Cops Are Running Ring Camera Footage Through Their Own Facial Recognition Software Because Who's Going To Stop Them
from the ALL-DOORS-ARE-RECORDED dept
Ring may be holding off on adding facial recognition tech to its already-problematic security cameras, but that’s not stopping any of its not-exactly-end-users from doing it for themselves.
Ring is swallowing up the doorbell camera market with aggressive marketing that includes the free use of taxpayer-funded services. It calls over 600 law enforcement agencies “partners.” In exchange for agency autonomy and free cameras, police departments all over the nation are pushing cameras on citizens and asking them to upload anything interesting to Ring’s “I saw someone brown in my neighborhood” app, Neighbors.
The company that has someone in charge of its facial recognition division Ring claims it’s not using to implement facial recognition tech is handing out cameras like laced candy. Law enforcement agencies are snatching the cameras up. And they’re snatching the footage up, using subpoenas to work around recalcitrant homeowners. Once they have the footage, they can keep it forever and share it with whoever they want.
They can also run the footage through whatever hardware or software they have laying around, as Caroline Haskins reports for BuzzFeed.
Amazon does not offer the ability to recognize faces in footage on its Ring doorbell cameras. But just one month after police in Chandler, Arizona, received 25 surveillance cameras for free from the company, the department’s then–assistant chief discussed using its own facial recognition technology on Ring footage at a meeting of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, according to his slideshow obtained in a public records request.
In an April presentation titled “Leveraging Consumer Surveillance Systems,” Jason Zdilla discussed various consumer surveillance devices and platforms. Examples cited in the presentation included Ring cameras and the Neighbors app.
It’s the perfect storm of unaccountability. Footage can be obtained from Ring with a subpoena. Ring hands it over with zero strings attached. Cop shop runs it through the Zoom Enhancer and any databases it has or has access to. Bingo: facial recognition in cameras supplied by a company that says it’s not all that into facial recognition at the moment.
Now, you may be wondering why this is a big deal. Why does any of this matter when other surveillance systems with cloud storage are likely similarly responsive to subpoenas and place no restrictions on footage they hand over to law enforcement?
Well, two things: first, Ring claims all footage belongs to camera owners, but treats camera owners as if they’re not a stakeholder when it comes to sharing their recordings with the government.
Second — and far more importantly — Ring aggressively courts police departments as “partners,” turning consumer products into unofficial extensions of existing government camera networks. Ring hands out free cameras to cops and hands out even more freebies if cops convince homeowners to download the Neighbors app and share as much footage as possible. Ring also takes control of all PR efforts and official statements involving Ring doorbells that cops have given to citizens. And Ring coaches cops how to obtain footage without having to trouble the courts with a warrant.
This is unlike any other company in the home security business. Ring’s assimilation of hundreds of law enforcement agencies blurs the line between public and private in the name of commerce. Taxpayers are contributing to their own co-opting into a surveillance mesh network propelled by one of the largest companies in the world. This isn’t acceptable. But the longer Ring’s expansion remains unchecked, the sooner its behavior will become normalized. And once it’s normalized, it’s over.
Filed Under: cameras, doorbells, facial recognition, police, ring
Companies: amazon, ring
Comments on “Cops Are Running Ring Camera Footage Through Their Own Facial Recognition Software Because Who's Going To Stop Them”
Ring claims all footage belongs to camera owners...
And they are right, when you factor in that THEY OWN everything, end users just have a ‘licensing agreement’ that makes them feel good…
Tommy boy can crap in a box and put a guarantee on it, but it’s still just a box of crap…
Don’t ever buy RING. Bad enough with the forever paying of monthly services for however long you have their Doorbell. Take a look at the EUFY Doorbell. Better than ring in pretty much everything. Higher resolution, Faster to inform you, Cheaper, and it has local storage. No monthly fee’s unless you want to for cloud storage, but not really needed. The only thing it lacks is no battery, so it would have to be wired up.
Best of all, neither Amazon or Google owns them. At least so far. They also lack Apple’s Homekit support at this time.
Re: Re:
Just ordered my EUFY Doorbell camera. Thanks.
Why is everyone so scared?
Re: Re:
Listen to the guy in the White House, and how much he respects those with opinions that differ from his. Why are you are not worried about increasing surveillance available to the state, and remember that it may not be the party that you support that holds that power.
Re: Re:
Because unlike you bro. They aren’t fucking stupid.
Re: Re: Re:
Retard
Re: Re: Re: Anonymous Cowards calling Anonymous Cowards childish names
All Anonymous Cowards calling other Anonymous Cowards names are retards.
Your right to free expression is for the purpose of allowing you to speak and be heard without having to identify yourself. Insulting another anonymously … when the first speaker is anonymous… well, guess who the "retard" is.
Hint: in 2019 it’s not considered polite to even use that word… so you’re not only abusing your privilege of Techdirt allowing you to speak without giving your name, you’re being a total idiot about it.
E
Re: Re: Re:2 Anonymous Cowards calling Anonymous Cowards childish names
Well then quick call Techdirt’s head office and tell them to cancel the AC posting function.
Good god what are they thinking providing a service to the public that doesn’t censor and ban those deemed undesirable by society’s worst!? Oh the humanity!!! /sarcasm
Free speech is only an argument against the government. If society’s worst deem you undesirable, well, have fun yelling at that brick wall they will place in front of you and everyone else.
Re: Re: Re:3 Anonymous Cowards calling Anonymous Cowards childish nam
What government censorship are you talking about?
Re: Re: Re:4 Anonymous Cowards calling Anonymous Cowards childish
I never said anything about government censorship. What part of "Free speech is only an argument against the government." Implies that I did?
"Free speech is only an argument against the government." I.e. Free speech is only a valid (legal) argument against the government. Against the general public there is no such law. The general public is free to deny the right to speak to anyone, and therefore no-one has the right to speak.
Bullshit you say? Hardly. If speaking your mind means that a twitter mob can take away your job or ability to eat, that’s hardly bullshit. Previously, only governments had such power. Now, any vocal idiot on the internet who can drum up some supporters can effectively end your life as you know it. Unlike the government however, there is no redress. No place to file a complaint or grievance. All there is, is a brick wall of apathy constructed by said vocal idiot patting themselves on the back in the fleeting of high of (false) righteousness.
I call those idiots society’s worst because that’s what they are. They (wrongly) feel as though they have done a service to society, that they have removed a true threat. In reality however, all they have done is abused free speech to viciously silence a political / ideological opponent. They have "won" not through principle or fact-based arguments but by pure hatred and scorn. They are the people who’s speech is toxic, because it’s through them that all speech is threatened.
Re: Re: Re:5 Anonymous Cowards calling Anonymous Cowards chil
Thanks for spewing and I get it. Anybody that doesn’t agree with your right to spew is toxic. You’re making a great case for not sure what. Maybe you might think about whether free speech exists outside of the government. The first amendment is a United States thing. The rest of the world has decreed free speech to be a right. Maybe you could spew on how that’s wrong and nobody’s right and if it doesn’t involve the United States government stopping your free speech it’s all ok.
Time..
Time to start wearing IR indicators on myself…about 6-10 of them.. So the cameras only Zooms 1/2 way and the closer I get, the more they blind the cameras..
Re: Time..
There is a lot a potential in that idea. Could you tell us what you mean by an "IR indicator" or suggest a specific device?
Re: Time..
Would you be so kind as to provide a link to such a product? I did google "IR indicator" and found a $995 device that should tell me if I’m being hit with IR… but won’t do anything to prevent the camera from functioning. Thanks!
Re: Re: Time..
I remembered seeing this Kickstarter campaign
I believe the campaign failed but I thought the idea had merit. I don’t know if they exaggerated the video, but what they show looks impressive.
Looks like they survived – here’s a product website
Re: Time..
Isn’t that like a tiger repelling rock in the presence of tigers….
Criminal masks
We should all start wearing masks that minic the faces of known criminals when we "Ring" the doorbell.
Re: Criminal masks
Like this guy?
Re: Criminal masks
I think one reason people put cat noses on their internet pictures is to avoid facial recognition of their photos.
If the government said it was going to install a nationwide CCTV system, everyone would be up in arms. Far fewer are up in arms with a private corporation essentially setting up a nationwide CCTV system and handing it over to the government to use all willy-nilly like.
someone please explain to me how the USA can still even try to say that it is a ‘Democratic Country’, when it is so much closer to being a Police State, where ordinary people are now assumed ‘guilty unless able to pay the right person and become innocent’, have virtually no rights and the Constitution is all but thrown out the window, in order for DAs in every state to get wins that they want, even when the accused is completely innocent and provided those same accused weren’t killed by the police and so couldn’t be arrested and able to try to prove their innocence in the first place!!
Re: Re:
Because people like you said "get over it" when it happened to others who tried to warn you that one day it would happen to you.
Re: Re:
Cause none of the things you mentioned have anything to do with democracy, duh.
"USA -Under Surveillance Always"
camera's don't stop crime
they just record it…until the deep fakes get better and the recordings themselves get hacked
There’s a word for the merger of state and corporate power. Now, what was it…
Re: Re:
Yet Big Tech’s assimilation of the entire internet doesn’t make them a…what is that word again?
Re: Re: Re:
Well, that is something that hasn’t happened, so I’m not sure what to tell you.
Re: Re: Re:
The word was fascist, but you tried to turn it into … ???
Freedom Of Association
Law enforcement, via facial recognition, can now know everyone who lives at, or visits, any physical address.
Think about that for a second.
You think it is scary that Facebook has "the social graph" of who is connected to who is connected to who. Cops now have the physical social graph. Who goes to who’s house. And how often. Average time of day visited.
With a bit more AI, police could recognize if people bring certain types of recognizable items into their own homes. Things that maybe they should not have. Like video cameras that can be used to commit criminal public photography. Or outright criminal items such as skateboards. OMG!
When police need to know where someone with a criminal record lives, just run their mugshot through the AI to see what physical locations they’ve visited recently.
Google: Don’t be evil
Amazon: Fuck that! Hold my beer and watch this.
More New Normal
"…once it’s normalized, it’s over."
That’s "normalized" like other shit the police are doing. Like employing massive overkill to the murder of unarmed black people. Gee, that is scary, since it could affect white people like me.
Time to quit voluntarily involving the cops in our lives. And maybe, Amazon too.
"Cops are not your friends..." -- until you need them?
When I was in elementary school, twice a year a local cop came and talked about the job they did. We were handed out little trinkets, and we thought that guy’s job was really cool. "Cops are your friends" teachers and parents told me.
Years later, as a twenty-something I related this story. The person I was at the bar with asked "When a friend walks in here… what do you do… wave, right? But a cop walks in and you make sure your stuff is all good." ("Your paperwork is in order" to take it to Godwin.) Cops are not our friends…
…until one day when you or your loved one is attacked or your car is stolen or your house is burglarized… and then 911 and waiting for the cops to show up is the longest 5-10 minutes.
So back to the quoted line:
What does one do then, when one is the subject of a crime?
Ehud
Re: "Cops are not your friends..." -- until you need them?
Yes – involve them when you need them and stay out of their way when you don’t. I think that would be their choice as well. When they are in the costume they’re not looking for friends.
But this is about the inadvertent involvement of police. Perhaps friends bring a friend to your home, the video is subpoenaed / leaked / hacked. Facial recognition from someone like Clearview AI identifies the friends friend as a suspect, now you are too through the association.