Ring used video captured on Halloween for PR(mashable.com)
mashable.com
Ring used video captured on Halloween for PR
https://mashable.com/article/ring-halloween-surveillance/
62 comments
Go read the terms for Grammerly.
They own the rights to everything you type into a browser that has their plug-in installed. If you types a novel in google docs using a bowser they actually own the rights to that novel.
They capture everything that comes into the browser, everything.
After having a 2 hour call with Grammerly and their lawyers, it was pretty clear that they believe they own in perpetuity everything you type, bu they look at everything that is sent to the browser.
If you work for a healthcare company Or a financial services company Grammerly is seeing all of your data, they think they own it, and can sell it.
They own the rights to everything you type into a browser that has their plug-in installed. If you types a novel in google docs using a bowser they actually own the rights to that novel.
They capture everything that comes into the browser, everything.
After having a 2 hour call with Grammerly and their lawyers, it was pretty clear that they believe they own in perpetuity everything you type, bu they look at everything that is sent to the browser.
If you work for a healthcare company Or a financial services company Grammerly is seeing all of your data, they think they own it, and can sell it.
For those interested, appears to be the last paragraph under "User Content" [1]
The "royalty-free and fully-paid, transferable and sublicensable, perpetual, and irrevocable license to copy, store and use your User Content" part is pretty broad. It has the caveat "in connection with the provision of the Software and the Services and to improve the algorithms underlying the Software and the Services", but that is also pretty broad, and I wouldn't be surprised if they interpreted it generously.
If you were building a competing service and typed code into the browser somewhere, apparently they would have a license to use that to improve their own service.
[1] https://www.grammarly.com/terms#user-content
The "royalty-free and fully-paid, transferable and sublicensable, perpetual, and irrevocable license to copy, store and use your User Content" part is pretty broad. It has the caveat "in connection with the provision of the Software and the Services and to improve the algorithms underlying the Software and the Services", but that is also pretty broad, and I wouldn't be surprised if they interpreted it generously.
If you were building a competing service and typed code into the browser somewhere, apparently they would have a license to use that to improve their own service.
[1] https://www.grammarly.com/terms#user-content
I think there's a few points:
a) at what point is content uploaded to Grammarly. Is it uploaded automatically as you input (if you have the Chrome extension), or is it uploaded only where a user activates the extension. Clearly if the latter, then no one is going to be using Grammarly to check their code so no issue. Even if the former, it's still debatable whether or not the terms of use would even grant rights. It's still limited to content 'in connection with the use of the services or software' - content uploaded passively without any user action (aside from the initial act of installing the extension) doesn't fall neatly into that bracket.
b) The likelihood of Grammarly taking a decision to incorporate third party code into their service or to improve their service on the basis of the license granted in the terms of use is extremely slim. The reputational hit if it were to come out, and the lack of legal certainty over the status of the third party code would both act as a strong disincentive to do this.
a) at what point is content uploaded to Grammarly. Is it uploaded automatically as you input (if you have the Chrome extension), or is it uploaded only where a user activates the extension. Clearly if the latter, then no one is going to be using Grammarly to check their code so no issue. Even if the former, it's still debatable whether or not the terms of use would even grant rights. It's still limited to content 'in connection with the use of the services or software' - content uploaded passively without any user action (aside from the initial act of installing the extension) doesn't fall neatly into that bracket.
b) The likelihood of Grammarly taking a decision to incorporate third party code into their service or to improve their service on the basis of the license granted in the terms of use is extremely slim. The reputational hit if it were to come out, and the lack of legal certainty over the status of the third party code would both act as a strong disincentive to do this.
> or is it uploaded only where a user activates the extension.
What if the extension is always running? Looking in every text field it finds? Because that would be convenient, but clearly we aren't "using the service" in all instances (as in ignoring what it suggests because it is easier than turning it off).
What if the extension is always running? Looking in every text field it finds? Because that would be convenient, but clearly we aren't "using the service" in all instances (as in ignoring what it suggests because it is easier than turning it off).
For sure - that was my thinking on the alternative scenario. If that happens then that certainly changes the picture somewhat although my other points remain true around what Grammarly would decide to do with that content I would say!
Ownership: All intellectual property rights in and to the User Content are and shall remain your property, and Grammarly shall acquire no right of ownership with respect to your User Content.
Link - https://www.grammarly.com/terms#ownership
Link - https://www.grammarly.com/terms#ownership
That is in regards to ownership; it is true that you would still own the content, but they get an irrevocable, worldwide, royalty free, sublicensable, and transferrable license to use it.
But use it to improve the underlying algorithm/service. I don't think they have a license to publish or sell any User Content.
"You appear to be writing an essay on the causes of the Civil War. Would you like to read an essay on the causes of the Civil War with better grammar from another user?"
[deleted]
I asked them about this in March of this year. I wrote them this:
---
Subject: legal question
Does this:
>"a nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty-free and fully-paid, transferable and sublicensable, perpetual, and irrevocable license to copy, store and use your User Content" (quote from [link][https://www.grammarly.com/terms])
Mean:
"We can use or sell your text to anyone, in any form, without paying you any royalty." (my translation)
?
I notice despite all of the words about "fully-paid" and "royalty", it doesn't use any words like "publish", nor "sell". Could Grammarly sell a book of its users' writing?
IANAL, so I may have misread the clause. (The other quoted clauses were what I would have expected.
Thank you,
[my name]
---
5 minutes after sending (a Monday), I received this automated reply:
---
Subject: Your request # [xxxxxx] | legal question
##- Please type your reply above this line -## Thanks for contacting us here at Grammarly!
This is an automated reply to let you know we’ve received your request. We know you’re busy, so we will work quickly to get you an answer and let you get on with your day.
While we’re working on this request, you can pop over to support.grammarly.com to check our Knowledge Base, where you’ll find lots of helpful information about our products.
Talk soon,
Your friends at Grammarly
---
The next day a different agent replied:
Hello [my name],
Thanks for reaching out!
The Ownership section of the Terms of Service should address your concern. It states “All intellectual property rights in and to the User Content are and shall remain your property, and Grammarly shall acquire no right of ownership with respect to your User Content.”
Here’s what that means:
By using Grammarly, you are giving us a nonexclusive license to use your content in connection with providing our services. In other words, you’re giving us formal permission to provide writing suggestions and corrections to you and to use your writing to improve our algorithms. You remain the owner of your content.
For example, if you write a novel while using Grammarly, the copyright remains under your control. That means that only you have the right to sell, publish, or distribute your novel.
Importantly, please note that Grammarly does not sell or rent your personal data to third parties.
Best regards,
Alice
----
I thought that was an awesome and well-written reply, so I said:
Hi Alice,
Wow, that is a great (and convincing) answer! One last question: did you use grammarly to help you write this impactful answer?
Best regards,
[my name]
------
And received the reply
Sure! Grammarly helps us ensure our writing is polished, impactful, and mistake-free.
Kindly,
Alice
----------
So it's clear that according to their support agents, they don't own a book you write. Of course, the support agent could be wrong.
---
Subject: legal question
Does this:
>"a nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty-free and fully-paid, transferable and sublicensable, perpetual, and irrevocable license to copy, store and use your User Content" (quote from [link][https://www.grammarly.com/terms])
Mean:
"We can use or sell your text to anyone, in any form, without paying you any royalty." (my translation)
?
I notice despite all of the words about "fully-paid" and "royalty", it doesn't use any words like "publish", nor "sell". Could Grammarly sell a book of its users' writing?
IANAL, so I may have misread the clause. (The other quoted clauses were what I would have expected.
Thank you,
[my name]
---
5 minutes after sending (a Monday), I received this automated reply:
---
Subject: Your request # [xxxxxx] | legal question
##- Please type your reply above this line -## Thanks for contacting us here at Grammarly!
This is an automated reply to let you know we’ve received your request. We know you’re busy, so we will work quickly to get you an answer and let you get on with your day.
While we’re working on this request, you can pop over to support.grammarly.com to check our Knowledge Base, where you’ll find lots of helpful information about our products.
Talk soon,
Your friends at Grammarly
---
The next day a different agent replied:
Hello [my name],
Thanks for reaching out!
The Ownership section of the Terms of Service should address your concern. It states “All intellectual property rights in and to the User Content are and shall remain your property, and Grammarly shall acquire no right of ownership with respect to your User Content.”
Here’s what that means:
By using Grammarly, you are giving us a nonexclusive license to use your content in connection with providing our services. In other words, you’re giving us formal permission to provide writing suggestions and corrections to you and to use your writing to improve our algorithms. You remain the owner of your content.
For example, if you write a novel while using Grammarly, the copyright remains under your control. That means that only you have the right to sell, publish, or distribute your novel.
Importantly, please note that Grammarly does not sell or rent your personal data to third parties.
Best regards,
Alice
----
I thought that was an awesome and well-written reply, so I said:
Hi Alice,
Wow, that is a great (and convincing) answer! One last question: did you use grammarly to help you write this impactful answer?
Best regards,
[my name]
------
And received the reply
Sure! Grammarly helps us ensure our writing is polished, impactful, and mistake-free.
Kindly,
Alice
----------
So it's clear that according to their support agents, they don't own a book you write. Of course, the support agent could be wrong.
While I agree that they are very wide, and this is anti-user, those terms seem pretty standard in the industry. No need to single out grammarly.
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms/
> Specifically, when you share, post, or upload content that is covered by intellectual property rights on or in connection with our Products, you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, and worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate, and create derivative works of your content (consistent with your privacy and application settings). [...] This license will end when your content is deleted from our systems.
Google: https://policies.google.com/terms?hl=en-US
> When you upload, submit, store, send or receive content to or through our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our Services (for example, for a business listing you have added to Google Maps).
Microsoft: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/servicesagreement/
> To the extent necessary to provide the Services to you and others, to protect you and the Services, and to improve Microsoft products and services, you grant to Microsoft a worldwide and royalty-free intellectual property license to use Your Content, for example, to make copies of, retain, transmit, reformat, display, and distribute via communication tools Your Content on the Services. If you publish Your Content in areas of the Service where it is available broadly online without restrictions, Your Content may appear in demonstrations or materials that promote the Service. [Highlight by me]
Apple: https://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/us/term...
> Our Services may allow you to submit materials such as comments, pictures, videos, and podcasts (including associated metadata and artwork). [...] You hereby grant Apple a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, nonexclusive license to use the materials you submit within the Services and related marketing, and Apple internal purposes. Apple may monitor and decide to remove or edit any submitted material.
Github seems to be the only one I looked at which actually lists something they are not allowed to do: https://help.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-terms-o...
> We need the legal right to do things like host Your Content, publish it, and share it. You grant us and our legal successors the right to store, parse, and display Your Content, and make incidental copies as necessary to render the Website and provide the Service. This includes the right to do things like copy it to our database and make backups; show it to you and other users; parse it into a search index or otherwise analyze it on our servers; share it with other users; and perform it, in case Your Content is something like music or video.
> This license does not grant GitHub the right to sell Your Content or otherwise distribute or use it outside of our provision of the Service.
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms/
> Specifically, when you share, post, or upload content that is covered by intellectual property rights on or in connection with our Products, you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, and worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate, and create derivative works of your content (consistent with your privacy and application settings). [...] This license will end when your content is deleted from our systems.
Google: https://policies.google.com/terms?hl=en-US
> When you upload, submit, store, send or receive content to or through our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our Services (for example, for a business listing you have added to Google Maps).
Microsoft: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/servicesagreement/
> To the extent necessary to provide the Services to you and others, to protect you and the Services, and to improve Microsoft products and services, you grant to Microsoft a worldwide and royalty-free intellectual property license to use Your Content, for example, to make copies of, retain, transmit, reformat, display, and distribute via communication tools Your Content on the Services. If you publish Your Content in areas of the Service where it is available broadly online without restrictions, Your Content may appear in demonstrations or materials that promote the Service. [Highlight by me]
Apple: https://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/us/term...
> Our Services may allow you to submit materials such as comments, pictures, videos, and podcasts (including associated metadata and artwork). [...] You hereby grant Apple a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, nonexclusive license to use the materials you submit within the Services and related marketing, and Apple internal purposes. Apple may monitor and decide to remove or edit any submitted material.
Github seems to be the only one I looked at which actually lists something they are not allowed to do: https://help.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-terms-o...
> We need the legal right to do things like host Your Content, publish it, and share it. You grant us and our legal successors the right to store, parse, and display Your Content, and make incidental copies as necessary to render the Website and provide the Service. This includes the right to do things like copy it to our database and make backups; show it to you and other users; parse it into a search index or otherwise analyze it on our servers; share it with other users; and perform it, in case Your Content is something like music or video.
> This license does not grant GitHub the right to sell Your Content or otherwise distribute or use it outside of our provision of the Service.
I think there is a difference between how we interact with some of these services and Grammarly. Uploading a picture on Facebook is different from having Grammarly check if what you are posting to Facebook is correct.
In one I am uploading content to a platform, in the other I am utilizing grammarly to validate what I write, but I am not posting to any forum/service owned by Grammarly (atleast not deliberately)
In one I am uploading content to a platform, in the other I am utilizing grammarly to validate what I write, but I am not posting to any forum/service owned by Grammarly (atleast not deliberately)
There’s also the issue of multi-user systems. The person who installs the extension is only competent to bind themselves to terms, and Grammerly doesn’t have any explicit relationship with other people that may use the same browser, especially if they never activate any of the extension’s features.
This is really interesting, because that specific example seems to violate HIPAA laws. Definitely GDPR.
But there's another scenario that I think is interesting. Let's just assume that Google makes a similar claim about things in google docs (because I'm pretty sure they do).
So if you write a novel in Google docs and use Grammerly, who owns the novel? You? Google? Grammerly? What happens if all three of you try to publish said book?
I feel like the public stance would be "the writer owns the book", but I think they'd also give concessions for Google and Grammerly who did some work (provided software and error checking). It'll be interesting to see how we work these things out.
But there's another scenario that I think is interesting. Let's just assume that Google makes a similar claim about things in google docs (because I'm pretty sure they do).
So if you write a novel in Google docs and use Grammerly, who owns the novel? You? Google? Grammerly? What happens if all three of you try to publish said book?
I feel like the public stance would be "the writer owns the book", but I think they'd also give concessions for Google and Grammerly who did some work (provided software and error checking). It'll be interesting to see how we work these things out.
This should be a post on its own!
I’d be interested to hear more about why this 2 hour call happened, if you’re willing to share.
Not the OP, but I'm assuming it was due diligence for a company interested in using the product and that read the ToS, then called to clarify.
With my current job, I've come to appreciate that there are quite a few large companies that thoroughly read the ToS and take issue with them.
With my current job, I've come to appreciate that there are quite a few large companies that thoroughly read the ToS and take issue with them.
Is this true? I opened up Grammarly TOS and found this:
Ownership All intellectual property rights in and to the User Content are and shall remain your property, and Grammarly shall acquire no right of ownership with respect to your User Content.
Link - https://www.grammarly.com/terms#ownership
Ownership All intellectual property rights in and to the User Content are and shall remain your property, and Grammarly shall acquire no right of ownership with respect to your User Content.
Link - https://www.grammarly.com/terms#ownership
Not saying this is what they mean, but isn't there a difference between ownership and license to use something?
Which section of the TOS is that in? I don't see anything about that, but it's a very long TOS so I just searched some keywords. You are also contradicting their own FAQ.
The closest thing I can see is the indemnity section which limits damages. If you're an editor and paste an author's work in, they can't get any damages from Grammarly, if you paste your own work in, your damages are limited to 12 months subscription - even if they bound your input into a novel and published it, or were hacked and somebody else published it. However, it would still be a criminal act of copyright infringement.
The closest thing I can see is the indemnity section which limits damages. If you're an editor and paste an author's work in, they can't get any damages from Grammarly, if you paste your own work in, your damages are limited to 12 months subscription - even if they bound your input into a novel and published it, or were hacked and somebody else published it. However, it would still be a criminal act of copyright infringement.
Parent poster seems to be talking about this, which is a standard feature of any ToS that allows services to operate at all.
I think this para clearly tells the user that he or she retains the rights to content, and it goes on to say that Grammarly only needs these rights to provide the service and improve the algorithms. I don't think it says that Grammarly get to keep the content and do what they like with it.
> You retain all right, title, and interest in and to your User Content. By uploading or entering any User Content, you give Grammarly (and those it works with) a nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty-free and fully-paid, transferable and sublicensable, perpetual, and irrevocable license to copy, store and use your User Content (and, if you are an Authorized User, your Enterprise Subscriber’s User Content) in connection with the provision of the Software and the Services and to improve the algorithms underlying the Software and the Services.
See eg HN's tos:
> By uploading any User Content you hereby grant and will grant Y Combinator and its affiliated companies a nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty free, fully paid up, transferable, sublicensable, perpetual, irrevocable license to copy, display, upload, perform, distribute, store, modify and otherwise use your User Content for any Y Combinator-related purpose in any form, medium or technology now known or later developed.
I think this para clearly tells the user that he or she retains the rights to content, and it goes on to say that Grammarly only needs these rights to provide the service and improve the algorithms. I don't think it says that Grammarly get to keep the content and do what they like with it.
> You retain all right, title, and interest in and to your User Content. By uploading or entering any User Content, you give Grammarly (and those it works with) a nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty-free and fully-paid, transferable and sublicensable, perpetual, and irrevocable license to copy, store and use your User Content (and, if you are an Authorized User, your Enterprise Subscriber’s User Content) in connection with the provision of the Software and the Services and to improve the algorithms underlying the Software and the Services.
See eg HN's tos:
> By uploading any User Content you hereby grant and will grant Y Combinator and its affiliated companies a nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty free, fully paid up, transferable, sublicensable, perpetual, irrevocable license to copy, display, upload, perform, distribute, store, modify and otherwise use your User Content for any Y Combinator-related purpose in any form, medium or technology now known or later developed.
The rights Grammarly (https://www.grammarly.com/terms) take to use your data is limited as follows:
"in connection with the provision of the Software and the Services and to improve the algorithms underlying the Software and the Services."
This on the face of it wouldn't extend to selling your content. Obviously terms of use can change, but a material change like granting Grammarly the right to sell content would usually oblige Grammarly to notify users and at that point users could take a decision to stop using the service.
Also, realistically any proposal to sell data would make use of the service for great swathes of enterprise users a complete non-starter.
"in connection with the provision of the Software and the Services and to improve the algorithms underlying the Software and the Services."
This on the face of it wouldn't extend to selling your content. Obviously terms of use can change, but a material change like granting Grammarly the right to sell content would usually oblige Grammarly to notify users and at that point users could take a decision to stop using the service.
Also, realistically any proposal to sell data would make use of the service for great swathes of enterprise users a complete non-starter.
[deleted]
Even worse, while recording people in public is legal, I think there are specific protections for children under 13 which are the people featured in this Halloween video.
Even for adults, there’s separate restrictions on publishing the video for commercial purposes than for recording it in the first place. I don’t think Ring’s TOS can protect them from claims from the people who aren’t Ring customers themselves.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_release
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_release
A science outreach job I had (in Australia) took special care to ask for consent for photos for their media page. If no consent forms were received, then they got a fluoro yellow sticker to wear so that photos were not taken. I was told that the reason for this is that some children are hidden from their bio-parents because said parents were bad people. We didn't want to risk the stalkers/bad parents from finding vulnerable children so no photos without a consent form.
I think this is the implication that should be considered in this situation and I think this makes Ring either very stupid or very greedy (or both).
I think this is the implication that should be considered in this situation and I think this makes Ring either very stupid or very greedy (or both).
> while recording people in public is legal
...in the US.
In other places the laws can be different, especially if the camera hasn't been registered.
...in the US.
In other places the laws can be different, especially if the camera hasn't been registered.
It could also be completely staged. By keeping the mystery for some time it’s more likely to go viral.
But the real reason why it would go viral is because of the underlying data privacy issue. This is not a great long term strategy.
I don't know why anyone would want any kind of internet recording device from Amazon in or around their home. Why are people willingly enslaving themselves to corporations? I don't see what the incentive is for people.
I don't know why anyone would want any kind of internet recording device from Amazon in or around their home. Why are people willingly enslaving themselves to corporations? I don't see what the incentive is for people.
> But the real reason why it would go viral is because of the underlying data privacy issue. This is not a great long term strategy.
Many of us would love if it wasn’t a good long term strategy. But fb, google, tinder, uber and others point in the direction that the market doesn’t care.
Many of us would love if it wasn’t a good long term strategy. But fb, google, tinder, uber and others point in the direction that the market doesn’t care.
Or it's just another example of ridiculous journalists expectations: they make inquiry during weekend / Friday evening and expect you to respond immediately. But you know, even people at Ring have lives....
Generally whenever journalist post sensational article, where they clearly didn't give other party enough time to respond, I see it more as an example of shitty journalism, because clearly journalist is more interested in flashy headline and breaking news, than the truth.
Generally whenever journalist post sensational article, where they clearly didn't give other party enough time to respond, I see it more as an example of shitty journalism, because clearly journalist is more interested in flashy headline and breaking news, than the truth.
Just to counter your cynicism with my own:
I've made the experience that unless they can make profit off you, you threaten to sue them, or take them to the union/board/bureau/cops, no company is ever going to "get back to you immediately".
I've made the experience that unless they can make profit off you, you threaten to sue them, or take them to the union/board/bureau/cops, no company is ever going to "get back to you immediately".
I like the idea of ring and other home security solutions, but I do not want companies having access like this. I'd like a service where you pay for remote storage but it's encrypted and they have no access.
Are there any alternatives that would meet those requirements?
Are there any alternatives that would meet those requirements?
I don't own a Ring, nor have I used one, so perhaps I don't really understand what makes it so special.
Using Home Assistant[0], you can use the motion detection found in many IP cameras to trigger various events[1]. This includes recording video or sending you notifications[2] about it so you can watch it live. If you don't have motion detection in your camera, you can buy a motion detection module for about $10.
The cost of setup is the price of the camera and a machine (such as an R.Pi) to run Home Assistant on, or perhaps a Zigbee base station as well (about ~$30) depending on what you want to do.
I had a fairly decent-sized setup, including sensors on every door and window, temperature/pressure/humidity sensors in every room + outside, every single lightbulb (exc. bathrooms) was RGB and network connected, as well as light and motion sensors across different parts of my house. I had wireless buttons connected that would do various things depending on how they're interacted with and an IR-emitter that I eventually used to start programming my fan and to interact with my TV.
I think I spent about $200 in total on all of it.
[0] https://www.home-assistant.io/
[1] https://www.home-assistant.io/integrations/camera/
[2] https://www.home-assistant.io/integrations/notify/
Using Home Assistant[0], you can use the motion detection found in many IP cameras to trigger various events[1]. This includes recording video or sending you notifications[2] about it so you can watch it live. If you don't have motion detection in your camera, you can buy a motion detection module for about $10.
The cost of setup is the price of the camera and a machine (such as an R.Pi) to run Home Assistant on, or perhaps a Zigbee base station as well (about ~$30) depending on what you want to do.
I had a fairly decent-sized setup, including sensors on every door and window, temperature/pressure/humidity sensors in every room + outside, every single lightbulb (exc. bathrooms) was RGB and network connected, as well as light and motion sensors across different parts of my house. I had wireless buttons connected that would do various things depending on how they're interacted with and an IR-emitter that I eventually used to start programming my fan and to interact with my TV.
I think I spent about $200 in total on all of it.
[0] https://www.home-assistant.io/
[1] https://www.home-assistant.io/integrations/camera/
[2] https://www.home-assistant.io/integrations/notify/
I know this is hacker news but the fact that you don’t need to build the system yourself is the reason why it is so special. Most people want the product to work out of the box without any additional configuration.
I appreciate that. When I wrote "perhaps I don't really understand what makes it so special" I meant that insofar that I might not completely understand, and therefore might miss, the key features of Ring within the alternative solution I proposed.
>I don't really understand what makes it so special
You don't have to use YAML? :-)
You don't have to use YAML? :-)
I don’t have specific devices but that’s Apple’s goal with HomeKit Secure Video. The video is stored in your iCloud storage and processed locally in your network on an AppleTV or other device.
I LIKED the idea of Ring. Until I owned one.
Turns out I don’t like staring at a camera every time I come and go. And it’s obviously intentional it’s a cloud only product for a reason, they absolutely could do local storage but the model is mining and storage.
Took me about 3 days to figure out this was a bad purchase.
Turns out I don’t like staring at a camera every time I come and go. And it’s obviously intentional it’s a cloud only product for a reason, they absolutely could do local storage but the model is mining and storage.
Took me about 3 days to figure out this was a bad purchase.
Doorbird seem to allow local-only operation.
Just pay for a Synology and store it yourself.
Arlo. It offers local storage.
Smartvue
> Smartvue
I don’t understand the difference. It appears you are just trading AWS for Tyco / Johnson Controls cloud.
I don’t understand the difference. It appears you are just trading AWS for Tyco / Johnson Controls cloud.
In the end the promotional weirdness isn’t Amazon’s fault. The majority of their potential customers who just see the ads on their social media feeds don’t know or care where the images came from, and Amazon is legally in the clear. As long as the ads bring out the intended emotion it’ll sell Ring doorbells.
The actual culprit is that we in the USA don’t have sufficient laws that force companies to clearly explain the kinds of rights people sign away by using various services.
Making terms and conditions long, boring, and often not automatically expanded or viewed is all a part of the scam.
It should be mandatory for things like this to be opt-in instead of opt-out.
It should be mandatory for the terms to be summarized in a clear fashion in about a sentence or two.
It should be mandatory for services like this to provide a convenient alternative if the service gives up a defined amount of rights.
So in this case, my proposal would be, if the sharing features require giving up copyright protections like this, Ring should be forced to provide an alternative social media sharing function that does not give up those rights. If the sharing function didn’t give up those rights, then Ring wouldn’t have to provide this alternative under this hypothetical law.
In any event, with all this said, it’s a commercial. It’s staged. Why go through the effort of finding all these clips, making sure they’re not only entertaining but recorded with decent video quality, if you can just spend an afternoon with nearly-free child actors making the commercial in ideal filming conditions. The only reason Ring is not being forthcoming about the video source is that they don’t want to admit it’s staged (not that they want to confirm or deny that they got permission to use some home footage).
The actual culprit is that we in the USA don’t have sufficient laws that force companies to clearly explain the kinds of rights people sign away by using various services.
Making terms and conditions long, boring, and often not automatically expanded or viewed is all a part of the scam.
It should be mandatory for things like this to be opt-in instead of opt-out.
It should be mandatory for the terms to be summarized in a clear fashion in about a sentence or two.
It should be mandatory for services like this to provide a convenient alternative if the service gives up a defined amount of rights.
So in this case, my proposal would be, if the sharing features require giving up copyright protections like this, Ring should be forced to provide an alternative social media sharing function that does not give up those rights. If the sharing function didn’t give up those rights, then Ring wouldn’t have to provide this alternative under this hypothetical law.
In any event, with all this said, it’s a commercial. It’s staged. Why go through the effort of finding all these clips, making sure they’re not only entertaining but recorded with decent video quality, if you can just spend an afternoon with nearly-free child actors making the commercial in ideal filming conditions. The only reason Ring is not being forthcoming about the video source is that they don’t want to admit it’s staged (not that they want to confirm or deny that they got permission to use some home footage).
Are we as an industry really so socially awkward that we can’t ask people to cooperate in market research?
Is it really easier for us to creep around spying on people like some stalker or peeping Tom? Maybe we should sort this out, before someone does it for us.
Is it really easier for us to creep around spying on people like some stalker or peeping Tom? Maybe we should sort this out, before someone does it for us.
i doubt it is a social awkwardness issue. Sucking up data is just profitable. Market research is expensive, and honestly would just be outsourced anyway.
It would be so easy to ask. Most people would just say yes. That would be enough.
Oh no, CHILDREN dressed up for public display to strangers will be publicaly displayed to strangers! All moral decency is lost. America seems to go crazy when kids are involved.
You realize employees had to watch a lot of cameras footages (internal and external) until they found the ones at doors right?
No, I didn't know that ring made internal cameras nor that those products have no differentiation.. though your account appears to be supposition to me.
Based on the low quality of their selections, I would postulate about 20.
Based on the low quality of their selections, I would postulate about 20.
I think it's a great and funny publicity stunt, I don't know what exactly I should be mad about? Or the "won't someone think of the children" argument doesn't work both ways?
People are annoyed that footage from their home was used, without their permission or any payment to them, by Ring for adverts.
People are annoyed that footage from their family trick-or-treat session was used, without their permission or any payment to them, by Ring for adverts.
People are annoyed that millions of unregistered surveillance cameras are being installed with few protections or oversight. They're realising that creating a panopticon might also need to include some protection for how the data is used.
People are annoyed that footage from their family trick-or-treat session was used, without their permission or any payment to them, by Ring for adverts.
People are annoyed that millions of unregistered surveillance cameras are being installed with few protections or oversight. They're realising that creating a panopticon might also need to include some protection for how the data is used.
>People are annoyed that footage from their home was used, without their permission or any payment to them, by Ring for adverts. People are annoyed that footage from their family trick-or-treat session was used, without their permission or any payment to them, by Ring for adverts.
They should have read the terms of service. Really I'm tired of this argument. "X service should not exist because nobody reads the terms of service"? What about the people who read them? Why should they be deprived of using this service?
>People are annoyed that millions of unregistered surveillance cameras are being installed with few protections or oversight. They're realising that creating a panopticon might also need to include some protection for how the data is used.
People should be able to put whatever they want in their lawns.
Anyway I'm sceptical about this being actual footage from Ring; I'd say they recorded it with actors.
They should have read the terms of service. Really I'm tired of this argument. "X service should not exist because nobody reads the terms of service"? What about the people who read them? Why should they be deprived of using this service?
>People are annoyed that millions of unregistered surveillance cameras are being installed with few protections or oversight. They're realising that creating a panopticon might also need to include some protection for how the data is used.
People should be able to put whatever they want in their lawns.
Anyway I'm sceptical about this being actual footage from Ring; I'd say they recorded it with actors.
> They should have read the terms of service
A child puts on a costume and visits someone's home to trick-or-treat them. That child's image is now used by ring in adverts.
When did that child read and accept a ToS?
Where in the Ring ToS / Privacy statement does it say that they'll use Ring video for adverts? Please could you link to the page and quote the text?
I think my protection from being surveilled should not rely on my neighbour's ability to read and interpret a ToS.
> People should be able to put whatever they want in their lawns.
I tend to agree, but lots of ring cameras are installed so that they also capture stuff that happens off the installer's property. They can capture the neighbour's lawn and driveways, or they can capture the public street.
A child puts on a costume and visits someone's home to trick-or-treat them. That child's image is now used by ring in adverts.
When did that child read and accept a ToS?
Where in the Ring ToS / Privacy statement does it say that they'll use Ring video for adverts? Please could you link to the page and quote the text?
I think my protection from being surveilled should not rely on my neighbour's ability to read and interpret a ToS.
> People should be able to put whatever they want in their lawns.
I tend to agree, but lots of ring cameras are installed so that they also capture stuff that happens off the installer's property. They can capture the neighbour's lawn and driveways, or they can capture the public street.
> The videos are pretty innocent, but it's creepy as hell that Ring decided to use video captured on Halloween as a PR stunt to show that, uh, Ring is always watching.
Of course Ring is always watching, that's why people buy those. I mean if I was a customer I would be pissed to know they are not watching
The product description says is for YOU (the buyer) to watch the cameras footage from anywhere, not for the company called ring or their employees; btw this stunt means they had to check a lot of cameras until they found outdoor ones (so the employees probably saw a lot of internal cameras inside childrens rooms among others)
That seems like a clear answer...
> "The company is able to do this thanks to a broad terms of service agreement that grants it the perpetual right to use footage shared with it for 'any purpose' it chooses," BuzzFeed wrote.
I always find this odd. Lots of people tell me that they make these TOS to "cover their asses" with the assumption that everyone sues left and right over everything. So do these people realize that that's not exactly what's happening? Do people think of this usage of footage as abuse of the TOS? Because I sure do. I'm not sure how it is really different from copying someone's art and claiming it as your own and (successfully) selling it.