A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live(vice.com)
vice.com
A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/z3bbq4/podcast-livestreams-hacked-ring-cameras-nulledcast
280 comments
As someone who tends to fall on the side of privacy more often than not, I'm actually not sure how I feel about facial recog+home security cameras.
I'm completely against any fully automated system where the police can have access to the camera's data.
But on the other hand, what if the system was implemented completely locally, and all with the owner's control and permission?
So your Ring app pops up and says "Hey, your local police department is looking for a suspect and your camera spotted them. Would you like to share the footage?".
So many petty crimes (e.g. home burglaries, car breakins, etc) go unsolved because the police just don't have the tools and resources to go after all those crimes. I have neighbors who've had their homes and cars broken into. It's a violating experience, and I think it's justified to want the perpetrators of those crimes caught and sentenced appropriately; at the very least to dissuade others.
Within the context of a well built, local, permissioned system, I'm not sure I'm against it.
Of course A) The likes of Amazon would never build such a system responsibly; they'd rather gobble up and abuse the data themselves. B) There are serious security concerns, as evidenced by TFA. C) Civil disobedience and similar acts are an important part of democratic society, and mass surveillance, responsible or not, threatens that. And finally, D) something which I think everyone misses when it comes to facial recognition systems ... they're still not very good. SOTA published recog systems make a mistake on 1 in 1000 faces (http://vis-www.cs.umass.edu/lfw/results.html), and that's on LFW which is fairly high quality. I'm sure FAANG does better, and SOTA will continue to improve quickly, but is that good enough for this kind of application?
So I'm torn.
I'm completely against any fully automated system where the police can have access to the camera's data.
But on the other hand, what if the system was implemented completely locally, and all with the owner's control and permission?
So your Ring app pops up and says "Hey, your local police department is looking for a suspect and your camera spotted them. Would you like to share the footage?".
So many petty crimes (e.g. home burglaries, car breakins, etc) go unsolved because the police just don't have the tools and resources to go after all those crimes. I have neighbors who've had their homes and cars broken into. It's a violating experience, and I think it's justified to want the perpetrators of those crimes caught and sentenced appropriately; at the very least to dissuade others.
Within the context of a well built, local, permissioned system, I'm not sure I'm against it.
Of course A) The likes of Amazon would never build such a system responsibly; they'd rather gobble up and abuse the data themselves. B) There are serious security concerns, as evidenced by TFA. C) Civil disobedience and similar acts are an important part of democratic society, and mass surveillance, responsible or not, threatens that. And finally, D) something which I think everyone misses when it comes to facial recognition systems ... they're still not very good. SOTA published recog systems make a mistake on 1 in 1000 faces (http://vis-www.cs.umass.edu/lfw/results.html), and that's on LFW which is fairly high quality. I'm sure FAANG does better, and SOTA will continue to improve quickly, but is that good enough for this kind of application?
So I'm torn.
> So your Ring app pops up and says "Hey, your local police department is looking for a suspect and your camera spotted them. Would you like to share the footage?".
This doesn't sound ok at all. I won't delve into a thousand reasons why I don't like the idea, but let's just start with that answering "no" to that question can be easily treated as the obstruction of justice. So, to cut it short, if I'm not volunteering to lend my video feed to local police department by installing some additional plug-in that would download people faces from their DB and scanning the street for them, it shouldn't even attempt to by default.
This doesn't sound ok at all. I won't delve into a thousand reasons why I don't like the idea, but let's just start with that answering "no" to that question can be easily treated as the obstruction of justice. So, to cut it short, if I'm not volunteering to lend my video feed to local police department by installing some additional plug-in that would download people faces from their DB and scanning the street for them, it shouldn't even attempt to by default.
I don't think that's anything like obstruction of justice under US law. If you were right, then so too would be recognizing a face from a wanted poster and not calling the police.
It isn't even obstruction of justice if they explicitly ask you something and you refuse to respond: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/what-do-when-encounter...
So I don't see how not responding to a question they didn't ask could be illegal.
It isn't even obstruction of justice if they explicitly ask you something and you refuse to respond: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/what-do-when-encounter...
So I don't see how not responding to a question they didn't ask could be illegal.
It absolutely is obstruction of justice if there’s reasonable suspicion and they have a subpoena or warrant and you refuse to hand over said evidence.
If they come to your house and Willy nilly ask you for your cameras data because they believe that it spotted a crime then you can say no for sure, but then they’ll just come back with a court order to force compliance since there’s good reason to at least inspect the camera footage and I can tell you from experience I don’t know any judge that wouldnt sign a subpoena for that.
If they come to your house and Willy nilly ask you for your cameras data because they believe that it spotted a crime then you can say no for sure, but then they’ll just come back with a court order to force compliance since there’s good reason to at least inspect the camera footage and I can tell you from experience I don’t know any judge that wouldnt sign a subpoena for that.
You have to give police information just because you suspect they might have a warrant? I would have thought you could wait until you're actually presented with the warrant.
I addressed that in my comment. It’s literally what the second paragraph is about.
Sorry, I badly misread your comment as "suspicion that they have a subpoena" instead of "suspicion and they have a subpoena".
But to address what you actually said, I believe the vast majority of these requests that police are making from Ring users don't have a warrant/subpoena.
> The partnerships let police request the video recorded by homeowners’ cameras within a specific time and area, helping officers see footage from the company’s millions of Internet-connected cameras installed nationwide, the company said. Officers don’t receive ongoing or live-video access, and homeowners can decline the requests
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/08/28/doorbel...
But to address what you actually said, I believe the vast majority of these requests that police are making from Ring users don't have a warrant/subpoena.
> The partnerships let police request the video recorded by homeowners’ cameras within a specific time and area, helping officers see footage from the company’s millions of Internet-connected cameras installed nationwide, the company said. Officers don’t receive ongoing or live-video access, and homeowners can decline the requests
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/08/28/doorbel...
To me this is more Rings fault than law enforcement.
I’m sure there is some TOS that states Ring will hand over any video and since the program is public knowledge, therefor If the individual still decides to willingly install it, IMO that’s on them. when are we going to start holding the user accountable?
I’m sure there is some TOS that states Ring will hand over any video and since the program is public knowledge, therefor If the individual still decides to willingly install it, IMO that’s on them. when are we going to start holding the user accountable?
[deleted]
It sounds like you're discussing a hypothetical case very different than what you're replying to.
fpgaminer was talking about something where facial recognition is done locally, giving the camera owner the option to contact the police. The cops would not even know you had a camera unless you told them (or unless they saw it).
You seem to be imagining all sorts of other things, including a warrant. Which, yes, if you ignore it is obstruction. But I don't think that was part of what fpgaminer was describing.
fpgaminer was talking about something where facial recognition is done locally, giving the camera owner the option to contact the police. The cops would not even know you had a camera unless you told them (or unless they saw it).
You seem to be imagining all sorts of other things, including a warrant. Which, yes, if you ignore it is obstruction. But I don't think that was part of what fpgaminer was describing.
Information and physical evidence are two different things. The government can use your password if they can find it written down somewhere, they just can't compel you to offer it up.
But in cases where the government has metadata, logs, or other verifiable info about what is on the account, media, etc., recent precedent has established that they can hold you without charges for any amount of time, in the cases of some individuals, several years, in order to attempt to compel you to give up your password.
But in cases where the government has metadata, logs, or other verifiable info about what is on the account, media, etc., recent precedent has established that they can hold you without charges for any amount of time, in the cases of some individuals, several years, in order to attempt to compel you to give up your password.
It's a blurred line though. If the police know that the perpetrator was in line of sight of your camera and they knew you had the footage, then not giving it to them is a lot closer to obstruction of justice than the example you gave. I'm no lawyer but I'm sure a competent one would be able to argue either side.
I'm really more interested in the reasons why you don't like the idea, though (cause the other reason sounds kind of US specific to me).
I'm a four season bike commuter, and have been wearing a helmet cam for the past year or so— it's just breathtaking the amount of small violations I catch on camera: I don't even go looking for them or dwell at hotspots, and I pick up probably 5-10 instances per week of things like cars turning right on red without fully stopping, going through stop signs without fully stopping, not fully yielding to pedestrians in crosswalks, changing lanes in roundabouts/intersections, etc etc.
As it is, it's a huge amount of effort to slice out these clips, upload them somewhere, figure out the plates involved, and then go through my police department's clunky incident reporting system. On the handful of times I've bothered to do it (like when I was almost creamed by someone running a red light), the response has been either nothing or "thanks but we just don't have time for that", or in one case an indication that they would be unable to charge the person unless I also had a face shot of who it was in the driver's seat.
Now, we can argue until we're blue in the face about whether it's right to snitch on people for these "victimless crimes", but I suspect (and commenters like Neil Arason agree) that more consistent enforcement would go a long way toward promoting safer and more respectful driving. A lot fewer people would drift through stop signs and crosswalks if they didn't think they could get away with it 99% of the time.
All that to say, if there was a portal somewhere where I could just upload my timestamped helmet cam and porch cam videos as part of a dragnet operation to identify and catch repeat violators of the rules of the road, I'd be awfully tempted to participate, despite ideological misgivings about pervasive surveillance.
As it is, it's a huge amount of effort to slice out these clips, upload them somewhere, figure out the plates involved, and then go through my police department's clunky incident reporting system. On the handful of times I've bothered to do it (like when I was almost creamed by someone running a red light), the response has been either nothing or "thanks but we just don't have time for that", or in one case an indication that they would be unable to charge the person unless I also had a face shot of who it was in the driver's seat.
Now, we can argue until we're blue in the face about whether it's right to snitch on people for these "victimless crimes", but I suspect (and commenters like Neil Arason agree) that more consistent enforcement would go a long way toward promoting safer and more respectful driving. A lot fewer people would drift through stop signs and crosswalks if they didn't think they could get away with it 99% of the time.
All that to say, if there was a portal somewhere where I could just upload my timestamped helmet cam and porch cam videos as part of a dragnet operation to identify and catch repeat violators of the rules of the road, I'd be awfully tempted to participate, despite ideological misgivings about pervasive surveillance.
Reporting someone for minor traffic offences if they caused an accident is the right thing to do but reporting people for the sake of reporting people is a little unsympathetic. I've lost count of the number of times I've misjudged a situation because kids were screaming in the back of the car, I'm stressed about something at work and had the briefest laps in concentration; or even times when I just have a complete brainfart despite being fully focused on the drive. We also have senses that are entirely fallible -- for example it's very easy to miss-see something because your brain fills in gaps of information with "fake" information based on what you expect to see (there was a great blog post from an ex-fighter pilot on this topic).
There needs to be some flexibility in society that allows for human error in instances where there is literally no personal, physical, monetary, etc damage. The kind of police state where all footage is processed for any minor traffic offences is such a dangerous road (if you pardon the pun) to take because it leaves people with no margin for genuine human error.
Think of it like senior developers having a bad day and making school boy errors; or mistyping your username (something that should be muscle memory); or that guy who accidentally hits "reply to all" -- we've all made stupid mistakes. If those mistakes haven't caused harm then I don't see why need to be reported.
There needs to be some flexibility in society that allows for human error in instances where there is literally no personal, physical, monetary, etc damage. The kind of police state where all footage is processed for any minor traffic offences is such a dangerous road (if you pardon the pun) to take because it leaves people with no margin for genuine human error.
Think of it like senior developers having a bad day and making school boy errors; or mistyping your username (something that should be muscle memory); or that guy who accidentally hits "reply to all" -- we've all made stupid mistakes. If those mistakes haven't caused harm then I don't see why need to be reported.
The gap between these mistakes causing harm and not causing harm is basically just luck.
The less careful we are even when the mistake doesn't cause harm, the more frequently we'll make the mistake. Some feedback that made people be more careful, and pay more attention, would be good.
And at a larger level: if we can't be bothered to be that careful (or simply can't at all), and want to be allowed to not be that careful, then maybe we should make more societal changes to stop depending on humans driving 3000+lb machines. All this is great data for less driving but because it's mostly invisible, it can't be used to rebut the "but I want my own car and I want to drive it myself" folks.
The less careful we are even when the mistake doesn't cause harm, the more frequently we'll make the mistake. Some feedback that made people be more careful, and pay more attention, would be good.
And at a larger level: if we can't be bothered to be that careful (or simply can't at all), and want to be allowed to not be that careful, then maybe we should make more societal changes to stop depending on humans driving 3000+lb machines. All this is great data for less driving but because it's mostly invisible, it can't be used to rebut the "but I want my own car and I want to drive it myself" folks.
Obviously I agree that bad drivers deserve little sympathy. But not all human errors are down to bad drivers nor a lack of care.
> The less careful we are even when the mistake doesn't cause harm, the more frequently we'll make the mistake. Some feedback that made people be more careful, and pay more attention, would be good.
That only works if mistake are concious. My point is mistakes can be unintended like rowdy kids causing a distraction at the wrong time.
> The gap between these mistakes causing harm and not causing harm is basically just luck.
I agree. But also the gap between a good driver driving well and a good driver making an honest mistake because of a badly timed distraction is also just bad luck.
It's happened to me before -- I've ran a red light at temporary traffic lights after my 2nd child was born (so I was tired thus required sharper focus) and my 1st child was so excited about having a baby sister that he kept making a scene. For a fraction of a second I lost focus and that fraction of a second happened to be when I was approaching road works. I was lucky that it was a Sunday evening and driving along a quiet village road so there wasn't any other vehicles. But I still had ran a red light despite my best efforts of driving safely.
> And at a larger level: if we can't be bothered to be that careful...
It's not about people not making the effort to drive safely; it's about human error. If it were that easy to drive then we'd already have infallible autonomous cars but we don't because driving isn't actually all that easy. This is also why I'm fully in favour of all these new smart safety features that autonomy has introduced; they help reduce the impact of the worst instances of human error.
Just to recap: I have little sympathy for bad or negligent drivers. I just want to remind people that it's easy to demonise others but sometimes actions are genuine flukes of bad luck.
> The less careful we are even when the mistake doesn't cause harm, the more frequently we'll make the mistake. Some feedback that made people be more careful, and pay more attention, would be good.
That only works if mistake are concious. My point is mistakes can be unintended like rowdy kids causing a distraction at the wrong time.
> The gap between these mistakes causing harm and not causing harm is basically just luck.
I agree. But also the gap between a good driver driving well and a good driver making an honest mistake because of a badly timed distraction is also just bad luck.
It's happened to me before -- I've ran a red light at temporary traffic lights after my 2nd child was born (so I was tired thus required sharper focus) and my 1st child was so excited about having a baby sister that he kept making a scene. For a fraction of a second I lost focus and that fraction of a second happened to be when I was approaching road works. I was lucky that it was a Sunday evening and driving along a quiet village road so there wasn't any other vehicles. But I still had ran a red light despite my best efforts of driving safely.
> And at a larger level: if we can't be bothered to be that careful...
It's not about people not making the effort to drive safely; it's about human error. If it were that easy to drive then we'd already have infallible autonomous cars but we don't because driving isn't actually all that easy. This is also why I'm fully in favour of all these new smart safety features that autonomy has introduced; they help reduce the impact of the worst instances of human error.
Just to recap: I have little sympathy for bad or negligent drivers. I just want to remind people that it's easy to demonise others but sometimes actions are genuine flukes of bad luck.
Okay, so you make an error, you get a fine for it.
It's not as though I'm arguing anyone who runs a red light should go to jail. Heck, maybe our fines are too high, or should take income into account—I think all of those things would be healthy conversations.
But cars are deadly vehicles, and mistakes—regardless of the circumstance—should have consequences before someone gets killed. As frequently as possible.
It's not as though I'm arguing anyone who runs a red light should go to jail. Heck, maybe our fines are too high, or should take income into account—I think all of those things would be healthy conversations.
But cars are deadly vehicles, and mistakes—regardless of the circumstance—should have consequences before someone gets killed. As frequently as possible.
Just commenting to reinforce the degree of my agreement here. Basically the attitude from law enforcement and the legal system comes down to:
- Oh, no one was hurt? Just a close call? Everyone go home and try to be more careful out there next time.
- Oh, you killed someone? I mean, it's a fluke— could have happened to anyone. Honestly, you've suffered enough emotional trauma already, here's a slap on the wrist to make the victim's family feel a bit better.
This is not hypothetical; it happens all the time. Here's an example from my city:
Cyclist struck and killed, Feb 2017: https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/cyclist-dies-after-being-hit-fr...
All charges dropped, March 2018: https://www.therecord.com/news-story/8354441-charges-dropped...
The library charges you a fee for returning a book late— it's a small penalty and a reminder to be more attentive in the future. Fines on the road should be treated the same way, as an additional cost you pay for the privilege of using the road, in proportion to the number of "mistakes" and "brain farts" you have.
And who knows, maybe that additional cost might motivate a few more people to choose transit or a cab instead of driving while fatigued, or pull over and wait for the kids to stop fighting in the back seat.
- Oh, no one was hurt? Just a close call? Everyone go home and try to be more careful out there next time.
- Oh, you killed someone? I mean, it's a fluke— could have happened to anyone. Honestly, you've suffered enough emotional trauma already, here's a slap on the wrist to make the victim's family feel a bit better.
This is not hypothetical; it happens all the time. Here's an example from my city:
Cyclist struck and killed, Feb 2017: https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/cyclist-dies-after-being-hit-fr...
All charges dropped, March 2018: https://www.therecord.com/news-story/8354441-charges-dropped...
The library charges you a fee for returning a book late— it's a small penalty and a reminder to be more attentive in the future. Fines on the road should be treated the same way, as an additional cost you pay for the privilege of using the road, in proportion to the number of "mistakes" and "brain farts" you have.
And who knows, maybe that additional cost might motivate a few more people to choose transit or a cab instead of driving while fatigued, or pull over and wait for the kids to stop fighting in the back seat.
As long as you are okay with fining cyclists for riding on sidewalks, failing to come to a complete stop at stop signs, failing to signal turn direction, failing to yield, etc as well. Same with pedestrians for jaywalking. You can’t be intolerant of vehicle mistakes and allow for others if you actually care about safety.
Actually when you drive a car, you have a lot more responsibility. It is easier to cause serious harm to someone while driving a multi-ton vehicle, than when riding a bike.
I'd say both points are complimentary rather than contradictory. Yes, cars do require more responsibility, however they are not exclusively responsible for road safety.
For example cyclists have caused serious harm and even kills pedestrians before. Also pedestrians and cyclists have caused serious accidents to motorists when causing car drivers to react suddenly, to swerve or break harshly which has resulted in those drivers colliding with other motorists.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying the level of responsibility between pedestrians, cyclists and motorists are equal; clearly they're not. But there is still some shared responsibility when talking about road safety.
For example cyclists have caused serious harm and even kills pedestrians before. Also pedestrians and cyclists have caused serious accidents to motorists when causing car drivers to react suddenly, to swerve or break harshly which has resulted in those drivers colliding with other motorists.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying the level of responsibility between pedestrians, cyclists and motorists are equal; clearly they're not. But there is still some shared responsibility when talking about road safety.
There's definitely some, but discussing this requires tact or you quickly find yourself making "all lives matter"-type arguments that can look like they're trying set the two sides up as equally dangerous or equally responsible. Or worse, an argument that ends up boiling down to "as a motorist, I will only ever drive more slowly and carefully once I no longer see any cyclist or pedestrian break another law, ever."
It's particularly a challenge because of confirmation bias on the motorist's side. Every driver can remember times that they were frustrated or had to swerve to avoid an irresponsible person on a bicycle, but it's likely that those cases where a cyclist or pedestrian had to jump out of their way have passed from memory, if they were even noticed at all in the first place. I'm not immune to this— I have a recollection from a few years ago of driving out to a pumpkin patch with my family and passing a cyclist on the shoulder of the country highway without slowing down or given them a proper side buffer. I wouldn't have thought anything of it at the time except that my partner called me out on it, but it's perfectly possible that rider felt threatened by what happened. I suspect that most of the drivers who blow through crosswalks in front of me have no idea I was in them— in their mind, nothing registered as "wow, I almost hit someone because I didn't see them, I should down!"
My sense from having had these conversations over the years is that most drivers enjoy an enormous amount of privilege on the road and are very resistant to acknowledging the role it has in shaping their views and experiences.
It's particularly a challenge because of confirmation bias on the motorist's side. Every driver can remember times that they were frustrated or had to swerve to avoid an irresponsible person on a bicycle, but it's likely that those cases where a cyclist or pedestrian had to jump out of their way have passed from memory, if they were even noticed at all in the first place. I'm not immune to this— I have a recollection from a few years ago of driving out to a pumpkin patch with my family and passing a cyclist on the shoulder of the country highway without slowing down or given them a proper side buffer. I wouldn't have thought anything of it at the time except that my partner called me out on it, but it's perfectly possible that rider felt threatened by what happened. I suspect that most of the drivers who blow through crosswalks in front of me have no idea I was in them— in their mind, nothing registered as "wow, I almost hit someone because I didn't see them, I should down!"
My sense from having had these conversations over the years is that most drivers enjoy an enormous amount of privilege on the road and are very resistant to acknowledging the role it has in shaping their views and experiences.
"as a motorist, I will only ever drive more slowly and carefully once I no longer see any cyclist or pedestrian"
I feel like the internet is full of dispatches from a fantasy/science fiction alternate universe where people are divided into warring tribes of (SUV) drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians that are somehow mutually exclusive.
I vaguely remember a time or a place or a timeline when people would drive here and there, with a bike rack on their car, and then they would get out and walk or ride their bike somewhere. All in one day!
But I guess today everyone does only one thing their whole life. Or else they have lost the ability to imagine doing anything other than what they are currently doing, minute by minute.
I feel like the internet is full of dispatches from a fantasy/science fiction alternate universe where people are divided into warring tribes of (SUV) drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians that are somehow mutually exclusive.
I vaguely remember a time or a place or a timeline when people would drive here and there, with a bike rack on their car, and then they would get out and walk or ride their bike somewhere. All in one day!
But I guess today everyone does only one thing their whole life. Or else they have lost the ability to imagine doing anything other than what they are currently doing, minute by minute.
> "all lives matter"-type arguments that can look like they're trying set the two sides up as equally dangerous or equally responsible
And the failure of the “black lives matter” campaign should be evidence of how little general support you build by starting out needlessly dividing.
And the failure of the “black lives matter” campaign should be evidence of how little general support you build by starting out needlessly dividing.
> That only works if mistake are concious.
I don't think that's true at all. Indeed, feedback and fear of consequences are two things that drive people to become conscious. Both of mistakes and of the potential for mistakes.
I don't think that's true at all. Indeed, feedback and fear of consequences are two things that drive people to become conscious. Both of mistakes and of the potential for mistakes.
You've carefully cropped out the following sentence that explains why your point doesn't always ring too.
With the best will in the world, you cannot prevent 100% of distractions 100% of the time. Young kids, for example, will always find a way to circumvent your best efforts at least some of the time.
With the best will in the world, you cannot prevent 100% of distractions 100% of the time. Young kids, for example, will always find a way to circumvent your best efforts at least some of the time.
No, my point stands. The notion of 100% anything is a straw man; it's nothing I said. But we do aim to asymptotically approach it over time, and we do that through proportionate feedback.
I understand you somehow feel at the mercy of your kids, and think that should entirely excuse negligent driving. But please understand that plenty of parents feel and behave otherwise.
I understand you somehow feel at the mercy of your kids, and think that should entirely excuse negligent driving. But please understand that plenty of parents feel and behave otherwise.
> The gap between these mistakes causing harm and not causing harm is basically just luck.
No. There are certain things in your example like rolling stops and lane changes in intersections that are completely safe when there are no other vehicles or pedestrians near the intersection. The existence of the yield sign and its use prove the former.
No. There are certain things in your example like rolling stops and lane changes in intersections that are completely safe when there are no other vehicles or pedestrians near the intersection. The existence of the yield sign and its use prove the former.
Executing a safe lane change requires doing a shoulder check, matching speed with another lane, etc— the reason it's prohibited in and near intersections is because those are exactly where you need to be paying the most attention to crosswalks, opposing traffic, conflict points, etc.
It may well be that it's fine if you're very, very confident there "are no other vehicles or pedestrians" nearby. But what is that literally every driver says who strikes a person walking? That they "came out of nowhere". It turns out enough drivers are bad at judging these things that it makes sense to just blanket ban them.
It may well be that it's fine if you're very, very confident there "are no other vehicles or pedestrians" nearby. But what is that literally every driver says who strikes a person walking? That they "came out of nowhere". It turns out enough drivers are bad at judging these things that it makes sense to just blanket ban them.
I’m not sure you’ve ever driven in rural areas or even the outer suburbs of US cities. Things are so spread out that you can easily have visibility of the entire 100 yard radius around a given intersection from more than 1000ft away.
Actually, the vast majority of traffic collisions require 2 parties to not be paying attention, but only one of whom has to actually make a mistake; I wouldn't consider the 2nd person failing to avoid the accident as a matter of luck.
This is part of why the "share the road" and "all have a role to play" narratives are so offensive to people who cycle and walk. The people choosing these active transportation options are already overwhelmingly the ones picking up the slack and preventing driver inattention and carelessness from becoming serious crashes.
We don't get a choice in this— we do it because the alternative is being killed in the street, and then when people actually are hit, we get to hear smarmy commentary about how it wouldn't have happened if they'd just looked both ways, or been wearing brighter clothing, or chosen a different time of day to go out for a walk:
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/03/12/we-need-to-change-the...
But it's hard to even build a case out of this that will be accepted by people who don't have that first hand experience of being the vulnerable road user. Most places in North America, small driver errors are only barely punished if at all, and there's pretty much universally zero effort to track close calls involving people walking and cycling.
We don't get a choice in this— we do it because the alternative is being killed in the street, and then when people actually are hit, we get to hear smarmy commentary about how it wouldn't have happened if they'd just looked both ways, or been wearing brighter clothing, or chosen a different time of day to go out for a walk:
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/03/12/we-need-to-change-the...
But it's hard to even build a case out of this that will be accepted by people who don't have that first hand experience of being the vulnerable road user. Most places in North America, small driver errors are only barely punished if at all, and there's pretty much universally zero effort to track close calls involving people walking and cycling.
> We don't get a choice in this— we do it because the alternative is being killed in the street
Is this commonplace in the US? In the UK most streets are safe to walk down (even some country roads which don't have pavements/sidewalks). In the UK there isn't such thing as jaywalking (etc) so it is the drivers responsibility to give way to pedestrians even when those pedestrians aren't following the highway code themselves.
Is this commonplace in the US? In the UK most streets are safe to walk down (even some country roads which don't have pavements/sidewalks). In the UK there isn't such thing as jaywalking (etc) so it is the drivers responsibility to give way to pedestrians even when those pedestrians aren't following the highway code themselves.
I honestly don't know how you're so level headed about all of this. Thanks for being the better person.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t matter whether it was a moment of distraction or purposeful bad driving. The reason it didn’t cause harm is just luck. I ride a bicycle and a motorcycle, and have had more close calls due to distracted drivers than I can count. I DO NOT CARE if it’s because you’re stressed out, you have screaming kids in the backseat, or it was just a “complete brain fart.” If you hit me with your giant metal vehicle, you will probably kill me.
Just because you don’t kill someone every time you drift through a lane on a corner or don’t stop at a light doesn’t mean that you never will.
Just because you don’t kill someone every time you drift through a lane on a corner or don’t stop at a light doesn’t mean that you never will.
I've been a cyclist for 30 years and have had my fair share of accidents too. So I've seen both sides of the argument. However as a motorist I have never ever hit another driver, cyclist nor pedestrian; anything in fact. In fact the vast majority of motorists haven't despite the fact that literally every driver will have made a minor traffic offence on a semi-regular basis (even if that's just forgetting to indicate when changing lane on a motorway).
I also don't agree it's exclusively a matter of luck whether human error results in an accident. It's usually experience and good reactions whether you're able to recover from human error fast and safely enough to prevent an accident. Much like how cyclists have to learn to read the road and pedestrians have to learn how to safely cross busy roads, motorists should learn how to handle shitty situations. Please remember that sometimes those situations happen for reasons outside of the motorists control such as jaywalkers, animals in the road, other motorists making mistakes or even cyclists not following the rules of the road. This absolutely means motorists have a significant responsibility to drive safely but also means that it's not just a matter of luck whether someone forgetting to indicate results in fatality; that's simply not the reality of things.
I agree there is a possibility but it's not even common likelihood (for the reasons I described above). I also agree (as I've also said above) that drivers do have a significantly greater responsibility to drive safely and I'm absolutely in favour of penalising people who have caused accidents....however penalising everyone for every minor mishap doesn't help improve road safety. It effectively just becomes another road tax. If you want to penalise bad drivers then go after bad drivers; but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
I also don't agree it's exclusively a matter of luck whether human error results in an accident. It's usually experience and good reactions whether you're able to recover from human error fast and safely enough to prevent an accident. Much like how cyclists have to learn to read the road and pedestrians have to learn how to safely cross busy roads, motorists should learn how to handle shitty situations. Please remember that sometimes those situations happen for reasons outside of the motorists control such as jaywalkers, animals in the road, other motorists making mistakes or even cyclists not following the rules of the road. This absolutely means motorists have a significant responsibility to drive safely but also means that it's not just a matter of luck whether someone forgetting to indicate results in fatality; that's simply not the reality of things.
I agree there is a possibility but it's not even common likelihood (for the reasons I described above). I also agree (as I've also said above) that drivers do have a significantly greater responsibility to drive safely and I'm absolutely in favour of penalising people who have caused accidents....however penalising everyone for every minor mishap doesn't help improve road safety. It effectively just becomes another road tax. If you want to penalise bad drivers then go after bad drivers; but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
I have a motorcycle license, but when I see someone who thinks it would be fun to stand up on their seat while riding along in front of me, I would feel hostility towards anyone haranguing me that I'm responsible for keeping them safe. Of course I don't want them to crash right now and involve me; that would be inconvenient. But it would be nice if something prevented them from continuing to do what they're doing.
I don't have a principled argument why someone else shouldn't regard all riders the same way. It's arbitrary where you draw the line between risks that are reasonable to take because you feel like it and risks that aren't.
I don't have a principled argument why someone else shouldn't regard all riders the same way. It's arbitrary where you draw the line between risks that are reasonable to take because you feel like it and risks that aren't.
I don't think it's hard to see the flexibility. But I think it depends what kind of person you are. Do you think laws are social constructs or rules that must be followed? I for one am in the former camp. Laws were constructed to keep us safe as a society. I do like living in a safe society, but let's be real that laws and up being catch all's and can be abused.
As an example: Jay walking across an empty street. It's great in many places and times, but others it's a hindrance and just so we frequently break it. But when I was in high school I remember at the end of the month cops would cite kids crossing a not so busy street with a fair walk to the crosswalk. Who cares? Such a thing isn't important and doesn't make us safer. We don't even correct our behavior when caught doing those things because we don't even recognize them as wrong.
So yeah, I agree. We need to be flexible as a society. No one likes sticklers or narcs.
As an example: Jay walking across an empty street. It's great in many places and times, but others it's a hindrance and just so we frequently break it. But when I was in high school I remember at the end of the month cops would cite kids crossing a not so busy street with a fair walk to the crosswalk. Who cares? Such a thing isn't important and doesn't make us safer. We don't even correct our behavior when caught doing those things because we don't even recognize them as wrong.
So yeah, I agree. We need to be flexible as a society. No one likes sticklers or narcs.
>reporting people for the sake of reporting people is a little unsympathetic.
He's reporting people that almost hit him. They're driving a 2 ton piece of metal. You can instantly change someones life with their recklessness. They absolutely deserve a ticket at the very least.
There's a girl down the street from me that got plowed by a car in a crosswalk as she was going to school. She's 11. She's basically a vegetable at this point. I honestly don't know why her parents didn't take her off life support when they had the chance. She got hit by a 20 year old who was texting and driving. She sent ten texts in the minutes before hitting the girl. If she'd been reported by someone earlier for texting and driving and had her license suspended, she wouldn't have destroyed a family that day.
He's reporting people that almost hit him. They're driving a 2 ton piece of metal. You can instantly change someones life with their recklessness. They absolutely deserve a ticket at the very least.
There's a girl down the street from me that got plowed by a car in a crosswalk as she was going to school. She's 11. She's basically a vegetable at this point. I honestly don't know why her parents didn't take her off life support when they had the chance. She got hit by a 20 year old who was texting and driving. She sent ten texts in the minutes before hitting the girl. If she'd been reported by someone earlier for texting and driving and had her license suspended, she wouldn't have destroyed a family that day.
> I've lost count of the number of times I've misjudged a situation because kids were screaming in the back of the car,
If you can't concentrate due to screaming kids at the back of a car then you need to pull over until they stop. You have no right to endanger other people's lives just to get somewhere a bit faster.
If you can't concentrate due to screaming kids at the back of a car then you need to pull over until they stop. You have no right to endanger other people's lives just to get somewhere a bit faster.
As a hard rule no sane parent would drive if I don't feel safe to (and that includes their ability to concentrate) because they'd be risking their children's lives too. So we're not talking about people who are "endangering other people's lives just to get somewhere a bit faster".
The point about kids is just an illustration of a distraction you might not be able to control and which might be timed badly. It could also be a dog in the car which barks at the wrong moment or countless other things.
It's also a little optimistic to assume that it's as easy as "pulling over until they stop" in the cases where kids are generally being loud. There are as many examples of why that might not be practical as there are occasions when it's good advice. From experience I can tell you that no parent wants to drive while kids are screaming in the back and will readily pull over if that's likely to help. Sometimes though, it's not safe to do so or pulling over wouldn't make any difference to their behaviour (eg when they're hungry and there is no food in the car). But no decent person would ever want to put their family nor other pedestrians at risk so I can assure you it's really not the case of drivers endangering other people's lives out of a selfish desire just to get somewhere a bit faster.
The point about kids is just an illustration of a distraction you might not be able to control and which might be timed badly. It could also be a dog in the car which barks at the wrong moment or countless other things.
It's also a little optimistic to assume that it's as easy as "pulling over until they stop" in the cases where kids are generally being loud. There are as many examples of why that might not be practical as there are occasions when it's good advice. From experience I can tell you that no parent wants to drive while kids are screaming in the back and will readily pull over if that's likely to help. Sometimes though, it's not safe to do so or pulling over wouldn't make any difference to their behaviour (eg when they're hungry and there is no food in the car). But no decent person would ever want to put their family nor other pedestrians at risk so I can assure you it's really not the case of drivers endangering other people's lives out of a selfish desire just to get somewhere a bit faster.
From the point of view of the bicyclist, it can be a close shave with actually dying, even if they're physically unharmed.
I've been a cyclist for around 30 years and have been a victim of plenty of accidents in that time. So I don't make my comments without regard for cyclists.
However my cycling experience is limited to UK roads. It might be the case that roads in the US are, in general, more dangerous for cyclists -- I'm not suggesting that is true but I'd be interested to know if that was the case.
However my cycling experience is limited to UK roads. It might be the case that roads in the US are, in general, more dangerous for cyclists -- I'm not suggesting that is true but I'd be interested to know if that was the case.
FWIW, there is a very wide variation in both the bicycle-worthiness of roads, and the bicycle-friendliness of drivers in the US. It really isn't possible to generalize any individual's experience to the whole country.
[deleted]
If it's really a special case that sounds like something to tell the traffic judge to me.
Couldn't agree more as a former bicyclist and now often a pedestrian. It's amazing the number of times I've almost been hit in my short 1 mile walk to the local coffee shop. Apparently getting to work 2 seconds faster is more important than a pedestrian's life in many people's minds.
> and I pick up probably 5-10 instances per week of things like cars turning right on red without fully stopping, going through stop signs without fully stopping, not fully yielding to pedestrians in crosswalks, changing lanes in roundabouts/intersections, etc etc.
You must be kidding, I live in a major city and see around 10 of these every single day. Peak hour seems to be a lot worse.
You must be kidding, I live in a major city and see around 10 of these every single day. Peak hour seems to be a lot worse.
> if there was a portal somewhere where I could just upload my timestamped helmet cam and porch cam videos as part of a dragnet operation to identify and catch repeat violators of the rules of the road, I'd be awfully tempted to participate, despite ideological misgivings about pervasive surveillance.
What do you mean, despite ideological misgivings about pervasive surveillance?
You're literally saying you would upload your private videos as part of a dragnet operation, so it doesn't really sound like you have any ideological misgivings about pervasive surveillance.
What do you mean, despite ideological misgivings about pervasive surveillance?
You're literally saying you would upload your private videos as part of a dragnet operation, so it doesn't really sound like you have any ideological misgivings about pervasive surveillance.
As it is, it's a huge amount of effort to slice out these clips, upload them somewhere, figure out the plates involved, and then go through my police department's clunky incident reporting system.
Hm. What's your stance on mandatory visible license plates for all bicycles on the street so people with dash cams can clip video and report bicyclists who improperly use lanes or who blow through stop or yield signs? Or who cycle without helmets in places where they're required?
Hm. What's your stance on mandatory visible license plates for all bicycles on the street so people with dash cams can clip video and report bicyclists who improperly use lanes or who blow through stop or yield signs? Or who cycle without helmets in places where they're required?
Opposed, but not on principle. It's been studied and tried in many places [1] and just doesn't make any sense pragmatically. It doesn't make people safer and erects yet another barrier to cycling at a time when we need to be making it _more_ attractive and accessible.
And the people who propose such schemes are usually not doing so in good faith. It's not because they actually want to make cyclists safer, they're typically just making a "gotcha" argument that attempts to equate irresponsible cycling and irresponsible driving in terms of the danger that each poses.
[1]: https://www.toronto.ca/services-payments/streets-parking-tra...
And the people who propose such schemes are usually not doing so in good faith. It's not because they actually want to make cyclists safer, they're typically just making a "gotcha" argument that attempts to equate irresponsible cycling and irresponsible driving in terms of the danger that each poses.
[1]: https://www.toronto.ca/services-payments/streets-parking-tra...
Right, and cyclists don’t want vehicle drivers cited in good faith. If so, there would be no reason to even argue against an automated citation system for bikers causing danger for pedestrians.
Honestly, if we had an automatic citation system in place for automobiles, I would probably support some kind of identification system be put in place to make it work for bikes as well. Perhaps there would be a way to make it voluntary and create an incentive which encouraged people to opt in, rather than making it a mandatory requirement? Maybe a modest tax credit if you ride your (tagged) bike more than X days per year? This way children and occasional users would still have an on-ramp to cycling that didn't have to start with a trip to the DMV.
In any case, this isn't the world we live in, so it's all hypothetical at this point. In the short-to-medium term, the overwhelming danger on the road is from motorists.
In any case, this isn't the world we live in, so it's all hypothetical at this point. In the short-to-medium term, the overwhelming danger on the road is from motorists.
I ride and I think that's not a terrible idea.
I hate seeing all those idiotic cyclists doing dumb stuff giving cyclists a bad name and giving drivers an excuse to be even more aggro and aggressive.
I hate seeing all those idiotic cyclists doing dumb stuff giving cyclists a bad name and giving drivers an excuse to be even more aggro and aggressive.
> in one case an indication that they would be unable to charge the person unless I also had a face shot of who it was in the driver's seat.
Because it's the truth. A driver receives a citation, not a vehicle. And a vehicle owner is under no legal obligation to say who was driving a given car at a given time. So based on those two facts alone, I don't see how you think the police can just drop citations in the mail based on a screenshot or a video clip.
Because it's the truth. A driver receives a citation, not a vehicle. And a vehicle owner is under no legal obligation to say who was driving a given car at a given time. So based on those two facts alone, I don't see how you think the police can just drop citations in the mail based on a screenshot or a video clip.
Fair, but in the case of crimes that the police take more seriously, a license plate is important evidence. If there's a hit and run and a bystander remembers "silver sedan" and half the plate number, you'd better believe they'll be looking it up and paying the owner a visit.
Is an in-depth investigation like that realistic over a citizen submitted video of a minor traffic violation? No, of course not.
But the other side of this is that if you had more automation in place and could see the data in aggregate, you could get a much better picture of where the problem spots are (for active enforcement or infrastructure improvements) and also potentially identify problem vehicles making the same errors day after day in the same spot (and then either go after them or put them on some kind of watch-out-for list).
Is an in-depth investigation like that realistic over a citizen submitted video of a minor traffic violation? No, of course not.
But the other side of this is that if you had more automation in place and could see the data in aggregate, you could get a much better picture of where the problem spots are (for active enforcement or infrastructure improvements) and also potentially identify problem vehicles making the same errors day after day in the same spot (and then either go after them or put them on some kind of watch-out-for list).
Red light and speeding cameras are used in a lot of places. I think the idea is that the regulations are modified to allow this specific type of citation to the vehicle owner, or that they 'force' the owner to prove they weren't driving to avoid the ticket.
They're pretty controversial, but it's nothing new.
I suspect that the bigger issue might be that this type of footage supplied by citizens might not be considered verifiable (it's pretty easy to doctor videos/images these days). Video and images coming from devices that the police/government have vetted would be considered more likely to be authentic. Of course we know a bad actor (or a vendor working on commission!!) could still probably tamper with these...
They're pretty controversial, but it's nothing new.
I suspect that the bigger issue might be that this type of footage supplied by citizens might not be considered verifiable (it's pretty easy to doctor videos/images these days). Video and images coming from devices that the police/government have vetted would be considered more likely to be authentic. Of course we know a bad actor (or a vendor working on commission!!) could still probably tamper with these...
[deleted]
> Red light and speeding cameras are used in a lot of places. I think the idea is that the regulations are modified to allow this specific type of citation to the vehicle owner, or that they 'force' the owner to prove they weren't driving to avoid the ticket.
My neighbor('s wife) got one of those red light tickets and they mailed the picture to him (as registered owner) asking him to identify the driver so they could send them a ticket. I told him to just ignore it since it obviously wasn't him in the picture and he wasn't required to do the police work to track down the driver for them.
On a side note...I was talking to a buddy about this and we were theorizing that they couldn't even compel him to give the name of the driver due to spousal privilege, dunno?
My neighbor('s wife) got one of those red light tickets and they mailed the picture to him (as registered owner) asking him to identify the driver so they could send them a ticket. I told him to just ignore it since it obviously wasn't him in the picture and he wasn't required to do the police work to track down the driver for them.
On a side note...I was talking to a buddy about this and we were theorizing that they couldn't even compel him to give the name of the driver due to spousal privilege, dunno?
Spousal privilege covers them mailing a picture and saying "is this your wife?" It doesn't cover "who is this?"
In general though, "don't talk to them" is broadly the best (and really, the only good) advice when dealing with the police.
In general though, "don't talk to them" is broadly the best (and really, the only good) advice when dealing with the police.
> Red light and speeding cameras are used in a lot of places. I think the idea is that the regulations are modified to allow this specific type of citation to the vehicle owner, or that they 'force' the owner to prove they weren't driving to avoid the ticket.
Ah the old, "Guilty till you prove you're innocent by ratting out someone else".
Ah the old, "Guilty till you prove you're innocent by ratting out someone else".
This is not how the law works in a number of states.
Red light cameras are typically angled to get a picture of the driver as well as the license plate.
But speed cameras and red light cameras exist and write legally binding citations...?
In Germany speed cameras
capture the face of the driver too, because it is a requirement to issue a citation.
After a few days you get a letter in the mail with the photo they took of you and information about the fine to be paid.
After a few days you get a letter in the mail with the photo they took of you and information about the fine to be paid.
Just sue the car, and take it.
What a stupid law. Some states are ridiculous.
Can you explain why you think it's ridiculous that a person should have to receive a citation and not an inanimate object?
Remember that our entire legal system was founded on the belief that you are innocent until proven guilty. Not "we think it was probably you" or "statistically it was probably you," but proven. So if my vehicle went through a red light that doesn't qualify as proof that I ran a red light. It qualifies as proof that something a computer thinks was probably my car was in an intersection at a particular moment in time. The state still has to prove I did it to ticket me (in reasonable states, anyway).
Remember that our entire legal system was founded on the belief that you are innocent until proven guilty. Not "we think it was probably you" or "statistically it was probably you," but proven. So if my vehicle went through a red light that doesn't qualify as proof that I ran a red light. It qualifies as proof that something a computer thinks was probably my car was in an intersection at a particular moment in time. The state still has to prove I did it to ticket me (in reasonable states, anyway).
I'd support this if my in-car dashcam can do the same for cyclists such as yourself. Driving in Portland I see at least that many moving violations by cyclists on a regular basis as well.
And that's the problem with proposals like these - everyone is in favor of them until they realize that they might be on the receiving end as well. If you support a position like this, make sure you support it for everyone, not just the people you don't like.
And that's the problem with proposals like these - everyone is in favor of them until they realize that they might be on the receiving end as well. If you support a position like this, make sure you support it for everyone, not just the people you don't like.
Any time someone brings out the “bicyclists break laws, too” argument I’m surprised to hear what people think the laws actually are. I’ve heard people complain about bicyclists taking the full lane, using the turn lane to turn left instead of crossing at a crosswalk, moving to the front of the line at stoplights, etc as broken laws. Turns out, they’re not. Just because something might slightly inconvenience you as a faster driver doesn’t make it illegal.
For all the other things, like rolling through stop signs, i think we should be changing the laws to allow bicyclists to yield instead of stop rather than using them as a gotcha.
For all the other things, like rolling through stop signs, i think we should be changing the laws to allow bicyclists to yield instead of stop rather than using them as a gotcha.
In any random week I see the following at a minimum: failure to stop at stop signs, running red lights completely, riding on the sidewalk, riding against traffic, failure to yield to pedestrians, failure to signal a turn, failure to use lights and/or reflectors after dark, illegal parking, speeding (yes, really - speed limits here are often 20 and cyclists with electric motors are often going 25+).
Bicyclists should not get special rules. If you're on wheels, you obey the laws for vehicles. I say this as someone who cycles frequently - the cyclist "special privilege" mindset needs to stop.
Bicyclists should not get special rules. If you're on wheels, you obey the laws for vehicles. I say this as someone who cycles frequently - the cyclist "special privilege" mindset needs to stop.
You have a point on many things, but I wouldn't agree with same rules for all. I think a lot of privilege mentality comes from cities and rules made for cars which don't transfer well to bicycles. Same maneuvers on bicycles vs. cars and bigger vehicles can be a world of difference in terms of safety.
On a bicycle, I can see and hear much better, ride slower and generally stop faster. I can change directions and swerve to avoid obstacles (faster than braking), scoot to the side and generally require much less space. I can jump off a bicycle and move it away (vs. cars getting in gridlock, blocking ambulances..).
Even if I get into a traffic accident, the consequences the consequences to others are likely to be much smaller (though fatalities do remain as an unlikely possibility).
On a bicycle, I can see and hear much better, ride slower and generally stop faster. I can change directions and swerve to avoid obstacles (faster than braking), scoot to the side and generally require much less space. I can jump off a bicycle and move it away (vs. cars getting in gridlock, blocking ambulances..).
Even if I get into a traffic accident, the consequences the consequences to others are likely to be much smaller (though fatalities do remain as an unlikely possibility).
I think we should allow cars to roll through stop signs.
I think it’s comical because here’s the laws broken by cyclists every day- running stop signs, right turn on red without stopping, turning without signalling, running red lights, using phone, using headphones.
I typically don’t care because bikes aren’t very dangerous to cars. But I think it’s comical that a cyclist thinks they citizen reported traffic citations is a meaningful use of anyone’s time.
Some people think that being a hall monitor might be fun. I suspect it’s not fun at all, because the value created is negative. The time to capture, prepare and enforce is a net loss to society.
I think it’s comical because here’s the laws broken by cyclists every day- running stop signs, right turn on red without stopping, turning without signalling, running red lights, using phone, using headphones.
I typically don’t care because bikes aren’t very dangerous to cars. But I think it’s comical that a cyclist thinks they citizen reported traffic citations is a meaningful use of anyone’s time.
Some people think that being a hall monitor might be fun. I suspect it’s not fun at all, because the value created is negative. The time to capture, prepare and enforce is a net loss to society.
Using a phone or headphones while riding a bike is idiotic, but for these:
> running stop signs, right turn on red without stopping, turning without signalling, running red lights
It's important to understand a few things:
a) A person on a bike is 1000x more vulnerable than a person in a car, and will definitely lose (physically, legally) if they misjudge the situation and end up getting struck.
b) A person on a bike has way better situational awareness than a person in a car— they have a higher vantage point, and a very wide field of view. They're extremely well equipped to judge distances and speeds and to catch things in their peripheral vision.
c) A person on a bike often faces obstacles you wouldn't be familiar with as a driver. For example, a red light that can only be changed by triggering the in-pavement car sensor or riding up on the sidewalk to push the beg button.
I have such a light on my commute, and I feel that it's safe for me to look both ways and proceed when it's clear (treating the red light as a stop sign). You may disagree on this choice and call me a scofflaw cyclist, but at the end of the day I'm still basically just endangering myself. When drivers whip around a RTOR with their head hanging out the window looking at the traffic they're trying to merge with, they're endangering anyone who might step out to cross the road.
All that said, if my local PD committed to broad and consistent enforcement of minor traffic violations, I would absolutely get on board and either commit to riding/walking up on the sidewalk to use the beg button or choosing a route that avoids that intersection. But as it is, they don't have any interest in enforcing any of it, so I think it's reasonable and non-hypocritical for me to make a choice that slightly improves my commute and endangers only me to a degree that I am comfortable with.
> running stop signs, right turn on red without stopping, turning without signalling, running red lights
It's important to understand a few things:
a) A person on a bike is 1000x more vulnerable than a person in a car, and will definitely lose (physically, legally) if they misjudge the situation and end up getting struck.
b) A person on a bike has way better situational awareness than a person in a car— they have a higher vantage point, and a very wide field of view. They're extremely well equipped to judge distances and speeds and to catch things in their peripheral vision.
c) A person on a bike often faces obstacles you wouldn't be familiar with as a driver. For example, a red light that can only be changed by triggering the in-pavement car sensor or riding up on the sidewalk to push the beg button.
I have such a light on my commute, and I feel that it's safe for me to look both ways and proceed when it's clear (treating the red light as a stop sign). You may disagree on this choice and call me a scofflaw cyclist, but at the end of the day I'm still basically just endangering myself. When drivers whip around a RTOR with their head hanging out the window looking at the traffic they're trying to merge with, they're endangering anyone who might step out to cross the road.
All that said, if my local PD committed to broad and consistent enforcement of minor traffic violations, I would absolutely get on board and either commit to riding/walking up on the sidewalk to use the beg button or choosing a route that avoids that intersection. But as it is, they don't have any interest in enforcing any of it, so I think it's reasonable and non-hypocritical for me to make a choice that slightly improves my commute and endangers only me to a degree that I am comfortable with.
I actually am not bothered by your transgressions. But I’m not bothered by a car rolling through a stop sign either. It was more of a “pot calling kettle black scenario” that I thought was curious because a cyclist was trying to enforce a petty offense while also committing petty offenses.
It’s hard for me to understand the situation of all other drivers. So I’m not going out of my way to judge them when I have incomplete information. If a driver is doing something reckless or dangerous I will try to prevent it by alerting authorities.
I’m more in favor of eliminating minor traffic offenses and having police work on important issues. Or even free a community up to not have as many police and perhaps have more teachers or other civil servants.
It’s hard for me to understand the situation of all other drivers. So I’m not going out of my way to judge them when I have incomplete information. If a driver is doing something reckless or dangerous I will try to prevent it by alerting authorities.
I’m more in favor of eliminating minor traffic offenses and having police work on important issues. Or even free a community up to not have as many police and perhaps have more teachers or other civil servants.
One of the US's problems with (bicycle) road safety, is the hostile attitude between cars and cyclists. You're really not helping that by wearing a helmetcam and reporting minor traffic infractions.
Cars are generally respectful towards bikes in the Netherlands, but if some dude were to try this, don't expect too much sympathy ... from anyone, including the police apparently.
Cars are generally respectful towards bikes in the Netherlands, but if some dude were to try this, don't expect too much sympathy ... from anyone, including the police apparently.
A dashcam/helmet-cam upload website that lets people tag videos by license plate number and state has been something I've been wanting to do for a long time. Can't believe it's not a thing already.
You can change lanes in a roundabout on dotted whites...
How do I report all the dangerous cyclists I see on my commute every day? If someone filmed you, would you be innocent? Draw then line when harm is done, or you are the person doing actual harm. Shame on you.
> As it is, it's a huge amount of effort to slice out these clips, upload them somewhere, figure out the plates involved, and then go through my police department's clunky incident reporting system. On the handful of times I've bothered to do it (like when I was almost creamed by someone running a red light), the response has been either nothing or "thanks but we just don't have time for that", or in one case an indication that they would be unable to charge the person unless I also had a face shot of the driver."
They're probably just sick of the cyclist who fancies himself an amateur traffic cop and want you to go away.
They're probably just sick of the cyclist who fancies himself an amateur traffic cop and want you to go away.
I don't really fancy myself anything other than a guy trying to get to work and back without dying. I'd like to be able to make that trip on a bicycle, for various reasons.
I had noted previously that these incidents were happening and that in many cases they made me feel unsafe. Various police contacts had told me that they didn't have time to be doing proactive enforcement. Submitting some reports was basically just checking to see which exact parts of the process they didn't feel they had time for— turns out it was basically all of it, unfortunately. But it was worth finding that out, I think, for the purposes of shaping other interactions with the PD, politicians, and local media.
In any case, the higher level of government takes these kinds of violations very seriously— not yielding to a pedestrian crosswalk is 4 demerits and a fine of up to $1000, so it really is up to my local PD to pick their priorities, and for whatever reason they choose not to enforce it.
I had noted previously that these incidents were happening and that in many cases they made me feel unsafe. Various police contacts had told me that they didn't have time to be doing proactive enforcement. Submitting some reports was basically just checking to see which exact parts of the process they didn't feel they had time for— turns out it was basically all of it, unfortunately. But it was worth finding that out, I think, for the purposes of shaping other interactions with the PD, politicians, and local media.
In any case, the higher level of government takes these kinds of violations very seriously— not yielding to a pedestrian crosswalk is 4 demerits and a fine of up to $1000, so it really is up to my local PD to pick their priorities, and for whatever reason they choose not to enforce it.
Someone who reports a driver who nearly ran them over to police, with video evidence, is “an amateur traffic cop?”
What’s your standard for reporting a crime or attempted crime?
What’s your standard for reporting a crime or attempted crime?
So... you're saying they're probably bad at their jobs? Got it.
Well, yes? That shouldn't be surprising, it's not an unusual phenomena, but it seems I've offended somebody enough to have them downvote every comment I've made in the past day (which is hilarious.)
When you do something that somebody else should be doing but isn't, it's common for that somebody else to response in a less than gracious way. It's not limited to police, but it's particularly common with police.
When you do something that somebody else should be doing but isn't, it's common for that somebody else to response in a less than gracious way. It's not limited to police, but it's particularly common with police.
There is an argument that is sometimes made in this debate, and it concerns the gradual nature of the change to our privacy rights (or just privacy). It is an old argument. It took a number of years for me to convince myself that it was right. But it is a correct argument.
In a round about way, the argument ends up concluding that we are, in fact, on some version of a slippery slope. We can see that slope quite clearly in what you write:
"So many petty crimes (e.g. home burglaries, car breakins, etc) go unsolved because the police just don't have the tools and resources to go after all those crimes."
Even just ten years ago, a number of the ideas being batted around now about privacy would have seemed alien. I understand that attitudes can change, but do we have the right attitudes now? Are they good attitudes? The attitude that sees nothing wrong with seriously contemplating whether it's a net good to have the police sitting in a tiny camera outside your front door? Go back a couple decades and we would have been appalled at the notion.
Sometimes I surprise myself with how much ground I've given up already (even if just on a personal level).
In a round about way, the argument ends up concluding that we are, in fact, on some version of a slippery slope. We can see that slope quite clearly in what you write:
"So many petty crimes (e.g. home burglaries, car breakins, etc) go unsolved because the police just don't have the tools and resources to go after all those crimes."
Even just ten years ago, a number of the ideas being batted around now about privacy would have seemed alien. I understand that attitudes can change, but do we have the right attitudes now? Are they good attitudes? The attitude that sees nothing wrong with seriously contemplating whether it's a net good to have the police sitting in a tiny camera outside your front door? Go back a couple decades and we would have been appalled at the notion.
Sometimes I surprise myself with how much ground I've given up already (even if just on a personal level).
I think it's a particularly American idea to want to cripple the police. They don't trust their government or their police, and perhaps rightly so, I don't know. Where I'm from, I would be happy if the police could use cameras everywhere to catch all the horrible petty crimes. People get their lifetime collections of things trashed and stolen during burglaries. It's quite upsetting for the victims. The police usually can't do anything because there's no-body to talk to. If their computer could tell them who somebody is by their face, then we'd all be safer and happier. There are also actual murders that go unsolved because there's again no-one to talk to.
If the police themselves are corrupt and abuse their power, that's a problem, but it's a separate problem that not every country faces. If I was an American, I'd want to have proper accountability for the police first. They should be held to a higher standard than ordinary people, not a lower standard, like it seems they are.
If the police themselves are corrupt and abuse their power, that's a problem, but it's a separate problem that not every country faces. If I was an American, I'd want to have proper accountability for the police first. They should be held to a higher standard than ordinary people, not a lower standard, like it seems they are.
I don't think it's uniquely American at all. It's weird to me that some places don't feel this way. Remember that every state-caused atrocity is aided by the police in some way. Even if you're okay with the police right now, you might not be in 30 years.
Also, I think the chance of the police (as a group) not being corrupt is about the same as politicians (as a group) not being corrupt - essentially zero. The incentives just aren't there for there to be no corruption in law enforcement. And even if there's no corruption in law enforcement and your government is great, you still have to remember that police officers generally aren't the cream of the crop of society. They make mistakes and there usually isn't much recourse.
Also, I think the chance of the police (as a group) not being corrupt is about the same as politicians (as a group) not being corrupt - essentially zero. The incentives just aren't there for there to be no corruption in law enforcement. And even if there's no corruption in law enforcement and your government is great, you still have to remember that police officers generally aren't the cream of the crop of society. They make mistakes and there usually isn't much recourse.
I think anyone here is almost certainly going to be more pro-police in 30 years, assuming they are at least 10 years old. It's just the natural course of things, although of course who knows what society will be like by then. But going by all of past history...
Would you be interested in a marketplace where video you record could be made available (indexed by time and location) for purchase by interested parties?
The goal here is to make video surveillance data equally accessible to police as to the general public for e.g. court defense, police brutality proof, insurance claims etc.
The goal here is to make video surveillance data equally accessible to police as to the general public for e.g. court defense, police brutality proof, insurance claims etc.
I'm happy to share footage from my cameras with neighbors who need it for anything like the reasons you've listed. I don't see why a for-profit marketplace would be needed for any of that?
1) to encourage mass surveillance of citizens by citizens
2) to allow people with money and power easier access to discredit their rivals
3) in order for a founder and a small team to be millionaires from profiting on the above
Yes, with the additional goal of raising awareness + accelerating social backlash against surveillance
> So your Ring app pops up and says "Hey, your local police department is looking for a suspect and your camera spotted them. Would you like to share the footage?"
This is enough information for the police to get a warrant or subpoena for your footage. Ring's business model involves integration with law enforcement, and as long as you keep them in the loop, that means the existence of your video evidence will be passed on to police. With that knowledge, law enforcement doesn't need your permission to get access to your videos, they just need to get a warrant or subpoena for them.
This is enough information for the police to get a warrant or subpoena for your footage. Ring's business model involves integration with law enforcement, and as long as you keep them in the loop, that means the existence of your video evidence will be passed on to police. With that knowledge, law enforcement doesn't need your permission to get access to your videos, they just need to get a warrant or subpoena for them.
I understand your position, but have a few issues with it.
1) Why do you need a camera facing outside from your door to deter or help solve burglaries? Burglars generally steal things inside houses (assuming we're not talking about porch pirates, which is a separate issue). A ring-style camera pointed at your neighbors constantly isn't needed - put a camera inside your home if you're concerned about burglars.
2) If you start using ring-style cameras en masse to solve crimes, the criminals are just going to adapt to the expectation that there's a front door camera and commit crimes in ways that circumvent that single point (ex. go in the back door or side window, wear a mask, use a fake license plate, etc. I don't really see this solving any underlying problems - it's more of a temporary solution that escalates the surveillance state model to another level via an arms race.
1) Why do you need a camera facing outside from your door to deter or help solve burglaries? Burglars generally steal things inside houses (assuming we're not talking about porch pirates, which is a separate issue). A ring-style camera pointed at your neighbors constantly isn't needed - put a camera inside your home if you're concerned about burglars.
2) If you start using ring-style cameras en masse to solve crimes, the criminals are just going to adapt to the expectation that there's a front door camera and commit crimes in ways that circumvent that single point (ex. go in the back door or side window, wear a mask, use a fake license plate, etc. I don't really see this solving any underlying problems - it's more of a temporary solution that escalates the surveillance state model to another level via an arms race.
I'm not in favor or against it, but I think you misunderstood the point of the post you replied to.
> Why do you need a camera facing outside from your door to deter or help solve burglaries? Burglars generally steal things inside houses
If the police tells you they're looking for a suspect and that if you could help by supplying some of your footage of the outside, I think it's probably not burglars trying to steal from you. They could be any kind of suspect that the police at least have good reason to believe passed through the front of your home. Maybe they committed a crime at a neighbor's home. Maybe they're driving from far away, and the police heard that they might have passed through your street.
> If you start using ring-style cameras en masse to solve crimes, the criminals are just going to adapt to the expectation that there's a front door camera and commit crimes in ways that circumvent that single point
They'd also need to circumvent the points of maybe a few other homes nearby that cover the whole of the house the criminal is trying to get into.
> Why do you need a camera facing outside from your door to deter or help solve burglaries? Burglars generally steal things inside houses
If the police tells you they're looking for a suspect and that if you could help by supplying some of your footage of the outside, I think it's probably not burglars trying to steal from you. They could be any kind of suspect that the police at least have good reason to believe passed through the front of your home. Maybe they committed a crime at a neighbor's home. Maybe they're driving from far away, and the police heard that they might have passed through your street.
> If you start using ring-style cameras en masse to solve crimes, the criminals are just going to adapt to the expectation that there's a front door camera and commit crimes in ways that circumvent that single point
They'd also need to circumvent the points of maybe a few other homes nearby that cover the whole of the house the criminal is trying to get into.
Thanks for the response. I think I wasn't clear. The problem here is that if you support this kind of thing for hypothetical "catch the bad guy" situations that don't happen inside your own home where an indoor camera might make sense, we might as well just put a camera on every street corner running 24/7 and be done with it. If you're willing to cede your neighbors' privacy in the name of safety, well, there's a quote for that about liberty.
It's important to note that in an actual courtroom or investigation setting, having blurry footage of a person across the street really isn't very helpful unless you're going full-on dragnet and intend to track their every movement over a period of hours. Foiling any investigation involving rings is pretty trivial otherwise - wear a mask and nondescript clothing and the video footage is pretty much useless.
It's important to note that in an actual courtroom or investigation setting, having blurry footage of a person across the street really isn't very helpful unless you're going full-on dragnet and intend to track their every movement over a period of hours. Foiling any investigation involving rings is pretty trivial otherwise - wear a mask and nondescript clothing and the video footage is pretty much useless.
> So your Ring app pops up and says "Hey, your local police department is looking for a suspect and your camera spotted them. Would you like to share the footage?".
Yes it would be absolutely super if apps asked permission before sending your private data to a third party.
But we all know that because presumably there exist sufficient software engineers that do not consider the ramifications of their work (like AT ALL), this just isn't the way commercial software is going currently.
Yes it would be absolutely super if apps asked permission before sending your private data to a third party.
But we all know that because presumably there exist sufficient software engineers that do not consider the ramifications of their work (like AT ALL), this just isn't the way commercial software is going currently.
you seem to draw a clear line between what you think is acceptable and what is not (mass, open, profit-driven surveillance = bad; local, secure, personal camera = ok), so i'm not sure why you're torn?
in any case, that seems to be a good delineation. one further issue to consider is the capture of spaces/property other than your own. cameras should be pointed at your property only, and not used to generally surveil public spaces (legal but icky) or other private property (legally murky).
in any case, that seems to be a good delineation. one further issue to consider is the capture of spaces/property other than your own. cameras should be pointed at your property only, and not used to generally surveil public spaces (legal but icky) or other private property (legally murky).
The founder of Ring was on an episode of the Vergecast where he describes this exact system. I'm not sure how far they are with this but it was clear that his goal is a system like that.
I'm pretty sure this is it: https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/9/17953050/ring-ceo-jamie-s...
I'm pretty sure this is it: https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/9/17953050/ring-ceo-jamie-s...
Consider that nobody breaks into your home/vehicles because it's fun. They do it out of desperation. I'm not alleging any ignorance on your part, it's just not the sort of thing we think about often.
The penalties for these crimes are already extremely severe.
So I fall on the side of, I'd rather change the system proximally to help those who resort to this sort of petty crime for cash so they don't need it, rather than making it easier for cops to put these people back into a system which enslaves and disenfranchises them for generations (leading to more crime), and in so doing gives them an excuse to monitor literally anyone else in your neighborhood without a warrant for any reason.
The penalties for these crimes are already extremely severe.
So I fall on the side of, I'd rather change the system proximally to help those who resort to this sort of petty crime for cash so they don't need it, rather than making it easier for cops to put these people back into a system which enslaves and disenfranchises them for generations (leading to more crime), and in so doing gives them an excuse to monitor literally anyone else in your neighborhood without a warrant for any reason.
The fact that some people commit crimes out of desperation isn’t a very good argument for removing disincentives to commit crimes. You don’t lock your door at night because you think someone might break in for fun and you want to deprive them of that fun. You lock your door to protect your family and your belongings.
The question of moral culpability might be relevant when discussing legal punishments, rehabilitation, social welfare, etc. but it really isn’t relevant to what basic measures one can take to protect their home. To use an extreme example, someone could be forced under duress to break into your home. They clearly wouldn’t be morally culpable, but that simply isn’t relevant. You still lock your doors.
The question of moral culpability might be relevant when discussing legal punishments, rehabilitation, social welfare, etc. but it really isn’t relevant to what basic measures one can take to protect their home. To use an extreme example, someone could be forced under duress to break into your home. They clearly wouldn’t be morally culpable, but that simply isn’t relevant. You still lock your doors.
Actual evidence consistently shows that mild penalties with a high probability of enforcement are most effective at maximizing compliance. If you're going to turn up the dial on the enforcement probability, you absolutely should turn down the dial on the punishment, else you encourage a situation with perverse incentives and an undue burden on society greater than the one you are trying to solve.
>Actual evidence consistently shows that mild penalties with a high probability of enforcement are most effective at maximizing compliance.
I find it hard to believe that mild penalties are more effective deterent than high penalties and high enforcement.
That said, the punishment should still fit the crime
I find it hard to believe that mild penalties are more effective deterent than high penalties and high enforcement.
That said, the punishment should still fit the crime
Maybe because high penalties + high enforcement == rebellion?
A traffic-related anecdote: the geograplically-isolated suburb I live in had a metric fuckton of speed traps about twenty years ago - like, an absurd quantity. You had cops staking out basically everywhere and giving massive tickets for the slightest infractions. Did this actually make people stop speeding? No way. It got enough people pissed enough that the entire municipal government was voted out on a program of ending the absurd overenforcement of traffic laws.
Now, it also didn't help that there was a widespread perception that the city government was using this to line its coffers, but I think the major takeaway is that citizens will only put up with so much if infractions that nobody really sees as serious are consistently, harshly punished. Eventually, you're going to get a backlash.
Of course, this calculus would probably be different if what was being punished wasn't crimes largely committed by a politically active upper middle class, but I think the example is instructive for many cases.
I guess prohibition also kinda falls into this category, so I should refine my original statement to "in cases of high enforcement/high penalties where most people don't see the big deal, those regimes will not last long via an accelerative mechanism."
A traffic-related anecdote: the geograplically-isolated suburb I live in had a metric fuckton of speed traps about twenty years ago - like, an absurd quantity. You had cops staking out basically everywhere and giving massive tickets for the slightest infractions. Did this actually make people stop speeding? No way. It got enough people pissed enough that the entire municipal government was voted out on a program of ending the absurd overenforcement of traffic laws.
Now, it also didn't help that there was a widespread perception that the city government was using this to line its coffers, but I think the major takeaway is that citizens will only put up with so much if infractions that nobody really sees as serious are consistently, harshly punished. Eventually, you're going to get a backlash.
Of course, this calculus would probably be different if what was being punished wasn't crimes largely committed by a politically active upper middle class, but I think the example is instructive for many cases.
I guess prohibition also kinda falls into this category, so I should refine my original statement to "in cases of high enforcement/high penalties where most people don't see the big deal, those regimes will not last long via an accelerative mechanism."
I get what you are saying about tipping points, but in your example, but i would fault a bad law, not the enforcement. If the speed limits are universally hated, the community should raise them. Instead they chose to ignore and arbitrarily enforce them, most likely against minorities and the poor. Why keep undesireable laws on the book? The public should want the law enforced.
High penalties can incentivize to commit further crimes, at least. An extreme example might be capital punishment for robbery, which I'd expect (but haven't seen statistics, or don't remember) would increase the rate of murder committed during robberies.
Yes! A good example is three-strikes laws, where a misdemeanor can get you a life sentence, so some criminals are highly incentivized to aggressively fight an additional arrest, with very little marginal incentive not to commit murder to do so.
From a 2015 study[1]: "Three-strikes laws were associated with a 33% increase in the risk of fatal assaults on LEOs."
[1]https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/22/4/274
From a 2015 study[1]: "Three-strikes laws were associated with a 33% increase in the risk of fatal assaults on LEOs."
[1]https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/22/4/274
Sure, I'm not telling anyone not to lock their car doors. You don't have to make it as easy as possible for someone to steal your belongings in order to understand that some measures will do more harm than good. There are solutions which aren't part of either extreme.
A friend of mine had his car broken into something like 4 or 5 times in 6 months in an underground gated parking area at his apartment. Each time they would break the side window to get inside the car. They would do this with half a dozen cars at a time.
It wasn't a particularly bad part of town, but the entrance to the parking area wasn't in a high traffic area and there was some green space nearby making it pretty easy for people to sneak into the parking area.
He eventually just stopped leaving anything at all in his car, rolling down the windows, and leaving it unlocked. As soon as he did that, the thieves would simply move onto the next vehicle without damaging his. Once most people started leaving their windows rolled down, the thieves stopped visiting to move onto more rewarding victims...
So sometimes the solution is to not lock your car doors. :(
It wasn't a particularly bad part of town, but the entrance to the parking area wasn't in a high traffic area and there was some green space nearby making it pretty easy for people to sneak into the parking area.
He eventually just stopped leaving anything at all in his car, rolling down the windows, and leaving it unlocked. As soon as he did that, the thieves would simply move onto the next vehicle without damaging his. Once most people started leaving their windows rolled down, the thieves stopped visiting to move onto more rewarding victims...
So sometimes the solution is to not lock your car doors. :(
While I agree with your points, I'd also point you to the bait Amazon package experiment by Mark Rober (find it on YT) that pretty much caught people that by any objective standards were just a-holes who did it just because it was an easy crime to get away with, and got some sort of thrill out of it.
But yeah, I'm totally for addressing the underlying societal causes of crime (the reasons otherwise decent people are driven by desperation to commit them), rather than just addressing the "symptoms"... enforcement and punishment is reactive and IMO does little to actually deter further/future crime.
But yeah, I'm totally for addressing the underlying societal causes of crime (the reasons otherwise decent people are driven by desperation to commit them), rather than just addressing the "symptoms"... enforcement and punishment is reactive and IMO does little to actually deter further/future crime.
The people caught on video stealing the glitter bomb were in on the "experiment" - what was shown in the video was mostly or entirely staged. (find the apology from Mark Rober on YT :)
Huh... hadn't hear of that... from what I understand after a quick search: 2 of the reactions/shots were not genuine thefts, but this was not exactly intentionally faked by Mark Rober, but by the people who he enlisted to help bait the porch pirates. Mark offered a reward if the people he enlisted as porch baiters were able to return the stolen boxes, and they took it upon themselves to make sure the "thieves" would "return" the packages somehow.
That's not my memory of the situation, and a quick Google confirms: only a few of the thefts were fake, and Mark Rober didn't know they were fake. The intention was for all the thefts to be legit, it's just that he paid some friends to help him get the package stolen (by putting it in front of their houses), and those friends apparently cheated him.
Unfortunately after those one or two fake sections were caught everyone assumed everything was fake, and the internet took up that gossip like wild fire, tainting the whole video. Bit of a shame, and apparently that lie persists.
Unfortunately after those one or two fake sections were caught everyone assumed everything was fake, and the internet took up that gossip like wild fire, tainting the whole video. Bit of a shame, and apparently that lie persists.
Teenagers for sure break into cars and houses because it’s fun.
In the 1990s, it was a regular pastime of my friend group.
In the 1990s, it was a regular pastime of my friend group.
You make a good point, and I elided any discussion of the prison system (in the U.S., at least) to make my comment brief. I agree with you that we should be working on the root causes of crime too, and personally I'd rather see a more reformation based prison system in the U.S. than our current punishment/deterrent based system.
Thing is, I'm not sure they all do it out of desperation. One incidence in the neighborhood was most certainly an addict, for which I agree with your point in helping them. But a more salient example is a group of professional thieves that stole a local plumber's truck and tools.
If you're down on your luck and for whatever reason have to resort to looting houses and cars, I can see your point. But if someone has made it their _job_ to steal my neighbor's livelihood? My sympathy runs out.
Thing is, I'm not sure they all do it out of desperation. One incidence in the neighborhood was most certainly an addict, for which I agree with your point in helping them. But a more salient example is a group of professional thieves that stole a local plumber's truck and tools.
If you're down on your luck and for whatever reason have to resort to looting houses and cars, I can see your point. But if someone has made it their _job_ to steal my neighbor's livelihood? My sympathy runs out.
For sure, I understand where you're coming from. There are certainly instances of this type of crime that aren't defensible under any pretext rooted in economic oppression. I don't have all the answers, just my perspective.
Consider that once you invite the cops into your neighborhood though, they operate on their own biases, regardless of whether or not they think it's worth it to track down whoever stole the stereo out of your sedan. Car prowl is only the pretense for them to show up, and once they do their presence will be detrimental for the "addict" population. So you're maybe not punishing who you think you are.
Consider that once you invite the cops into your neighborhood though, they operate on their own biases, regardless of whether or not they think it's worth it to track down whoever stole the stereo out of your sedan. Car prowl is only the pretense for them to show up, and once they do their presence will be detrimental for the "addict" population. So you're maybe not punishing who you think you are.
That's a rather strong case for taking the law into our own hands, rather than essentially subcontracting it out to someone who you effectively don't have management power over. Putting trust in myself and my neighbors rather than police seems to be a better solution especially if the police aren't really residents of the specific neighborhood.
Whatever man, someone stole my car from my garage a few weeks ago. It was recovered a block away, parallel parked in front of someone's garage. They trashed the inside, and didn't steal anything of value.
Tell me, how were they desperate?
They left sunglasses and other valuables in the car, but trashed the inside. They left camping gear in my garage, but stole a sentimental machete and some other random odds and ends that weren't monetarily valuable at all.
If they stole all my camping gear, I wouldn't be as mad as them defacing my property.
It wasn't about petty cash. It was about shitting all over someone else's property. Literally, a friend had their car broken into, and they took a big dump on their hood. Didn't even steal anything.
Fuck people.
Tell me, how were they desperate?
They left sunglasses and other valuables in the car, but trashed the inside. They left camping gear in my garage, but stole a sentimental machete and some other random odds and ends that weren't monetarily valuable at all.
If they stole all my camping gear, I wouldn't be as mad as them defacing my property.
It wasn't about petty cash. It was about shitting all over someone else's property. Literally, a friend had their car broken into, and they took a big dump on their hood. Didn't even steal anything.
Fuck people.
Was the Creedence all right?
> The penalties for these crimes are already extremely severe.
Exactly, so why not help people make better choices by letting them know that they're much more likely to be caught?
Also, to put things in perspective, grand theft-type crimes were historically (and currently, in some fundamentalist regimes) punished by hanging, amputation of ears or hands, or flogging. The punishments today are tender loving care by comparison.
Exactly, so why not help people make better choices by letting them know that they're much more likely to be caught?
Also, to put things in perspective, grand theft-type crimes were historically (and currently, in some fundamentalist regimes) punished by hanging, amputation of ears or hands, or flogging. The punishments today are tender loving care by comparison.
I have actually never considered that the only reason someone might break into a house or vehicle is desperation.
Have you considered that when penalties seem extremely severe, it's possibly because the percentage of perpetrators that are caught and punished is very low?
Have you considered that when penalties seem extremely severe, it's possibly because the percentage of perpetrators that are caught and punished is very low?
Crime can make more money than being a landscaper or bricklayer. Why sweat in the heat all day when you can break into one house a week?
The penalty is harsh but chances to get caught are somewhat low.
The penalty is harsh but chances to get caught are somewhat low.
If someone robbed your home and you recognized them, would you report them to the police?
Absolutely not. I don't want police anywhere near my community.
EDIT: Yeah I don't call the cops. Go ahead and downvote I guess, or feel free to try another hypothetical you came up with in your head for this discussion.
EDIT: Yeah I don't call the cops. Go ahead and downvote I guess, or feel free to try another hypothetical you came up with in your head for this discussion.
I didn’t downvote you.
What if someone shoots you in the leg and robs your house?
Nextdoor ended up with issues around this sort of thing. Like people posting images of neighborhood people that didn't "look like" they belonged there.
How do you know the request is connected to violation of a law you agree with?
If nothing else, you could review the footage yourself before deciding to share. If they person the system thinks it recognized looks like they're minding their own business, bury it.
You raise an excellent point. It's certainly possible for the notification to specify what crime is being investigated. I'd say that's an important addition, for the reasons you've alluded to.
And interestingly enough I've seen things just like that. The "police" at my old college would occasionally send out emails if they were looking for a suspect. The emails would always include a brief description of the alleged crime.
Perhaps they included that as a means to motivate people into reporting. I wonder if they'd have second thoughts about it if they knew some witnesses would explicitly not report anything if it was related to a crime they didn't agree with (for example, marijuana use).
And interestingly enough I've seen things just like that. The "police" at my old college would occasionally send out emails if they were looking for a suspect. The emails would always include a brief description of the alleged crime.
Perhaps they included that as a means to motivate people into reporting. I wonder if they'd have second thoughts about it if they knew some witnesses would explicitly not report anything if it was related to a crime they didn't agree with (for example, marijuana use).
on what planet are you living in and what did you smoke, I can't agree with anything you said
>Ring cameras are basically being used as a gigantic police-partnered dragnet:
Isn't that sort of like saying humans are basically used as a gigantic police-partnered dragnet...seeing as our entire criminal system is primarily driven by eye witnesses of crimes?
Only what we know is eye-witnesses often have conflicting testimony, some will refuse to assist police officers (out of concern for their own safety or they just don't give a shit), and others outright lie.
For example, a UFC fighter's step-daughter was recently kidnapped and murdered (abducted right from a gas station)...video would later assist identify the suspect and lead to arrest, but also identify eye witnesses to the abduction (who never came forward because they "didn't want to get involved") but after the video identified the witnesses, their testimony ended up being important.
Isn't that sort of like saying humans are basically used as a gigantic police-partnered dragnet...seeing as our entire criminal system is primarily driven by eye witnesses of crimes?
Only what we know is eye-witnesses often have conflicting testimony, some will refuse to assist police officers (out of concern for their own safety or they just don't give a shit), and others outright lie.
For example, a UFC fighter's step-daughter was recently kidnapped and murdered (abducted right from a gas station)...video would later assist identify the suspect and lead to arrest, but also identify eye witnesses to the abduction (who never came forward because they "didn't want to get involved") but after the video identified the witnesses, their testimony ended up being important.
==seeing as our entire criminal system is primarily driven by eye witnesses of crimes?==
Do you have a source for this? In my yearlong experience on a Federal Grand Jury, the vast majority of evidence we deliberated on was "hard". By that I mean video evidence, financial transactions, text messages, emails, cell phones tower pings for location, etc. Eye witness testimony helps solidify a case, but you typically need some form of "hard" evidence to even indict someone.
Even in your example, the video is what identified the suspect and lead to arrest not eye witnesses.
Do you have a source for this? In my yearlong experience on a Federal Grand Jury, the vast majority of evidence we deliberated on was "hard". By that I mean video evidence, financial transactions, text messages, emails, cell phones tower pings for location, etc. Eye witness testimony helps solidify a case, but you typically need some form of "hard" evidence to even indict someone.
Even in your example, the video is what identified the suspect and lead to arrest not eye witnesses.
>By that I mean video evidence, financial transactions, text messages, emails, cell phones tower pings for location
Yes, you are right, the majority of criminal convictions at trial are based on physical evidence (of course 9 out of 10 cased do not go to trial). But none of that evidence comes in without a witness that can introduce it.
So perhaps not an eyewitness to the crime itself, but a mandatory witness to introduce the "hard evidence". So for example take any DUI, before any video of the suspect or breathalyzer evidence can be introduced the officer needs to testify to the facts of the initial stop, then a witness needs to introduce the breathalyzer (make, model, has is been calibrated regularly, is/was the officer properly trained, did the test results get handled through the proper chain of custody, etc...).
>Even in your example, the video is what identified the suspect and lead to arrest not eye witnesses.
A video can't be introduced without a witness (now they don't need an eyewitness to the events depicted on camera, the store manager/records custodian will generally get the video in, but a good defense attorney might get it thrown out, so the eyewitness to the abduction becomes the key evidence in the case itself).
This is why "red-light cameras" failed constitutionality tests in many cases, because many jurisdictions tried to introduce the video without a witness...which violates the defendant's right to cross examine.
Or take the OJ case...all the physical evidence in the world from bodied, to murder weapon, to bloody glove...and no conviction.
Yes, you are right, the majority of criminal convictions at trial are based on physical evidence (of course 9 out of 10 cased do not go to trial). But none of that evidence comes in without a witness that can introduce it.
So perhaps not an eyewitness to the crime itself, but a mandatory witness to introduce the "hard evidence". So for example take any DUI, before any video of the suspect or breathalyzer evidence can be introduced the officer needs to testify to the facts of the initial stop, then a witness needs to introduce the breathalyzer (make, model, has is been calibrated regularly, is/was the officer properly trained, did the test results get handled through the proper chain of custody, etc...).
>Even in your example, the video is what identified the suspect and lead to arrest not eye witnesses.
A video can't be introduced without a witness (now they don't need an eyewitness to the events depicted on camera, the store manager/records custodian will generally get the video in, but a good defense attorney might get it thrown out, so the eyewitness to the abduction becomes the key evidence in the case itself).
This is why "red-light cameras" failed constitutionality tests in many cases, because many jurisdictions tried to introduce the video without a witness...which violates the defendant's right to cross examine.
Or take the OJ case...all the physical evidence in the world from bodied, to murder weapon, to bloody glove...and no conviction.
For almost all of the evidence introduced in the Federal Grand Jury cases I heard, the witness was a law enforcement officer. They were typically the case lead from a federal agency (Postal Inspectors, FBI, DEA, Secret Service, DHS, IRS, ATF, HUD, FDA, etc). They explain the documents that were collected through warrants and provide expert analysis.
A police camera watching a gas station is not the same as a police camera watching your front door.
This is a tech community, and I like tech metaphors - it’s like old CCTVs were inside the firewall and these new services our outside the firewall. In the old model, sharing your data (videos) was opt in each time. You could be sure that only you had access to the data unless you chose to share it. In the new model, you are always sharing, and these hacks show you don’t really even know who you are sharing with.
No, but my camera watching what happens outside of my house is also not the same as a police camera. I didn't have such a camera at my old house, but if I did, there were several happenings that would have been reported to police.
I think the general issue though is that devices like this exist in kind of a grey area of ownership. Yeah, it's "your" camera or "my" camera, but in reality they're wholly dependent on services provided by Amazon or Google or whatever other large data collator. And while there are pretty obvious reasons for that to be the case, it also opens up a rather large dragnet-style video surveillance system that looks juicy as heck to certain groups, and we have to rely on "large company not known for amazing defence of privacy" to prevent this.
I mean, I have a couple of Nest cameras at home. They're useful, but even relatively recently Google forced an update that disabled some features. And despite the hardware being totally capable of it, there's no way for me to connect to it and get a video stream. I have to rely on a shitfest of an app and fork over money for any usable history. At that point… is it really "your" camera?
I mean, I have a couple of Nest cameras at home. They're useful, but even relatively recently Google forced an update that disabled some features. And despite the hardware being totally capable of it, there's no way for me to connect to it and get a video stream. I have to rely on a shitfest of an app and fork over money for any usable history. At that point… is it really "your" camera?
I still think it is my camera, even if I chose a camera that is dependent upon third party services.
I've had similar frustrations with them, though. The Ring doorbell is so slow to respond that it borders on uselessness for certain tasks. I really wish that I could just monitor an RTSP feed from it. I'm thinking that it will be replaced with one that is able to do that eventually.
I've had similar frustrations with them, though. The Ring doorbell is so slow to respond that it borders on uselessness for certain tasks. I really wish that I could just monitor an RTSP feed from it. I'm thinking that it will be replaced with one that is able to do that eventually.
Ring lets law enforcement know that potential video evidence exists, and with that knowledge, they can go to a judge and get a warrant for it. Law enforcement can do this without ever letting the user who recorded the video know.
For that reason, it's essentially a police camera. The police can ask nicely for the video footage, and if you don't cooperate, they can easily get a warrant to obtain the potential evidence from Ring.
For that reason, it's essentially a police camera. The police can ask nicely for the video footage, and if you don't cooperate, they can easily get a warrant to obtain the potential evidence from Ring.
>The police can ask nicely for the video footage, and if you don't cooperate, they can easily get a warrant to obtain the potential evidence from Ring.
Or they could get the warrant to obtain the video directly from you....they just have 1 more option when a 3rd party vendor is involved that has a copy.
It doesn't matter if it is Ring or CCTV, so I'm not sure the practical difference that you would classify 1 as a police camera and the other not, no matter what if your camera captures a crime the police will likely be able to get a warrant for it whether you have to turn it over or Ring does. I think most people would rather a vendor like ring have to deal with warrants on their behalf.
Or they could get the warrant to obtain the video directly from you....they just have 1 more option when a 3rd party vendor is involved that has a copy.
It doesn't matter if it is Ring or CCTV, so I'm not sure the practical difference that you would classify 1 as a police camera and the other not, no matter what if your camera captures a crime the police will likely be able to get a warrant for it whether you have to turn it over or Ring does. I think most people would rather a vendor like ring have to deal with warrants on their behalf.
> Or they could get the warrant to obtain the video directly from you....
They'd need knowledge that your cameras even exist. Ring provides an easy to use map of their surveillance network.
They'd need knowledge that your cameras even exist. Ring provides an easy to use map of their surveillance network.
They don't need a warrant necessarily, just a subpoena. And with Ring, you never would get a chance to challenge it, because you're not the recipient.
there were several happenings that would have been reported to police.
Reported. Not prevented.
The companies that make money off of law enforcement have conditioned people to believe cameras=prevention and camera=safety, which is false.
Reported. Not prevented.
The companies that make money off of law enforcement have conditioned people to believe cameras=prevention and camera=safety, which is false.
These were vehicle related incidents. The important thing would be to get better descriptions of the vehicle to (hopefully) help with a later financial claim. Prevention is really a secondary goal.
True, but camera=deterrent?
Certainly not a ring doorbell camera. Mine is so slow to respond to motion it won't capture a pic unless you walk up to it and stand in one spot for a few seconds. 99% of my motion events are just an empty street. You can fast walk up to a ring doorbell camera and knock it off the wall, or just cover it with a piece of tape, before it has a chance to capture a picture. I would bet this is true of most consumer level "security" cameras.
This is funny because it's true.
The wired "pro" version works a lot better (it does reliably capture video from just before the motion was detected until the end of the event), but you can still just knock the camera off the wall since it takes a couple minutes to upload the footage to the mothership (even with a solid wifi connection and 1 gig symmetric fiber connection beyond that)
Oddly enough, they used to be faster. I have a Gen-1 ring, and for the first two years I had it, it would dutifully record folks walking up the path to my front door. Nowadays, unless it's the UPS guy waiting for a signature, it's 30 seconds of empty street, just like you said. It's enough of a change to genuinely decrease the utility of the camera.
They are not the same, and the latter does not happen with Ring cameras. Read all the articles more carefully. The issue is with the app and cloud stored footage, both of which are optional.
"Optional" features that literally everybody is going to get because what is the point of a security camera if you can't record or view remotely.
I don't know about the indoor cameras, but the ring doorbell can send a notification live to your phone with live video, without saving it on the server. I would imagine this is the same case for indoor cameras.
Neither cameras watching gas stations nor cameras watching your front door are "police cameras".
They are privately owned cameras, but feel free to expand on what makes these cameras different in your opinion.
They are privately owned cameras, but feel free to expand on what makes these cameras different in your opinion.
Police can get footage from Nest cameras, indoor and outdoor, without owner permission by applying directly to Amazon, and users can't opt out of Amazon's "Rekognition" tool that is always on and alerts police when a face on their wanted list is recognized on a camera.
That tool had better not have a false positive rate that can be measured or Jeff Bezos will have some blood on his hands. The response to a 'wanted' criminal being spotted can easily cause that wanted person to end up dead and if it turns out to be the wrong person afterwards that would be more than just a little bit problematic.
>Police can get footage from Nest cameras, indoor and outdoor, without owner permission by applying directly to Amazon
So that brings us full circle to police are able to get footage from your CCTVs without your permission too by applying for a warrant directly to the court.
So that brings us full circle to police are able to get footage from your CCTVs without your permission too by applying for a warrant directly to the court.
Applying for a warrant through a legal process is absolutely not the same as requesting data from a tech company (especially because Amazon has incentive to cooperate with police in order to continue to sell these cameras)
Amazon is going to require a subpoena/warrant to turn over video...I'm not sure why you think their cooperation with police is required in order to continue selling cameras.
Why do you think that their cooperation must be required before they will cooperate? Police are major Amazon customers as well, what's to keep them from handing over data to preserve their good-will?
>Why do you think that their cooperation must be required before they will cooperate?
Because they have written Law Enforcement Guidelines that are pretty clear and otherwise as a lawyer I know they don't just turn over customer data and information without a written order (and even then, they may object and fight it in court).
Why do you believe they are just turning over consumer data/info/video without any court order (besides, police are customers and Amazon wants to keep customers happy)?
Because they have written Law Enforcement Guidelines that are pretty clear and otherwise as a lawyer I know they don't just turn over customer data and information without a written order (and even then, they may object and fight it in court).
Why do you believe they are just turning over consumer data/info/video without any court order (besides, police are customers and Amazon wants to keep customers happy)?
[deleted]
You have your own CCTV tapes, and you know when they are being seized because the warrant is delivered to you, not the manufacturer of your camera.
They aren't going to get a warrant if they don't know your CCTV system exists, whereas Ring provides law enforcement with a map of their surveillance network. You won't know when your Ring footage is seized by law enforcement, but you'd sure know if you were served a warrant.
Neither cameras watching gas stations nor cameras watching your front door are "police cameras".
Some cities have enough police cameras that they certainly are police cameras watching the gas station.
The last time I checked, Chicago PD was bragging at having over 30,000 cameras. And that was a number of years ago.
Some cities have enough police cameras that they certainly are police cameras watching the gas station.
The last time I checked, Chicago PD was bragging at having over 30,000 cameras. And that was a number of years ago.
This is a very hyperbolic take. Police do not have access to the cameras, only the server stored footage, which is both optional to share and optional to even participate in.
Ring gives police scripts on how to manipulate/convince people to hand over their data. If they don't hand it over, police can get it anyway. They don't need a warrant -- Amazon will just give them the data upon request, even if the owner has refused.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/08/police-can-get-y...
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/08/police-can-get-y...
> Police do not have access to the cameras, only the server stored footage, which is both optional to share
Ring lets police know that potential video evidence exists, and with that knowledge, they can then get a warrant to obtain the potential evidence from Ring if you choose not to share it.
Ring lets police know that potential video evidence exists, and with that knowledge, they can then get a warrant to obtain the potential evidence from Ring if you choose not to share it.
Thats why I said both are optional. You can choose to never upload the footage in the first place.
Do the cameras talk to a Ring backend even if you choose not to upload footage? The knowledge that a camera exists near the scene of a crime can be enough information to get a warrant for your privately stored footage.
Most people purchase Ring cameras for the cloud integration aspect, anyway.
Most people purchase Ring cameras for the cloud integration aspect, anyway.
This is a red-herring.
Nobody cares about physical access to essentially disposable cameras. The stored footage is the whole game.
Nobody cares about physical access to essentially disposable cameras. The stored footage is the whole game.
Yes, and stored footage is completely optional with Ring cameras.
It's almost impossible to download Ring footage to a local storage medium. They are engineered to force you into their Cloud ecosystem.
Can you point to a page where Ring says this? I cannot find any indication that these work with anything other than their cloud service.
Until all video starts streaming to the server in a software update. For the safety of your children.
At which point the company gets massive federal lawsuit violating multiple laws, and gets shut down quick.
No, a democracy dies to thunderous applause.
How is helping petty thieves and junkies is helping the nation?
Do you look like any "petty thieves and junkies"? Are you sure? It's your word against Amazon's.
I disagree that it is a 'dragnet'. That seems like an emotionally-colored take. It is camera owners voluntarily sharing footage with police when they request it. Citizens are allowed to lawfully film in many locations (their own homes, public spaces, etc.) and citizens are allowed to voluntarily exchange information they own with entities of their choosing.
At some point quantitative changes to cost and availability make a qualitative change in the invasiveness of a technology. I don't know enough about how ring footage is being used to say whether or not it's crossed that point, but this can't be dismissed just because it's something that's always been legal and happening at a smaller scale.
Just the sheer scale of data collection by the Ring public-private partnership is worrisome already. Some of us worry about the amount of information held by Facebook, even those that do not have a Facebook account. The same principle applies here.
If it is legally filmed footage (for example on public spaces or in a private residence), then there is no legitimate expectation of privacy.
There's the tiny issue that storage became so cheap over the last 20 years that recordings can now be kept indefinitely. In the past you had a CCTV camera, and you could store maybe a month's worth of movie (on tapes, in a safe), until you had to overwrite it.
Now you just keep filming and have a never forgotten record of who lives in the neighbourhood. And if Facebook runs it though its face recognition system they get names, friends and other preferences. That completely changes the nature of CCTV recordings.
The law just hasn't caught up with it, also because of prolific lobbying by the usual bigdata actors.
Now you just keep filming and have a never forgotten record of who lives in the neighbourhood. And if Facebook runs it though its face recognition system they get names, friends and other preferences. That completely changes the nature of CCTV recordings.
The law just hasn't caught up with it, also because of prolific lobbying by the usual bigdata actors.
Expectation of privacy was defined in an era when recording was expensive, on the assumption that there was a certain degree of anonymity in public just from the sheer impossibility of tracking everybody.
There is no reason that our rights should be limited to what was found necessary to protect in the past. There must be a new category of expectation of transience, that Jeff Bezos and the FBI won't keep a permanent record of your every waking moment.
There is no reason that our rights should be limited to what was found necessary to protect in the past. There must be a new category of expectation of transience, that Jeff Bezos and the FBI won't keep a permanent record of your every waking moment.
From what I’ve seen sharing these videos publicly also provides a potential thief with your location and information about the placement of your cameras, which is not a smart move if security is your main motive.
What information is disclosed that the thief can't discover himself by driving or walking by your house?
It seems unlikely that a thief needs to see a published list of camera locations to find my house, unless for some reason he's looking specifically for houses that are protected by Ring cameras. My ring doorbell cam is readily visible from the street, so there's no secrets about placement.
It seems unlikely that a thief needs to see a published list of camera locations to find my house, unless for some reason he's looking specifically for houses that are protected by Ring cameras. My ring doorbell cam is readily visible from the street, so there's no secrets about placement.
Knowing where the cameras are lets the thief know where the blind spots are. The thief wouldn't be able to see a hidden camera just by walking by (or at least it's much less likely).
I don't think most Ring cameras are meant to be hidden though, since it's primarily sold as a doorbell.
I don't think most Ring cameras are meant to be hidden though, since it's primarily sold as a doorbell.
> It is camera owners voluntarily sharing footage with police when they request it.
Police can request that you share the footage you have, or police can get a warrant and obtain the footage directly from Ring.
The difference between a camera whose footage you control and Ring is that Ring provides a nice interface to let police know that potential video evidence that you captured exists. A camera system that you rolled out yourself doesn't send a message to law enforcement agencies each time your cameras potentially capture evidence.
The knowledge that video evidence exists makes it infinitely easier to get a warrant for it from a judge.
Police can request that you share the footage you have, or police can get a warrant and obtain the footage directly from Ring.
The difference between a camera whose footage you control and Ring is that Ring provides a nice interface to let police know that potential video evidence that you captured exists. A camera system that you rolled out yourself doesn't send a message to law enforcement agencies each time your cameras potentially capture evidence.
The knowledge that video evidence exists makes it infinitely easier to get a warrant for it from a judge.
They don't need a warrant. They only need to make a friendly administrative subpoena to Amazon, which will happily fork over the data without challenging the order, even if the owner has refused.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/08/police-can-get-y...
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/08/police-can-get-y...
This is a good point, as well. Part of Ring's business model is integration with law enforcement. The incentives in place certainly don't align with user privacy.
Thanks for the link.
Thanks for the link.
This is a false story that relies on an incorrect statement from someone in the Fresno police department. Your own article contains this update:
> UPDATE 5:55pm ET: After we published our story, a representative from Ring responded to our request for comment to deny all allegations in the Government Technology report.
> "The reports that police can obtain any video from a Ring doorbell within 60 days is false," a spokesperson said. "Ring will not release customer information in response to government demands without a valid and binding legal demand properly served on us. Ring objects to overbroad or otherwise inappropriate demands as a matter of course. We are working with the Fresno County Sheriff's Office to ensure this is understood."
> UPDATE 5:55pm ET: After we published our story, a representative from Ring responded to our request for comment to deny all allegations in the Government Technology report.
> "The reports that police can obtain any video from a Ring doorbell within 60 days is false," a spokesperson said. "Ring will not release customer information in response to government demands without a valid and binding legal demand properly served on us. Ring objects to overbroad or otherwise inappropriate demands as a matter of course. We are working with the Fresno County Sheriff's Office to ensure this is understood."
> "Ring will not release customer information in response to government demands without a valid and binding legal demand properly served on us."
Ring's own statement reflects what the OP stated: that Ring will turn over evidence when given a subpoena.
Ring also released a contradictory claim to what the police said Ring made available to them. Either the police are lying about a process they seem to know well and have used many times before, or Ring is lying in their statement to Ars.
Ring's own statement reflects what the OP stated: that Ring will turn over evidence when given a subpoena.
Ring also released a contradictory claim to what the police said Ring made available to them. Either the police are lying about a process they seem to know well and have used many times before, or Ring is lying in their statement to Ars.
I am primarily commenting on the "they don't need a warrant" bit, and the editorialized label of a "friendly administrative subpoena". A subpoena and warrant have a high legal bar, and the difference is who they are directed to. The way OP's comment is worded, it makes it seem like some significantly lesser bar than a warrant is being exercised. A subpoena still requires a court order, like a warrant! See https://legalbeagle.com/8676593-subpoena-vs-warrant.html.
Furthermore: Clearly, the Fresno police department person who spoke may not have understood the requirements for access or may not be aware of what prior actions (such as a subpoena) precipitated a release of video.
Furthermore: Clearly, the Fresno police department person who spoke may not have understood the requirements for access or may not be aware of what prior actions (such as a subpoena) precipitated a release of video.
An administrative subpoena, as the name tells you, is not issued by a court and does not require a court to be involved. It's a police agency, acting on its own and without supervision, requesting documents believed to be related to a criminal case.
So what? I think it’s OK for them to know that footage exists. That’s not an invasion of anyone’s privacy. Using warrants to get evidence is a legitimate part of our justice system.
Consider if a police force was near omniscient, and could view everything happening in a city publicly, at all times 24/7.
Don't you think that changes the nature of things, even if technically legal?
Don't you think that changes the nature of things, even if technically legal?
Omniscient police would be a qualitatively new development, for sure.
But as surveillance increases, so does stealth. You’d have to include that in your model.
But as surveillance increases, so does stealth. You’d have to include that in your model.
I wonder whether Nest cams are being used in a similar fashion.
Yes they are.
FTA:"The NulledCast is a podcast livestreamed to Discord. It's a show in which hackers take over people's Ring and Nest smarthome cameras and use their speakers to talk to and harass their unsuspecting owners."
FTA:"The NulledCast is a podcast livestreamed to Discord. It's a show in which hackers take over people's Ring and Nest smarthome cameras and use their speakers to talk to and harass their unsuspecting owners."
I have no problem with this. I have ring cameras all around my property and so do most of my neighbors and it's already caught multiple people attempting breaking and stealing packages.
They get hacked because of poor password choices.
You are fighting against a changing tide and the benefits of the cameras vastly outweigh the privacy concerns.
They get hacked because of poor password choices.
You are fighting against a changing tide and the benefits of the cameras vastly outweigh the privacy concerns.
It’s not even a changing tide. Security has always been more important than privacy to the average person.
In the 90s monitored home security was a HUGE business. Thousands for an install and thousands more per year to have someone sit around and watch for unusual activity and report it to the police. ADT and Brinks are all that’s really left, but I remember dozens of companies competing in this space growing up.
Now you can get the same essential service, better in many ways, for $99 and a small monthly fee.
In the 90s monitored home security was a HUGE business. Thousands for an install and thousands more per year to have someone sit around and watch for unusual activity and report it to the police. ADT and Brinks are all that’s really left, but I remember dozens of companies competing in this space growing up.
Now you can get the same essential service, better in many ways, for $99 and a small monthly fee.
It sounds like we agree.
Luckily, if you click on the link to the original article near the beginning of this article, there's a video clip from a local news outlet that offers a sure-fire way to avoid being hacked, from tech security "expert" Michelle Bordoff:
"Wired cannot be hacked."
"Someone has to be in your home, hardwired to your modem to see anything on your network."
Someone should let the world's governments and financial institutions know that all they need to do to stop hackers is stop using wireless servers.
"Wired cannot be hacked."
"Someone has to be in your home, hardwired to your modem to see anything on your network."
Someone should let the world's governments and financial institutions know that all they need to do to stop hackers is stop using wireless servers.
If she hadn’t mentioned the word modem I’d be on board. An old fashioned analog camera wired directly to a VHS recorder would be a bitch to hack remotely right?
But they are modems. Some of them are just built into routers.
VDSL and cable connections require modems to function.
VDSL and cable connections require modems to function.
I’m talking about an analog camcorder hooked to a vcr. No modem is involved. The point of my comment was to imagine a hypothetical system in which the “security expert”’s statement wouldn’t be ridiculous.
Completely beside the point, but how is a Discord live stream a "podcast"?
Have media folks just started calling any streaming audio a "podcast" now?
Have media folks just started calling any streaming audio a "podcast" now?
They call themselves NulledCast. If they operate as and refer to themselves as a podcast, what are “media folks” supposed to call it?
Am I mistaken, or is it not an accident that “podcast” rhymes with “broadcast”? I thought the whole metaphor behind the name was that these were essentially radio broadcasts except you listened to them on your iPod: podcasts. The fact that they weren’t generally live is simply due to the fact that electronic hardware and wireless internet weren’t up to the task at the time.
Now, calling live audio streams “podcasts” seems perfectly understandable and arguably even more faithful to the original idea because of the ubiquity of streaming media.
Now, calling live audio streams “podcasts” seems perfectly understandable and arguably even more faithful to the original idea because of the ubiquity of streaming media.
I always thought a podcast was an mp3 (or other audio file) that was delivered by subscribing to an RSS feed that told your podcatcher application when there was a new file available.
In the early days of podcasting I was listening to live streaming audio in the car and on headphones via my old Palm and PocketPC phones. I'd even run a Shoutcast station for a few years before that (but it was less portable before I had a cellular device that could run streaming audio apps).
Anyway, I was mostly just commenting on the shift in terminology as "podcast" has become ubiquitous. I still think of a podcast as a syndicated feed, initially (as you said) used as a way around the limitations of iPods and such. Live streaming audio was already a thing and had only gotten more popular. I still wouldn't call a live radio-style stream a "podcast" though.
In the early days of podcasting I was listening to live streaming audio in the car and on headphones via my old Palm and PocketPC phones. I'd even run a Shoutcast station for a few years before that (but it was less portable before I had a cellular device that could run streaming audio apps).
Anyway, I was mostly just commenting on the shift in terminology as "podcast" has become ubiquitous. I still think of a podcast as a syndicated feed, initially (as you said) used as a way around the limitations of iPods and such. Live streaming audio was already a thing and had only gotten more popular. I still wouldn't call a live radio-style stream a "podcast" though.
> I always thought a podcast was an mp3 (or other audio file) that was delivered by subscribing to an RSS feed that told your podcatcher application when there was a new file available.
Indeed, and the point of RSS feeds was to get your content as nearly live as possible given technology at the time, because the whole metaphor was around replacing radio programs.
Indeed, and the point of RSS feeds was to get your content as nearly live as possible given technology at the time, because the whole metaphor was around replacing radio programs.
It's a "webcast".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webcast
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webcast
In short, yes.
The alternative is "radio" which is even weirder
What’s wrong with calling it a livestream? It’s accurate and already in common use.
Livestream implied video
WebStream?
The title makes it sound like there is a security issue with the cameras, but the "hacks" are from password leaks.
That's still a security issue with the camera. Maybe passwords are insufficient for their role.
Edit, further discussion (from 15 mins ago): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21776250
Edit, further discussion (from 15 mins ago): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21776250
At some point we have to admit that passwords have not worked and the general public does not understand how to use them despite decades of education attempts. This problem would be entirely solved if they enforced the use of 2fa
At the very least, have e-mail 2fa for new devices, it's fairly trivial, isn't too annoying, and works decently enough. Most banks and important services do this. Whenever you login for the first time on a new device or far away IP, it sends you an email to authorize the new device. It's pretty trivial but goes a long way.
The cameras should be hard wired or at least hosted locally. Allowing open connection to the internet is a serious security issue.
I agree, but isn’t the remote access “feature” a big part of the marketing for these devices? E.g. check on your pet when you’re at work.
I think "hacks" is a pretty strong word here. They're basically just brute forcing accounts with email and password combos that have been leaked from other sources.
It is the same headline as the "Did Disney+ get hacked?" stuff the other day. 10m+ credentials were available almost immediately because people re-use username/password combos across every site.
That's why I am pro-password managers. Even if they're imperfect, password re-use remains a major active threat (contrast that with a lot of theoreticals against password managers).
Around ten of my accounts' information has been leaked (inc. big ones like Adobe). But I don't re-use credentials so aside from an uptake in spam, it has had no impact. Typically these were services I haven't used in years.
That's why I am pro-password managers. Even if they're imperfect, password re-use remains a major active threat (contrast that with a lot of theoreticals against password managers).
Around ten of my accounts' information has been leaked (inc. big ones like Adobe). But I don't re-use credentials so aside from an uptake in spam, it has had no impact. Typically these were services I haven't used in years.
Why is Ring allowing brute forcing? Individual cameras should be set to only allow logins at least a few seconds apart increasing up to several minutes and perhaps blocking IP addresses with excessive volume. If they're brute forcing Ring's servers an application firewall would catch and block this.
The term for this type of attack is credential stuffing.
https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Credential_stuffing
https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Credential_stuffing
This comment shouldn't be downvoted. This is the correct term.
I don't think that the above comment means brute-forcing in the "try a million different passwords in a short time-period" sense, it's referring to finding a list of known password and email combinations and trying just those. I would expect that a few attempts wouldn't trip any brute-force alarms.
Especially if you use a few thousand proxies.
Not actually brute forcing individual ring accounts. They are just using previously leaked combinations
[deleted]
As it has been said before, the S in IoT stands for security.
I read this and I'm not sure how to feel. This is the real world impact of devices that can actually impact our lives being internet accessible and with security that doesn't match.
That's not to say a simple password and email isn't secure enough, just that there's much bigger repercussions when your nest gets hacked as opposed to your GrubHub account.
That's not to say a simple password and email isn't secure enough, just that there's much bigger repercussions when your nest gets hacked as opposed to your GrubHub account.
Having your life compromised is never comfortable, but it's never less comfortable then when you suddenly realize you're being watched and having your home "invaded" in a potentially very personal way.
So if I understand it, the scenario is the digital equivalent of someone who uses a single key to fit every lock in their lives -- front door, back door, car door, ignition, safe deposit box, etc...
The key is stolen, possibly through no specific fault of the owner, and the owner may not realize it has even happened...
...and then these discord shock jocks go off and brute force these compromised email/password combinations until they stumble upon a working pair and then the hapless victim is subjected to the electronic analog of them unlocking the front door of their home and bursting into the living room yelling "hahaha gotcha, kill yourself!"
...all in order to increase their views/ratings.
I think it's just a shitty thing to do, but even more so when it involves children, or people who have no control over the cameras (like animal shelter workers)... I suppose _maybe_ if they made an effort to alert the owner first, an email "hey we have your u/p, if you don't change it in 72 hours you're going to be on our show"...
I think the nulledcast crew ought to take a lesson from Jon Stewart: BE A FUCKING PERSON ... think about how shitty what you're doing is, and no, the fact that these people are saps with insecure logins does not mean they deserve this.
So if I understand it, the scenario is the digital equivalent of someone who uses a single key to fit every lock in their lives -- front door, back door, car door, ignition, safe deposit box, etc...
The key is stolen, possibly through no specific fault of the owner, and the owner may not realize it has even happened...
...and then these discord shock jocks go off and brute force these compromised email/password combinations until they stumble upon a working pair and then the hapless victim is subjected to the electronic analog of them unlocking the front door of their home and bursting into the living room yelling "hahaha gotcha, kill yourself!"
...all in order to increase their views/ratings.
I think it's just a shitty thing to do, but even more so when it involves children, or people who have no control over the cameras (like animal shelter workers)... I suppose _maybe_ if they made an effort to alert the owner first, an email "hey we have your u/p, if you don't change it in 72 hours you're going to be on our show"...
I think the nulledcast crew ought to take a lesson from Jon Stewart: BE A FUCKING PERSON ... think about how shitty what you're doing is, and no, the fact that these people are saps with insecure logins does not mean they deserve this.
I'm trying to figure out exactly how these ring hacks are happening. My whole family and extended family is concerned about them. So just to be clear, there isn't a known vuln with Ring specifically, right? It's just that people's email/passwords are getting popped somewhere else on the internet, and then because of password reuse their Ring account is also compromised? Is that the gist of it?
Correct, there are no actual vulnerabilities in the hardware or whatever. It's that people are re-using passwords, getting phished etc.
But... based on the number of people I've seen had their Facebook account "hacked", there are going to be lots and lots of potential victims here. Enable 2fa, use a unique password for this account, and this will never happen to you.
But... based on the number of people I've seen had their Facebook account "hacked", there are going to be lots and lots of potential victims here. Enable 2fa, use a unique password for this account, and this will never happen to you.
Thats it. And as messed up as it is maybe people will finally wake up to using better passwords. I'm really tired of local news covering this stuff and barely mentioning or not mentioning at all how the "hackers" are getting into the accounts.
Like they woke up after the first decade of facebook "hacks". Or more likely they will continue on as normal until we stop using passwords as the only source of authentication.
Something you know.
Something you have.
The typical two factor is a password (know) and SMS to a cellphone or code to an email (have).
...though that creates a vulnerability when the cell number can be ported, or the same password is used to access email... better to use authenticator apps or a physical "key".
The typical two factor is a password (know) and SMS to a cellphone or code to an email (have).
...though that creates a vulnerability when the cell number can be ported, or the same password is used to access email... better to use authenticator apps or a physical "key".
Just heard about this on the radio eating breakfast. The DJ said "so I guess you should be changing your passwords often if you want to protect your self. And also turn on uh... what was that thing starts with a 2? 2-something? Uhhh... yeah 2-fac-tor authentication... yeah. Do that."
The radio crew doesnt talk about computers very often so I thought the way they spoke was interesting.
The radio crew doesnt talk about computers very often so I thought the way they spoke was interesting.
> The software churns through previously compromised email addresses and passwords to break into Ring cameras at scale.
Given the sensitive nature of cameras in homes, I think Ring should require 2FA.
Given the sensitive nature of cameras in homes, I think Ring should require 2FA.
I agree. Even "bad" 2FA (e.g. SMS) is better than nothing in this case. However, I suspect some would complain about needing to give a telephone number to use their new camera.
I think it would be completely reasonable to bundle one of those Bluetooth-based U2F tokens and to require that to be around when you want to access the camera remotely.
To add new tokens to your account, you would have to place them on top of the camera, or something.
This makes the attack described in the article basically impossible, and lets the camera vendor sell you tokens if you have multiple family members that want to log in. A win-win!
To add new tokens to your account, you would have to place them on top of the camera, or something.
This makes the attack described in the article basically impossible, and lets the camera vendor sell you tokens if you have multiple family members that want to log in. A win-win!
Or just have a min password length requirement that is at least a 5 word sentence.
Easier to remember, and more secure.
Easier to remember, and more secure.
Although password security makes no difference to how these devices were hacked, by password leaks.
Have forced 2fa through e-mail for new device/ip location more than X miles away. Users rarely login from a new device, or randomly login from a different country. Tagging those as suspicious and making the user get a code from their email is simple and goes a long way in increasing security with minimal annoyance.
Method wise, you are correct. However, forcing all the users to adopt a new password creation paradigm will statistically make this a very small issue.
I kind of doubt it. People will use the same password on every website, and if you require it to be 4 words, they'll just make it "my password is password" or something. Password requirements don't improve password security. Reuse and phishing are always going to be the main problem.
(Of course, bad passwords are bad. One time I exposed a mysql database I use for local unit tests to the Internet with the credentials root:test. It was hacked in hours, with a message saying where to send bitcoins to get the database back. Slightly stronger passwords do help with that sort of thing.)
(Of course, bad passwords are bad. One time I exposed a mysql database I use for local unit tests to the Internet with the credentials root:test. It was hacked in hours, with a message saying where to send bitcoins to get the database back. Slightly stronger passwords do help with that sort of thing.)
If you still use it on multiple sites, and one of those sites is storing it in plaintext, you'll still have the same security issue. Its very rare that someone has broken a password through character-by-character brute force.
Or require email verification if logging on from more than 1 app.
You know, I hadn't thought about that.
Have any children heard "Santa Claus" tell them to run across the street to get their present from the elf in the white van?
Actually, yes. Almost
https://abcnews.go.com/US/ring-security-camera-hacks-homeown...
https://abcnews.go.com/US/ring-security-camera-hacks-homeown...
If Ring cared about security they would enforce 2FA for everyone.
[deleted]
Once again there is no need for this, anyone using these kinds of systems are literally trading privacy over small value provided feature.
Being able to check on children remotely are not a small value to most working parents, or at least, not particularly smaller than most tech improvements in life.
There are plenty of companies that provide solutions to this problem that don't integrate with law enforcement as part of their business model.
If your children are too young to call you for an issue then they should not be left alone while you work.
Yeh I meant not go with fancy new products like ring and alexa which does not care for your privacy.
Muuuchem(1)
If you have a Ring camera pointed at the street, this is literally what you are asking for.
I have a camera pointed at the street but it is not a ring camera... am I asking for it?
Ring cameras are basically being used as a gigantic police-partnered dragnet:
Amazon’s Ring Planned Neighborhood “Watch Lists” Built on Facial Recognition
https://theintercept.com/2019/11/26/amazon-ring-home-securit...
If this provides a disincentivize to an average user buying Ring cameras, their immature 'prank' may have unintentionally helped the nation.