Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

If Amazon's Ring is partnering with LE[1], and from what I understand, in some circumstances providing access to customer-produced data even when customers refuse requests, it doesn't seem too unreasonable to have suspicions.

1. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/43kga3/amazon-is-coaching...

2. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/08/five-concerns-about-am...

Edit to append link and quote:

Quote: However, he noted, there is a workaround if a resident happens to reject a police request. If the community member doesn’t want to supply a Ring video that seems vital to a local law enforcement investigation, police can contact Amazon, which will then essentially “subpoena” the video.

Link: https://www.govtech.com/security/Amazons-Ring-Video-Camera-A...



Subpoena is the wrong word. Amazon gives up your video willingly to law enforcement without your consent or even knowledge.

They can do this because it hasn’t yet been determined unlawful.

We are in a dire need of cyber ethics framework that enshrines user privacy.


What's the opt-in process like - specifically, what mechanisms are in place to protect those for which English might not be a first language?


That seems like a strange workaround. Wouldn't the burden of proof to subpoena to Amazon be the same as a warrant to the user?


This isn't an actual subpoena - a subpoena is an order issued by a court, and requires probable cause. What's happening here is that the cops are asking Amazon for the data, and Amazon is giving it to them, without being legally obligated to do so. Assuming that the user's terms of service say that Amazon can do this, they don't need your permission to do so, or any proof that a crime has occurred.

I assume it's legal for Amazon to give them these videos, since the images they're asking for are things that the cops or anyone else could have seen happening outside your house if they would have been driving by (or that your neighbors could have told the cops). There's no legal expectation of privacy, as there would be inside your house.


Amazon owns the video, not the user, so you only need a warrant if they demand one. They’re also free to not require one.


That makes sense, although it's not a subpoena in that case. It's just Amazon voluntarily cooperating. However, I'm not a fan of such voluntary cooperation. I think a company's default response should be, "We'll help you in every way possible once there is a warrant."

I mean, something like this should be viewed in the context of comparable IRL vendors. If I rent a 3rd-party storage unit from U-Haul or similar, a warrant is generally required.

(one exception I found was a case where police, on-site, witnessed a drug deal. They then used the defendant's key to open their unit without a warrant. It was judged lawful, that finding drugs and keycard on the defendant was sufficient probably cause. That makes sense, given that if police witness you in front of your house, or car, etc selling drugs, that would be sufficient as well to search.) [0]

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ilnd-1_14-cr-00...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: