[ahbyb]

>People are annoyed that footage from their home was used, without their permission or any payment to them, by Ring for adverts. People are annoyed that footage from their family trick-or-treat session was used, without their permission or any payment to them, by Ring for adverts.

They should have read the terms of service. Really I'm tired of this argument. "X service should not exist because nobody reads the terms of service"? What about the people who read them? Why should they be deprived of using this service?

>People are annoyed that millions of unregistered surveillance cameras are being installed with few protections or oversight. They're realising that creating a panopticon might also need to include some protection for how the data is used.

People should be able to put whatever they want in their lawns.

Anyway I'm sceptical about this being actual footage from Ring; I'd say they recorded it with actors.

[DanBC]

> They should have read the terms of service

A child puts on a costume and visits someone's home to trick-or-treat them. That child's image is now used by ring in adverts.

When did that child read and accept a ToS?

Where in the Ring ToS / Privacy statement does it say that they'll use Ring video for adverts? Please could you link to the page and quote the text?

I think my protection from being surveilled should not rely on my neighbour's ability to read and interpret a ToS.

> People should be able to put whatever they want in their lawns.

I tend to agree, but lots of ring cameras are installed so that they also capture stuff that happens off the installer's property. They can capture the neighbour's lawn and driveways, or they can capture the public street.