[cybrexalpha]

The feature doesn't exist yet. Ring have said it'll be user consent, but we don't know that for sure. My point is that Ring can change their minds about this at any time without informing you, so it doesn't matter how they say it will work if this possibility is still there.

[eurleif]

If you want to have a tangential discussion about how you interpret Ring's terms to permit them to do wild things behind the user's back, that's fine; but it would have been better to be more clear about the tangential nature of your comments. If the terms allow them to do wild things behind the user's back, then they can do those things with or without introducing this feature. And they can also introduce this feature with or without the wild things; and with or without terms of service allowing those things. They're orthogonal issues.

In any case, you're mistaken about what the terms allow. When you paraphrased the terms as saying they can "hand over your footage to anyone so long as Ring believes it's 'reasonably necessary' to protect the rights or property of anyone", you neglected to account for the clause: "as required or permitted by law". Under the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S. Code § 2702 (b), there is only a short and narrow list of circumstances under which it is permissible for a provider to disclose communications content without a warrant. The most pertinent is an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury (exigent circumstances), which is what the link in the OP regarding warrantless and consentless disclosures is about. But exigent circumstances are also a longstanding exception to fourth amendment search protections in general: law enforcement can break into your house without a warrant if there are exigent circumstances requiring them to do so.

[cybrexalpha]

This isn't a tangential discussion. Ring has shown they're willing to work with law enforcement without due process, that's the entire point of the EFF's article.

> you're mistaken about what the terms allow. When you paraphrased the terms as saying

I didn't paraphrase. I quoted them directly. Feel free to check them yourself https://ring.com/terms

> you neglected to account for the clause: "as required or permitted by law". Under the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S. Code § 2702 (b), there is only a short and narrow list of circumstances under which it is permissible for a provider to disclose communications content without a warrant.

There are so many exceptions it doesn't matter. From the same code, (b) (8) states "if the provider, in good faith, believes that an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires disclosure without delay of communications relating to the emergency", and (b) (7) (A) (ii) "to a law enforcement agency if the contents appear to pertain to the commission of a crime".

This is exactly how Ring shared content with the cops previously. https://www.cnet.com/home/security/ring-google-and-the-polic...

[eurleif]

>Ring has shown they're willing to work with law enforcement without due process, that's the entire point of the EFF's article.

No, the entire point of the article is the introduction of a new feature which allows law enforcement to request a certain kind of access from end users.

>I didn't paraphrase.

This wasn't a paraphrase? "hand over your footage to anyone so long as Ring believes it's 'reasonably necessary' to protect the rights or property of anyone"

>From the same code, (b) (8)

That is the exigent circumstances exception I mentioned.

> (b) (7) (A) (ii)

Only applies if (i) also applies: the contents "were inadvertently obtained by the service provider".