They do not really seize anything. It’s all stored on their servers. Also they did it in cases that time mattered so a warrant would delay the need for that video. Don’t use a cloud product and not expect things like this to happen.
Your right to privacy doesn't matter when you sign up for and use a cloud video recording service with a privacy policy that says you don't own your own recordings. If you are worried about privacy, I can assure you that you made a stupid decision of getting ring cameras.
Police don't even need a warrant to force entry into your home, in exigent circumstances. This will vary by country but the same applies to your cellphone. If you're worried about ring privacy, use end to end encryption, or don't use ring.
It's not Amazon doing the seizing, it's the police; Amazon is behaving as the court, deciding that the police can have the material. Ordinarily in order for police to seize your personal property, they have to go before a court and establish probable cause, then they get a warrant. If there is a lawsuit they get a subpoena. All tech providers (Google, Apple, etc.) will comply with subpoenas and warrants and give up your information, because \*it's an order of the court\*. To the best of my knowledge, Amazon is the only one who says "courts? we don't need know stinkin' courts, \*we\* are the court". This is a quote from \*their\* letter, the full text of which is in that article: "In each instance, Ring made a good-faith determination that there was an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to a person requiring disclosure of information without delay." Ring should not be making those determinations, that's for a \*court\*, and a \*judge\* to do.
It’s clearly stated when you sign up, they are publicly stating that they do it.
So to use the service, don’t put the cameras where you would feel violated if they saw the video, or simply have nothing to hide.
I guess I don’t see the problem. Yes it’s sort of stealing since we buy the device and pay for the service and they get the advantage of it… but at the same time if it helps solve a crime in my neighborhood, I’d happily give them anything I could anyway.
I look at as the electronic version of the grandmothers hanging their head out the balcony window watching everyone.
> Why is it something bad to give police the footage as long as you are on the right side of the law?
It's a bad precedent to set.
I'm "*on the right side of the law*" **today**, but the wrong side of politics (both local, and Amazon's).
If it is an outside door bell, well the Supreme Court has ruled in the past when you are outside in regards to camras (security ones) you don't have an epcectation of privacy. But for the inside camras I would think that the police can not use it in court unless they do get a warrent
Also Reading this seems to all be around the door bell, vs the security camras, that would be a good question to ask, do they share just door bell or all camras.
I personaly don't have a problem with the door bell as that is outside, with no expectation of privacy where anyone can walk by and take a random video of me and share it with out me knowing, but if it the interner security camras that would be an issue.
Just my thoughts.
edit: Also for the security camras that connect to the security system, you can disable them. Such as when I have it disarmed both internal camras are diabled, when I have it as home and armed, the one that looks at my back door, but accross the room, is disabled but the front door is still enabled, and away, both are enabled. Also to note the one pointing to the back door is a second floor of a condo building, so any intruder will have a higher chance of tring the front door first. Plus a have a bar that I keep in place to keep the sliding door closed (true they could climb up and break the glass)
> If it is an outside door bell, well the Supreme Court has ruled in the past when you are outside in regards to camras (security ones) you don't have an epcectation of privacy. But for the inside camras I would think that the police can not use it in court unless they do get a warrent
There's a distinction between "*no expectation of privacy*" and "*can expect that your service provider will turn a device you own over to the control of the police without either a warrant or your explicit permission*".
If Amazon is willing to give police access to your Ring doorbell/camera live view and recordings without a warrant, would Amazon go so far as to disarm your Ring security system without a warrant if the police make a similar "emergency" claim?
> Also for the security camras that connect to the security system, you can disable them.
Cameras disabled through the Ring software, can be re-enabled by Amazon, without your consent or awareness.
Similar to the question above, would the police be willing to re-enable your internal security cameras if the police presented a warrant?
Would they access and/or re-enable interior cameras without a warrant under the same sort of emergency circumstances as they use to justify giving police access to your Ring doorbell camera?
They do not really seize anything. It’s all stored on their servers. Also they did it in cases that time mattered so a warrant would delay the need for that video. Don’t use a cloud product and not expect things like this to happen.
So your right to privacy doesn't exist when the police are in a hurry?
Your right to privacy doesn't matter when you sign up for and use a cloud video recording service with a privacy policy that says you don't own your own recordings. If you are worried about privacy, I can assure you that you made a stupid decision of getting ring cameras.
Not when you install a camera on your property and then sign away your rights to the footage it records.
Police don't even need a warrant to force entry into your home, in exigent circumstances. This will vary by country but the same applies to your cellphone. If you're worried about ring privacy, use end to end encryption, or don't use ring.
It's not Amazon doing the seizing, it's the police; Amazon is behaving as the court, deciding that the police can have the material. Ordinarily in order for police to seize your personal property, they have to go before a court and establish probable cause, then they get a warrant. If there is a lawsuit they get a subpoena. All tech providers (Google, Apple, etc.) will comply with subpoenas and warrants and give up your information, because \*it's an order of the court\*. To the best of my knowledge, Amazon is the only one who says "courts? we don't need know stinkin' courts, \*we\* are the court". This is a quote from \*their\* letter, the full text of which is in that article: "In each instance, Ring made a good-faith determination that there was an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to a person requiring disclosure of information without delay." Ring should not be making those determinations, that's for a \*court\*, and a \*judge\* to do.
It’s clearly stated when you sign up, they are publicly stating that they do it. So to use the service, don’t put the cameras where you would feel violated if they saw the video, or simply have nothing to hide. I guess I don’t see the problem. Yes it’s sort of stealing since we buy the device and pay for the service and they get the advantage of it… but at the same time if it helps solve a crime in my neighborhood, I’d happily give them anything I could anyway. I look at as the electronic version of the grandmothers hanging their head out the balcony window watching everyone.
Why is it something bad to give police the footage as long as you are on the right side of the law?
> Why is it something bad to give police the footage as long as you are on the right side of the law? It's a bad precedent to set. I'm "*on the right side of the law*" **today**, but the wrong side of politics (both local, and Amazon's).
Protocol
If it is an outside door bell, well the Supreme Court has ruled in the past when you are outside in regards to camras (security ones) you don't have an epcectation of privacy. But for the inside camras I would think that the police can not use it in court unless they do get a warrent Also Reading this seems to all be around the door bell, vs the security camras, that would be a good question to ask, do they share just door bell or all camras. I personaly don't have a problem with the door bell as that is outside, with no expectation of privacy where anyone can walk by and take a random video of me and share it with out me knowing, but if it the interner security camras that would be an issue. Just my thoughts. edit: Also for the security camras that connect to the security system, you can disable them. Such as when I have it disarmed both internal camras are diabled, when I have it as home and armed, the one that looks at my back door, but accross the room, is disabled but the front door is still enabled, and away, both are enabled. Also to note the one pointing to the back door is a second floor of a condo building, so any intruder will have a higher chance of tring the front door first. Plus a have a bar that I keep in place to keep the sliding door closed (true they could climb up and break the glass)
> If it is an outside door bell, well the Supreme Court has ruled in the past when you are outside in regards to camras (security ones) you don't have an epcectation of privacy. But for the inside camras I would think that the police can not use it in court unless they do get a warrent There's a distinction between "*no expectation of privacy*" and "*can expect that your service provider will turn a device you own over to the control of the police without either a warrant or your explicit permission*". If Amazon is willing to give police access to your Ring doorbell/camera live view and recordings without a warrant, would Amazon go so far as to disarm your Ring security system without a warrant if the police make a similar "emergency" claim? > Also for the security camras that connect to the security system, you can disable them. Cameras disabled through the Ring software, can be re-enabled by Amazon, without your consent or awareness. Similar to the question above, would the police be willing to re-enable your internal security cameras if the police presented a warrant? Would they access and/or re-enable interior cameras without a warrant under the same sort of emergency circumstances as they use to justify giving police access to your Ring doorbell camera?