Technology

59288 readers

6508 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

298

More Police Are Using Your Cameras for Video Evidence (www.themarshallproject.org)

submitted 10 months ago by gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

48 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Private security footage is nothing new to criminal investigations, but two factors are rapidly changing the landscape: huge growth in the number of devices with cameras, and the fact that footage usually lands in a cloud server, rather than on a tape.

When a third party maintains the footage on the cloud, it gives police the ability to seek the images directly from the storage company, rather than from the resident or business owner who controls the recording device. In 2022, the Ring security company, owned by Amazon, admitted that it had provided audio and video from customer doorbells to police without user consent at least 11 times. The company cited “exigent circumstances.”

Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20240116132800/https://www.themarshallproject.org/2024/01/13/police-video-surveillance-california

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] perviouslyiner@lemmy.world 48 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Obligatory reminder that just getting into a car (or walking past one) is considered by pretty much every car manufacturer to be acceptance of their privacy policy:

https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/blog/privacy-nightmare-on-wheels-every-car-brand-reviewed-by-mozilla-including-ford-volkswagen-and-toyota-flunks-privacy-test/

[–] Plopp@lemmy.world 39 points 10 months ago

It's supported by the famous first principle of Descartes: I think, therefore I accept the terms of service

[–] guyinachair@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Should there be an expectation of privacy in public? Definitely wrong for footage to be able to wirelessly, without the owners consent, leave a car.

[–] sir_reginald@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Should there be an expectation of privacy in public?

No, but there should be an expectation of not being recorded by every car you come across.

[–] piecat@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Again, the expectation in public is that you don't have privacy.

The expectation I would have is that your own car isn't going to collect evidence that could be used against you. And that it won't collect data in your own garage or on your property.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Said it in the other thread but: that isn’t legal.

[–] BobGnarley@lemm.ee 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You're right but it reminds me of that cop that killed that fumigator guy in Arizona. Total cold blood murder and that was illegal as well. I used to always tell me dad "no they can't do that" and he would look at me serious as fuck and say "They are the government they can do whatever the fuck they want" its the same idea with rich companies they steal wages and kill workers through incompetence or lax safety practices all the time and sure its illegal but that doesnt matter when you can do it and face no repurcusions anyway.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 3 points 10 months ago

Yep.

Legality is on paper.