Mind you, I have no idea how reliable the website politico.com is (this is the first time I heard of it), but OP’s article linked to this article starting that Ring footage was sent to the police without consent
As Jarfil said, it’s not automatically doing anything. The police can get a court order to get footage. It’s only given in very limited circumstances, like if the owner goes missing, or the camera might have spotted a significant crime, and it’s not just ring but basically anything. If you are suspected of a serious crime police can get your internet browsing history, they can bug your house, they can dig through your bins, and yes, can request the clips taken by your ring camera.
It’s happened 11 times this year. That shows how rarely courts give these orders.
The idea that Ring is some evil thing that’s doing anything different is just scaremongering.
Technically, “automatically” would mean it gets sent all the time, while “without consent” would mean it might’ve got sent on request, just without consent.
“Automatically” would be a perfectly reasonable word choice if a request from the police is granted without interaction. In all honesty even if a human has to send it, if the process doesn’t allow them any kind of autonomy or authority to decline the request, that probably qualifies, too.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Mind you, I have no idea how reliable the website politico.com is (this is the first time I heard of it), but OP’s article linked to this article starting that Ring footage was sent to the police without consent
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/13/amazon-gave-ring-videos-to-police-without-owners-permission-00045513
As Jarfil said, it’s not automatically doing anything. The police can get a court order to get footage. It’s only given in very limited circumstances, like if the owner goes missing, or the camera might have spotted a significant crime, and it’s not just ring but basically anything. If you are suspected of a serious crime police can get your internet browsing history, they can bug your house, they can dig through your bins, and yes, can request the clips taken by your ring camera.
It’s happened 11 times this year. That shows how rarely courts give these orders.
The idea that Ring is some evil thing that’s doing anything different is just scaremongering.
Technically, “automatically” would mean it gets sent all the time, while “without consent” would mean it might’ve got sent on request, just without consent.
Fair enough. In both cases, it’s without the camera “owner” consenting, and that’s the main problem.
“Automatically” would be a perfectly reasonable word choice if a request from the police is granted without interaction. In all honesty even if a human has to send it, if the process doesn’t allow them any kind of autonomy or authority to decline the request, that probably qualifies, too.
Hm, I guess you’re right. That’s an interesting reflection on the concept of “automation”.
I think automated means “no human”. I don’t think automatic necessarily does, especially if humans don’t have agency.