Moderators: DrVolin, Elvis, Jeff

Re: Surveillance

Postby identity » Thu Aug 29, 2019 6:25 pm

Ring pro.jpg
Ring pro.jpg (56.82 KiB) Viewed 382 times

(Amazon-owned) Doorbell-camera firm Ring has partnered with 400 police forces, extending surveillance concerns

By Drew Harwell August 28 at 6:53 PM

The doorbell-camera company Ring has forged video-sharing partnerships with more than 400 police forces across the United States, granting them potential access to homeowners’ camera footage and a powerful role in what the company calls the nation’s “new neighborhood watch.”

The partnerships let police request the video recorded by homeowners’ cameras within a specific time and area, helping officers see footage from the company’s millions of Internet-connected cameras installed nationwide, the company said. Officers don’t receive ongoing or live-video access, and homeowners can decline the requests, which Ring sends via email thanking them for “making your neighborhood a safer place.”

The number of police deals, which has not previously been reported, is likely to fuel broader questions about privacy, surveillance and the expanding reach of tech giants and local police. The rapid growth of the program, which began in spring 2018, surprised some civil liberties advocates, who thought that fewer than 300 agencies had signed on.

Ring is owned by Amazon, which bought the firm last year for more than $800 million, financial filings show. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post.

Ring officials and law enforcement partners portray the vast camera network as an irrepressible shield for neighborhoods, saying it can assist police investigators and protect homes from criminals, intruders and thieves.

“The mission has always been making the neighborhood safer,” said Eric Kuhn, the general manager of Neighbors, Ring’s crime-focused companion app. “We’ve had a lot of success in terms of deterring crime and solving crimes that would otherwise not be solved as quickly.”

But legal experts and privacy advocates have voiced alarm about the company’s eyes-everywhere ambitions and increasingly close relationship with police, saying the program could threaten civil liberties, turn residents into informants, and subject innocent people, including those who Ring users have flagged as “suspicious,” to greater surveillance and potential risk.

“If the police demanded every citizen put a camera at their door and give officers access to it, we might all recoil,” said Andrew Guthrie Ferguson, a law professor and author of “The Rise of Big Data Policing.”

By tapping into “a perceived need for more self-surveillance and by playing on consumer fears about crime and security,” he added, Ring has found “a clever workaround for the development of a wholly new surveillance network, without the kind of scrutiny that would happen if it was coming from the police or government.”

Begun in 2013 as a line of Internet-connected “smart doorbells,” Ring has grown into one of the nation’s biggest household names in home security. The company, based in Santa Monica, Calif., sells a line of alarm systems, floodlight cameras and motion-detecting doorbell cameras starting at $99, as well as monthly “Ring Protect” subscriptions that allow homeowners to save the videos or have their systems professionally monitored around the clock.

Ring users are alerted when the doorbell chimes or the camera senses motion, and they can view their camera’s live feed from afar using a mobile app. Users also have the option of sharing footage to Ring’s public social network, Neighbors, which allows people to report local crimes, discuss suspicious events and share videos from their Ring cameras, cellphones and other devices.

The Neighbors feed operates like an endless stream of local suspicion, combining official police reports compiled by Neighbors’ “News Team” with what Ring calls “hyperlocal” posts from nearby homeowners reporting stolen packages, mysterious noises, questionable visitors and missing cats. About a third of Neighbors posts are for “suspicious activity” or “unknown visitors,” the company said. (About a quarter of posts are crime-related; a fifth are for lost pets.)

Users, which the company calls “neighbors,” are anonymous on the app, but the public video does not obscure faces or voices from anyone caught on camera. Participating police officers can chat directly with users on the Neighbors feed and get alerts when a homeowner posts a message from inside their watched jurisdiction. The Neighbors app also alerts users when a new police force partners up, saying, “Your Ring Neighborhood just got a whole lot stronger.”

To seek out Ring video that has not been publicly shared, officers can use a special “Neighbors Portal” map interface to designate a time range and local area, up to half a square mile wide, and get Ring to send an automated email to all users within that range, alongside a case number and message from police.

The user can click to share their Ring videos, review them before sharing, decline or, at the bottom of the email, unsubscribe from future footage-sharing requests. “If you would like to take direct action to make your neighborhood safer, this is a great opportunity,” an email supplied by Ring states.

Ring says police officers don’t have access to live video feeds and aren’t told which homes use Ring cameras or how homeowners responded unless the users consent. Officers could previously access a “heat map” showing the general density of where Ring devices were in use, but the company said it has removed that feature from the video request because it was deemed “no longer useful."

Ring said it would not provide user video footage in response to a subpoena but would comply if company officials were presented with a search warrant or thought they had a legal obligation to produce the content. “Ring does not disclose customer information in response to government demands unless we’re required to do so to comply with a legally valid and binding order,” the company said in a statement.

Ring users consent to the company giving recorded video to “law enforcement authorities, government officials and/or third parties” if the company thinks it’s necessary to comply with “legal process or reasonable government request,” its terms of service state. The company says it can also store footage deleted by the user to comply with legal obligations.

The high-resolution cameras can provide detailed images of not just a front doorstep but also neighboring homes across the street and down the block. Ring users have further expanded their home monitoring by installing the motion-detecting cameras along driveways, decks and rooftops.

Some officers said they now look for Ring doorbells, notable for their glowing circular buttons, when investigating crimes or canvassing neighborhoods, in case they need to pursue legal maneuvers later to obtain the video.

Ring users have shared videos of package thieves, burglars and vandals in the hope of naming and shaming and apprehending the perpetrators, but they’ve also done so for people — possibly salespeople, petitioners or strangers in need of help — who knock on the door and leave without incident. (Other recorded visitors include lizards, deer, mantises, snakes and snooping raccoons.)

Ring users’ ability to report people as suspicious has been criticized for its potential to contribute to racial profiling and heightened community distrust. Last Halloween in southern Maryland, a Ring user living near a middle school posted a video of two boys ringing their doorbell with the title: “Early trick or treat, or are they up to no good?”

The video, which has been viewed in the Neighbors app more than 5,700 times, inspired a rash of comments: Some questioned the children’s motives, while others said they looked like harmless kids. “Those cuties? You’re joking, right?” one commenter said. After The Post shared this video with Ring, the company removed it, saying it no longer fits the service’s community guidelines because “there is no objective reason stated that would put their behavior in question.”

Since formally beginning its Neighbors police partnerships with officers in Greenfield, Wis., in March 2018, Ring has extended the program to 401 police departments and sheriff’s offices nationwide, from northwest Washington state to Key West, Fla., company data show. Shortly after this story was published, Ring founder Jamie Siminoff released a blog post saying that count had already expanded, to 405 agencies.

The partnerships cover vast expanses of major states — with 31 agencies in California, 57 in Texas and 67 in Florida — and blanket entire regions beneath Ring’s camera network, including about a dozen agencies each in the metropolitan areas surrounding Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, Kansas City, Los Angeles and Phoenix.

Sgt. William Pickering, an officer with the Norfolk Police Department in Virginia, which is working with Ring, compared the system’s expansion to the onset of DNA evidence in criminal cases — a momentous capability, unlocked by new technology, that helps police gain the upper hand.

“We have so many photojournalists out there, and they’re right there when things happen, and they’re able to take photos and videos all the time. As a law enforcement agency, that is of great value to us,” Pickering said.

“When a neighbor posts a suspicious individual who walked across their front lawn, that allows them at that very moment to share that in real time with anyone who’s been watching. Now we have everybody in the community being alerted to a suspicious person.” (A Ring spokeswoman later said this example would be removed from Neighbors because it does not pass the service’s community guidelines, which require “an attempted criminal activity or unusual behavior that is cause for concern.”)

Ring has pushed aggressively to secure new police allies. Some police officials said they first met with Ring at a law-enforcement conference, after which the company flew representatives to police headquarters to walk officers through the technology and help them prepare for real-world deployment.

The company has urged police officials to use social media to encourage homeowners to use Neighbors, and Pickering said the Norfolk department had posted a special code to its Facebook page to encourage residents to sign on.

Ring has offered discounts to cities and community groups that spend public or taxpayer-supported money on the cameras. The firm also has given free cameras to police departments that can be distributed to local homeowners. The company said it began phasing out the giveaway program for new partners earlier this year.

Pickering said his agency is working with its city attorney to classify the roughly 40 cameras Ring gave them as a legal donation. But some officers said they were uncomfortable with the gift, because it could be construed as the police extending an official seal of approval to a private company.

“We don’t want to push a particular product,” said Radd Rotello, an officer with the Frisco Police Department in Texas, which has partnered with Ring. “We as the police department are not doing that. That’s not our place.”

Ring has for months sought to keep key details of its police-partnership program confidential, but public records from agencies nationwide have revealed glimpses of the company’s close work with local police. In a June email to a New Jersey police officer first reported by Motherboard, a Ring representative suggested ways officers could improve their “opt-in rate” for video requests, including greater interaction with users on the Neighbors app.

“The more users you have the more useful information you can collect,” the representative wrote. Ring says it offers training and education materials to its police partners so they can accurately represent the service’s work.

Ring officials have stepped up their sharing of video from monitored doorsteps to help portray the devices as theft deterrents and friendly home companions. In one recent example, a father in Massachusetts can be seen using his Ring Video Doorbell’s speakers to talk to his daughter’s date while he was at work, saying, “I still get to see your face, but you don’t get to see mine.”

The company is also pushing to market itself as a potent defense for community peace of mind, saying its cameras offer “proactive home and neighborhood security in a way no other company has before.” The company is hiring video producers and on-camera hosts to develop user testimonials and videos marketing the Ring brand, with a job listing stating that applicants should deliver ideas with an “approachable yet authoritative tone.”

Rotello, who runs his department’s neighborhood-watch program, said Ring’s local growth has had an interesting side effect: People now believe “crime is rampant in Frisco,” now that they see it all mapped and detailed in a mobile app. He has had to inform people, he said, that “the crime has always been there; you’re just now starting to figure it out.”

He added, however, that the technology has become a potent awareness tool for crime prevention, and he said he appreciates how the technology has inspired in residents a newfound vigilance.

“Would you rather live in an ‘ignorance is bliss’ type of world?” he said. “Or would you rather know what’s going on?”

That hyper-awareness of murky and sometimes-distant criminal threats has been widely criticized by privacy advocates, who argue that Ring has sought to turn police officers into surveillance-system salespeople and capitalize on neighborhood fears.

“It’s a business model based in paranoia,” said Evan Greer, deputy director of the digital advocacy group Fight for the Future. “They’re doing what Uber did for taxis, but for surveillance cameras, by making them more user-friendly. … It’s a privately run surveillance dragnet built outside the democratic process, but they’re marketing it as just another product, just another app.”

Ring’s expansion also has led some to question its plans. The company applied for a facial-recognition patent last year that could alert when a person designated as “suspicious” was caught on camera. The cameras do not currently use facial-recognition software, and a spokeswoman said the application was designed only to explore future possibilities.

Amazon, Ring’s parent company, has developed facial-recognition software, called Rekognition, that is used by police nationwide. The technology is improving all the time: Earlier this month, Amazon’s Web Services arm announced that it had upgraded the face-scanning system’s accuracy at estimating a person’s emotion and was even perceptive enough to track “a new emotion: ‘Fear.’ ”

For now, the Ring systems’ police expansion is earning early community support. Mike Diaz, a member of the city council in Chula Vista, Calif., where police have partnered with Ring, said the cameras could be an important safeguard for some local neighborhoods where residents are tired of dealing with crime. He’s not bothered, he added, by the concerns he has heard about how the company is partnering with police in hopes of selling more cameras.

“That’s America, right?” Diaz said. “Who doesn’t want to put bad guys away?”

edit: And from The Atlantic in June:

People are far more comfortable with surveillance when they think they’re the only ones watching.
Sidney Fussell, Jun 24, 2019

In most cases, when police want to search your neighborhood, they need a warrant and a reason to believe something’s amiss. Now “reasonable suspicion” is going the way of dial-up. Fifty police departments across the United States are partnering with Amazon to collect footage from people who use Ring, the company’s internet-connected doorbell. Some are offering discounted or free Ring doorbells in exchange for a pledge to register the devices with law enforcement and submit all requested footage. Amazon has also filed patents to expand its Ring line beyond doorbells and into cameras mounted on motor vehicles, inside wearable “smart glasses,” even atop security drones that circle your home and call the police if they detect a disturbance.

Privacy experts are expectably wary of a digital “neighborhood watch”: citizens spying on one another, with Silicon Valley’s help. In a statement to The Atlantic, a spokesperson for Amazon Ring said the company doesn’t endorse the giveaways that require users to hand over footage, and noted that most of the 50 partners allow residents to choose whether they want to hand over footage. (Earlier this month, however, CNET quoted a New Jersey police captain admitting to sending officers to people’s doorsteps when they don’t respond to footage requests. No warrant required.)

Suspicion is currency. Selling consumers a 24/7 surveillance apparatus of their own making shrinks police oversight, expands the network of cameras blanketing American cities, and sends money to Amazon. That’s the trick of high-tech home surveillance: For users, it feels empowering. But it also creates a regulatory gray zone: When private citizens own the cameras, their footage isn’t subject to the same rules as police surveillance.

“People only think one step ahead of themselves,” says Brian Hofer, the chair of the City of Oakland’s Privacy Advisory Commission, which advises the city on surveillance and privacy. “They aren’t thinking down the line. Securing your home is defensive. [Installing] cameras pointing at your neighbors’ houses and license-plate readers tracking their vehicles is a whole different ball game.”

Different for two reasons. First, Ring is part of a surveillance ecosystem far more sophisticated than a single officer reviewing footage. According to CNET, police in Indiana matched Ring footage of nearby cars against a license-plate-reader system to track drivers. According to a BuzzFeed report, Amazon included Ring footage in Facebook ads for the product, potentially showing Facebook’s users anyone caught on the footage—without their consent, and regardless of whether they were convicted of or charged with a crime.

And second, private behavior on apps such as Nextdoor and Facebook isn’t subject to government oversight. As part of a national heel turn on invasive tech, Oakland, San Francisco, and Seattle have passed laws targeted at advanced police technology, such as license-plate readers, body cameras, and facial-recognition software. But the Ring program evades even the vanguard of anti-surveillance regulation.

Just as homeowners have every right to set up cameras on their own home, they have every right to share and comment on footage online and even to privately use surveillance technology such as license-plate readers.

“People have tried to outlaw [private-party] license-plate readers, and they’ve lost every time because it’s actually a First Amendment activity,” Hofer says. “I have the right to go out and collect info and repackage it if I want, and sell it to customers if I want. On the other hand, when you see clearly in front of your face the horror stories coming out of Nextdoor, it’s clear there has to be some sort of oversight. I don’t know what that silver bullet is.”

“My personal preference is to win a ‘hearts and minds’ campaign rather than try to mandate or restrict private behavior through legislation,” Hofer continues. “We start getting into some tricky constitutional areas if we try to regulate private behavior.”

There’s a tension inherent to any fight about Ring, or products like it: How can you regulate police use of camera footage without controlling the private citizens who generate that footage? Every digital interaction, from liking a photo to sending an email to filing taxes online, comes with a privacy concern. Privacy advocates want police oversight, not a nanny state where people are chastised for and restricted from everything they may want to do with their own devices in their own home. But a fully unrestricted digital neighborhood watch may actually end up making companies more powerful.

“I’m concerned about police departments starting to imagine the public-safety infrastructure and hinging it on the whims of a company like Amazon,” says Dave Maass, the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s senior investigative researcher. Maass wonders what happens when police or citizens rely on technology for social stability—and then companies, definitionally driven by profit motive, abruptly change course. Amazon has the right to change its terms and services as it likes, pushing updates and making changes. Earlier this year, Google Nest owners found out their security cameras came equipped with a microphone. The devices were inactive until Google pushed an update, allowing them to be activated.

“Are they coming in and just trying to disrupt and get quick market dominance?” Maass asks. “And then 10 years from now there’s all sorts of unforeseen [consequences] because we didn’t think through these issues when we adopted these technologies?”

One way to affect the “hearts and minds” outreach that Hofer mentioned might be thinking through those consequences. Sharing a video clip with one person means sharing it with millions. Empowering yourself through surveillance means profit share for tech companies. Agreeing to hand over video footage means sharpening police eyes, not just your own.
User avatar
Posts: 573
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 5:00 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Surveillance

Postby elfismiles » Thu Oct 17, 2019 9:25 am

The Government Is Testing Mass Surveillance on the Border Before Turning It on Americans
Almost every technology developed in the border lands in the last two decades now exists in local police departments
Jack Herrera
Oct 17 ... 48e3da784b
goodbye farewell adieu au revoir ciao auf Wiedersehen adios sayonara buhbye tata laters
User avatar
Posts: 8437
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

Re: Surveillance

Postby elfismiles » Fri Oct 18, 2019 4:42 pm

Lawmaker: TSA Should Halt Facial Recognition Programs Absent Formal Policies
By Aaron Boyd, Senior Editor, Nextgov, October 17, 2019 05:40 PM ET
The agency said it is working on those policies while the technology is tested through pilot programs.

The federal government is ramping up the use of facial recognition technology at airports across the country, though at least one lawmaker wants the Transportation Security Agency to slow down.

During a hearing Thursday held by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation’s Subcommittee on Security, Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., brought up the coming ubiquity of facial recognition technologies and warned against moving forward without sufficient protections for the data being collected, as well as the civil liberties of travelers.

“As we work to keep pace with emerging threats to aviation travel, civil liberties cannot be an afterthought,” Markey said. “The public lacks enforceable rights and rules to protect travelers’ privacy and address unique threats that TSA’s biometric data collection poses to our civil liberties.”

Markey leveled a series of questions at Denver International Airport Chief Operations Officer Chris McLaughlin, using him as a sounding board for the senator’s concerns.

“Do you agree that any collection of Americans’ biometric information at airports should always be voluntary?” Markey asked.

“Yes, I do,” McLaughlin replied.

“Do you agree that TSA should enact enforceable rules and take all necessary steps to ensure that biometric data it collects is secure?”


“Do you agree that TSA should enact binding safeguards to ensure that its use of biometric technology does not disproportionately burden or misidentify people of color?”

“Absolutely, yes.”

“I agree with you. I agree with all of your answers,” Markey said. “We’re, however, quickly moving toward a point of no return when it comes to the deployment of facial recognition technology.”

Markey called on TSA to halt deployment of facial recognition tech—such as the ongoing pilot at Las Vegas McCarran International Airport—until officially policies are set in place.

“TSA should stop using these invasive tools in the absence of formal rules that reflect our values and protect our privacies,” he said. “I call upon the agency to formalize these rules. It’s absolutely essential. We should not be moving forward until we’ve decided what those protections are going to be.”

A TSA spokesperson told Nextgov work on official policies is still in progress while the technology is currently limited to testing.

“Specific privacy policies have not yet been formalized but will align with [Homeland Security Department] requirements on the development of privacy policies and will implement the Fair Information Practice Principles to the greatest extent practicable,” the spokesperson said in an email, adding that the agency has published privacy impact statements on the pilot program.

“TSA expects to limit its use of facial recognition to identity verification functions at the checkpoint,” the spokesperson said, citing previous congressional testimony from acting Deputy Administrator Patricia Cogswell. ... es/160685/
goodbye farewell adieu au revoir ciao auf Wiedersehen adios sayonara buhbye tata laters
User avatar
Posts: 8437
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)


Return to Data And Research

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests