|
February 15, 2019 - You see their ads almost every day and their name has become almost synonymous with the term "home security." Ring doorbells and security lights are nearly everywhere these days. But Ring isn't just a doorbell. The company, which is owned by Amazon, is now on a mission to make crime fighting easier for the police. And they're doing that by giving police and consumers the ability to share video captured by their devices. In some circles that's raising privacy concerns.
According to an article published in The Intercept, Ring has developed a social application designed to allow neighbors (and the application is called Neighbors) to share and request video. For instance, if you know that packages were stolen from in front of your front door, you can ask your neighbors for any video that may have captured more information on the thieves. That may help you if you file a police report.
It's probably a fairly natural progression for Neighbors and Ring to start working with law enforcement agencies. And that's just exactly what they are doing. Now, if the police are investigating a crime in your neighborhood, they can send you a request for your videos through the Neighbors application. As a part of that request, they can specify a date and time for the portion of the video they are interested in.
Anyone receiving this type of request has options. You can choose to cooperate, or you can choose to keep your videos private. And according to Ring, when the policed make this type of request, they don't have access to your name, or other identifying information.
Some privacy advocates are crying foul. They say that what Ring is doing blurs the line between private surveillance of individual property and government surveillance of people. But that argument ignores years of precedent.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that when we go out in public, we don't have a right to privacy. While the government can't tack a GPS device on your car without a warrant, that's totally different than having your picture taken by stationary cameras located around the city in which you live. While the end result may be the same, that your movements can be tracked, the methodology for gathering that information is totally different.
The technology that is being used - privately owned cameras - has been used by the police for years to solve crimes. When someone robs a store, the police check the stores video cameras and then they commonly see if they can find video from other businesses in the area. When crimes occur in areas without stationary cameras, the police frequently ask smart phone users to check any video they may have taken and, if they think that video could help in solving the crime, they ask them to turn it over to them.
Private video was very helpful in identifying the Boston Marathon bombers. It was also used to help identify the movements of the 9/11 terrorists, helping to trace back their activities in the weeks before that horrible day.
Private cameras have become a fact of life in modern society. Every time we walk into a store, we're being photographed. When you walk down the street in a business district, you're being photographed. When you go to a park or concert, someone is taking pictures and videos that you're going to wind up in. Why should neighborhoods be any different?
It's pretty clear that if the police want to force you to turn over videos you've taken, they need a warrant. But if you voluntarily give it to them, that's another story. They have every right to ask, and you have every right to say "no." Let freedom Ring! (Pardon the pun)
byJim Malmberg
Note: When posting a comment, please sign-in first if you want a response. If you are not registered, click here. Registration is easy and free.
|
Privacy Issues 
