended to allow an insurance claim to be made. The police apparently have given the accuser a warning about making false accusations/fraud etc.
They now have Flock cameras that enable mass surveillance on a scale never imagined before. They log every vehicle at major chokepoints so police can query a tag and see its movements for the past month. It's more than a tag reader; it also keeps track of vehicle make, model, color, and identifying characteristics including bumper stickers, damage, roof rack, etc. Some cities run HUNDREDS of these cameras, all with the justification that it's "for public safety."
They also include the usual "If you aren't doing anything illegal you won't care."
It does catch crooks. It also catches the rest of us who are supposed to just accept the Big Brother watching over all.
It really is a slippery slope. I support positive policing, but I also do not want to be snooped on. Just as I understand that there are bad people out there, there are also necessarily bad police that will abuse whatever powers they are given for their own gain, amusement, or otherwise.
So when do a few extra eyes become a threat to my personal safety and autonomy? Is blocking those eyes a bigger threat in the grand scheme? It's difficult to know where to draw the line, when I value both my safety and my privacy/anonymity; and just as difficult to balance the sacrifices I must make to either to satisfy the other.
In older times, surveillance had to be done manually. Combined with various legal systems requiring pre-surveillance-review by a judge and the issuance of warrants, along with the monetary cost of paying the surveillors, these factors reduced (but not eliminated) the likelihood government, or bad actors within government, carrying out a spiteful, unjustified campaign of surveillance and/or harrassment.
Cheap, pervasive surveillance devices, combined with computers to store, sort, classify, and search all the gathered data jack-hammer down those roadblocks into mere speed-bumps.
There's always upsides and downsides to everything, but granting some faceless shopping corporation selling plastic shit a 24/7 live view of my live is certainly not on the upsides list. Bezos can keep his spy doorbells thanks, I'll make do with my CCTV cams where the first "C" actually means the most to me thanks.
Indeed. The "public expectation" argument conflates the traditional and uncontroversial "I'm in public, and might be seen" with "I'm in public, and might be seen, and have my actions recorded digitally, and stored, for later use by persons unknown to me". The extension to being recorded is fair from trivial; and indeed the "public" fig-leaf descriptor is largely a mere distraction from the actual objection: the unregulated *recording*, *storage*, and *use*.
I'm sure some people wouldn't be happy if they owned a Ring and felt as though they were being pressured into being a warrant judge without the formalities of evidence, testimony, and record keeping that usually goes along with being a judge.
On the other hand, I'm sure that many owners would be more than happy to assist, even reviewing footage themselves, given a time range, in cases where crimes were committed in their neighborhood. So perhaps Amazon could offer an option for owners to opt-into if they want to be informed of opportunities (not obligations) to assist.
For reference: "The videos that caught killer cop: How detectives viewed hours of dashcam, doorbell and CCTV footage to trace Wayne Couzens... and follow Sarah Everard's final footsteps on night she was snatched" [Daily Mail] .
They can still change their minds and there is no legal recourse. We need a surveillance service that is "zero knowledge" ... your videos are encrypted end to end without even RING being able to view them. Then , even if they turn over the files, the files are worthless.
We must defeat the survalence state.
I'd never own a Ring so I don't have the 87 page "privacy policy/terms of use" documents, but I have to wonder if Amazon could be in violation of copyright law by releasing video to the police when the legal copyright might be vested in the owner of the camera. I'm not sure if CCTV would be considered covered under copyright. My big question is if Amazon has something buried in their terms that gives themselves the right to publish any of the footage that goes through their system and can legally hand it over to the plod if they wish. If Amazon does have that and willingly hands that footage over, no warrant would be necessary. I recommend steering clear of all that self-installed spy gear just on principle. Cloudy IoT stuff gets by back fur up (figuratively).
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
