I mean it's a security camera, it's kind of its job to be always watching. It's wrong that the videos were shared without the consent of the people in them, but I don't find this "deeply disturbing."
I mean it's a security camera, it's kind of its job to be always watching. It's wrong that the videos were shared without the consent of the people in them, but I don't find this "deeply disturbing."
Security cameras capture video feeds, people watch them. The question is who gets to watch them? I can watch my own security camera, I can watch the ones that neighbors share through this service....
Security cameras capture video feeds, people watch them. The question is who gets to watch them? I can watch my own security camera, I can watch the ones that neighbors share through this service. The owners of the service can watch all of them. This is what is deeply disturbing, more power asymmetries to pile up against the individual.
Can they watch all of them? It seems to me that the owners of the service can only watch those videos that are shared on the Neighbors app, not just all recorded videos. I would say that if...
Can they watch all of them? It seems to me that the owners of the service can only watch those videos that are shared on the Neighbors app, not just all recorded videos. I would say that if someone is openly sharing their own recorded video, then it is not the company's fault for viewing them. For sharing them without the consent of those recorded, however, is a different matter entirely.
Personally, I kind of expect that. If you share something on social media at all, even with privacy settings, I don't think it's too unreasonable that the owners of the service have access to it....
Personally, I kind of expect that. If you share something on social media at all, even with privacy settings, I don't think it's too unreasonable that the owners of the service have access to it. I understand how others could be uncomfortable with that, but when I share something on social media, I expect that the owners of the site can see it. Perhaps it's just the way I view social media, though.
I'm having difficulty gauging their definition of "shared" through this post. I don't have a Ring so I won't pretend to fully know how the process works but the article's wording implies two...
The videos featured in those ads were "shared," most likely to the Neighbors app. When you "share" content, you grant Amazon a blanket license to use any and all footage captured on Ring devices for whatever it want
I'm having difficulty gauging their definition of "shared" through this post. I don't have a Ring so I won't pretend to fully know how the process works but the article's wording implies two things:
*Ring automatically has access to any footage you share from the camera to the app
*It seems once you "share" content one time they have access to all content henceforth.
This phrasing is definitely concerning. If by sharing one clip to the service, Ring/Amazon automatically gains access to all footage recorded by the device, that is certainly a breach of privacy....
This phrasing is definitely concerning. If by sharing one clip to the service, Ring/Amazon automatically gains access to all footage recorded by the device, that is certainly a breach of privacy. I don't really have a problem with them being able to access shared footage, but if they have access to all content, the license definitely needs to change to make sure that Amazon can only access the shared content on the app. (Of course, it would be ideal if they had no access at all, but I feel like that is too much to hope for.)
Odds are they always have access to all footage. They only used footage shared on the Neighbors app to quickly find stuff that was actually worth sharing, and used the additional terms and...
Odds are they always have access to all footage. They only used footage shared on the Neighbors app to quickly find stuff that was actually worth sharing, and used the additional terms and conditions to protect them while they made a slideshow out of it.
Headline from Mashable is portraying a sinister mass surveillance involvement, doesn't appear to be the case.
The videos featured in those ads were "shared," most likely to the Neighbors app. When you "share" content, you grant Amazon a blanket license to use any and all footage captured on Ring devices for whatever it wants: "The company is able to do this thanks to a broad terms of service agreement that grants it the perpetual right to use footage shared with it for 'any purpose' it chooses," BuzzFeed wrote.
Headline from Mashable is portraying a sinister mass surveillance involvement, doesn't appear to be the case.
This right here, yes, you don't have a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' when you walk up to someone else's door, but that doesn't give them the right to use or share your likeness to promote...
This right here, yes, you don't have a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' when you walk up to someone else's door, but that doesn't give them the right to use or share your likeness to promote their product.
I'll never understand how people don't find this deeply disturbing.
I mean it's a security camera, it's kind of its job to be always watching. It's wrong that the videos were shared without the consent of the people in them, but I don't find this "deeply disturbing."
Security cameras capture video feeds, people watch them. The question is who gets to watch them? I can watch my own security camera, I can watch the ones that neighbors share through this service. The owners of the service can watch all of them. This is what is deeply disturbing, more power asymmetries to pile up against the individual.
Can they watch all of them? It seems to me that the owners of the service can only watch those videos that are shared on the Neighbors app, not just all recorded videos. I would say that if someone is openly sharing their own recorded video, then it is not the company's fault for viewing them. For sharing them without the consent of those recorded, however, is a different matter entirely.
The Neighbors App has a radius for normal users. A larger radius for police precincts. An all-encompasing "radius" for Ring/Amazon.
Personally, I kind of expect that. If you share something on social media at all, even with privacy settings, I don't think it's too unreasonable that the owners of the service have access to it. I understand how others could be uncomfortable with that, but when I share something on social media, I expect that the owners of the site can see it. Perhaps it's just the way I view social media, though.
I'm having difficulty gauging their definition of "shared" through this post. I don't have a Ring so I won't pretend to fully know how the process works but the article's wording implies two things:
*Ring automatically has access to any footage you share from the camera to the app
*It seems once you "share" content one time they have access to all content henceforth.
This phrasing is definitely concerning. If by sharing one clip to the service, Ring/Amazon automatically gains access to all footage recorded by the device, that is certainly a breach of privacy. I don't really have a problem with them being able to access shared footage, but if they have access to all content, the license definitely needs to change to make sure that Amazon can only access the shared content on the app. (Of course, it would be ideal if they had no access at all, but I feel like that is too much to hope for.)
Odds are they always have access to all footage. They only used footage shared on the Neighbors app to quickly find stuff that was actually worth sharing, and used the additional terms and conditions to protect them while they made a slideshow out of it.
It is likely that they do already have access, but I don't really want to make a judgement yet based on "odds are".
Headline from Mashable is portraying a sinister mass surveillance involvement, doesn't appear to be the case.
This right here, yes, you don't have a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' when you walk up to someone else's door, but that doesn't give them the right to use or share your likeness to promote their product.
Because things are always what they appear to be?