The headline neglects to mention that the system is opt in and per-incident, which I think is a critical detail. It's not like police have 24/7 involuntary access to everyone's video.
Remember you don't own or control anything you upload to a third party.
From the ring privacy policy:
> We also may disclose personal information about you (1) if we are required to do so by law or legal process (such as a court order or subpoena); (2) in response to requests by government agencies, such as law enforcement authorities; (3) to establish, exercise or defend our legal rights; (4) when we believe disclosure is necessary or appropriate to prevent physical or other harm or financial loss; (5) in connection with an investigation of suspected or actual illegal activity; or (6) otherwise with your consent.
> We reserve the right to transfer any personal information we have about you in the event we sell or transfer all or a portion of our business or assets (including in the event of a merger, acquisition, joint venture, reorganization, divestiture, dissolution or liquidation).
That's true for all companies. You still have to comply with subpoenas and can still be acquired. That's true whether you're the coffee shop down the street or Amazon full of cloud video from folks doorbells.
(4) and (5) are the only ones with wording I see as a bit dubious, but I'm not a lawyer and don't know if those are normally required terms.
Do police have any obligation to be honest in these requests? Even if it’s opt-in, I’d be afraid of cops using the system to harass personal enemies by making requests that say they’re looking for an active serial killer or whatever.
Do police have any obligation to be honest in these requests?
No. Infractions would have to be prosecuted by the district attorney, who has no interest to get on the bad side of the police because he needs them to be successful.
Consider the case of Arlington police! Arlington cops were in bed with a drug dealer because he supplied the force with steroids. In return for the goodies, the police informed their supplier about the competition. The maximum penalty for improper access of records would be 10 years in prison, but they gave the bent cop just 1 year. It really does wonders to restore trust in the system.
by design, the police concentrate force in a separate group of people who then specialize in that use of force. residents relinquish that (threat of) force voluntarily to the police to enjoy being a citizen of a (hopefully) more peaceful society in exchange.
part of the problem is that we naturally conflate (1) knowing and enforcing rules and (2) the use of force. despite the similarity of the words, enforcement doesn't necessarily require direct force. such intertwined subtleties make your entreaty to "institute checks and balances" hard to realize.
and this disjunction is problematic; i think it's better to have a little force spread widely throughout communities, rather than a lot of force concentrated in one sub-group, as its less risk of catastrophic use of force and a more even application all around (more fair). but that's a challenge in the increasingly specialized social groupings (and identities) we live in.
even so, "police" is too much of an identity separate from the society to which they're enjoined. i think policemen/women should be community members first, and enforcers second, not the other way around.
Police and the US government regularly abuse "legitimate" surveillance as well ass utilize illegal surveillance. There are a huge amount of examples. I have 0 faith that police cannot and will not abuse this
Depends on what your problem with this arrangement is. IF you're worried about the use of your feed against your will, then yea this isn't a problem (you know, unless the police get a warrant and demand Nest turn it over to you)
If your issue is that your neighbors are now helping expand the surveillance state by self-installing cameras to allow the police visibility of your home, then it's still a problem. Technically this was always a possibility, but the ease of which the police can now search for and find these cameras to request access to is what makes this scary.
Even worse, as people normalize the use of a surveillance technology (a technology in general, NOT a specific product), eventually it will pass the "in general public use" test created by Kyllo v United States. When that happens, using that technology is no longer a search and thus the police no longer need a warrant to use it. The people normalizing surveillance tech are eroding our future 4th Amendment protection.
(see my previous post[1] about this for references)
From the ring privacy policy:
> We also may disclose personal information about you (1) if we are required to do so by law or legal process (such as a court order or subpoena); (2) in response to requests by government agencies, such as law enforcement authorities; (3) to establish, exercise or defend our legal rights; (4) when we believe disclosure is necessary or appropriate to prevent physical or other harm or financial loss; (5) in connection with an investigation of suspected or actual illegal activity; or (6) otherwise with your consent.
> We reserve the right to transfer any personal information we have about you in the event we sell or transfer all or a portion of our business or assets (including in the event of a merger, acquisition, joint venture, reorganization, divestiture, dissolution or liquidation).