this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2023
200 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37801 readers
321 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's great, right up until Ring unilaterally decides to give the police access to your videos without a warrant, or when the police use a warrant to grab video from ALL of your cameras, even if you've already complied with their request, and the video is not relevant to their investigation.
Which is a completely different topic than the one I quoted. The article said that equipment owners shouldn't be able to provide their videos to the police without the police first getting a warrant, which is an utterly ridiculous position to take.
OBVIOUSLY the police should have a warrant to get the video without the equipment owner's permission, but that's not what the author said.
Absolutely fair response. I'm sorry that I came across as attacking your point. I just meant to provide another reason why the cameras shouldn't be recommended, using the context of your quote from the article. I'm sorry that I wasn't clear about that.
Got it, my misunderstanding...
And I do agree with your added concern.