Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I'm confused about the issue with Ring here. The primary complaint seems to be that users can share data with police if they want and that police can then save that data. Ultimately that's product agnostic; someone could easily take footage from any camera and show it to police voluntarily, and users could always be compelled to hand over footage of a crime with a warrant. People have zero control over how neighbors use their personal cameras and I don't see why that should impact personal buying decisions, even if you decide to never share data with police. What's the problem?


This is like vaccination

Why I have to vaccinate if measles already defeated?

Why I have to fear that all my neighbors send* all video to someone?

* because you do not know that "some corporation" do not sell your video feed to anyone


That's not my point. If we want to talk about the societal impact of mass security camera adoption, fine, but that has little to do with picking a Ring camera for personal use specifically. The only thing that differentiates this from other security camera products is that it's marginally more convenient for police to get access to data if the user wants to submit it. The advice in the article is silly because it doesn't say "don't get a camera because it's helping to create a police state", it's saying "just don't get this one camera".




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: