|
|
|
|
|
by nullc
2094 days ago
|
|
Yep. In the US you generally have no standing to resist a warrant for your data that you handed over to a third party. Don't use cloud based cameras. Products like ring could easily be designed so that your data would be protected-- e.g. encrypt on the device, all storage is encrypted.. you give a password to any client to view it that amazon never sees. Yet even though its straightforward to do so this is not available in any commercial product that I'm aware of. I don't think that's an accident: These products exists to spread monitoring, -- mostly for marketing purposes, the fact that they can be abused by authorities for dragnet surveillance without (adequate) due process is just a "bonus". |
|
It's not just a bonus, it's a selling point. Not for normal consumers, but for law enforcement, and Amazon would like to keep the police surveillance use case secret[1].
From The Secret Scripts Amazon Gives to Cops to Promote Ring Surveillance Cameras[2]:
> Documents obtained by Motherboard reveal that Ring provides 46 standardized comments that cops can post on social media, and several documents with scripted responses to possible questions from the public.
[1] https://www.cnet.com/news/amazon-ring-wants-police-to-keep-t...
[2] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/wjwea4/revealed-the-secre...