Amazon Requires Police To Shill Surveillance Cameras in Secret Agreement (vice.com) 108
Amazon's home security company Ring has enlisted local police departments around the country to advertise its surveillance cameras in exchange for free Ring products and a "portal" that allows police to request footage from these cameras, a secret agreement obtained by Motherboard shows. From a report: The agreement also requires police to "keep the terms of this program confidential." Dozens of police departments around the country have partnered with Ring, but until now, the exact terms of these partnerships have remained unknown. A signed memorandum of understanding between Ring and the police department of Lakeland, Florida, and emails obtained via a public records request, show that Ring is using local police as a de facto advertising firm. Police are contractually required to "Engage the Lakeland community with outreach efforts on the platform to encourage adoption of the platform/app." In order to partner with Ring, police departments must also assign officers to Ring-specific roles that include a press coordinator, a social media manager, and a community relations coordinator.
Start by firing people (Score:5, Interesting)
Lets start by firing the Chief Executives of both the police and Amazon that signed these "secret" agreements, which on the face look like they are at least unethical, and at worst, a violation of applicable laws.
While not fascism yet... (Score:5, Insightful)
This sure sounds like an example of proto-fascism, the industry offering favors to the government for beneficial access to the products being shilled, then the government begins making 'requests' of the businesses that are favorable to it, until it becomes difficult to tell where one organization ends and the other begins.
Re:While not fascism yet... (Score:5, Informative)
we've had corporate fascism in the USA for decades, this is yet another example of it
Re: (Score:2)
we've had corporate fascism in the USA for decades, this is yet another example of it
Yup, since they were planning this a long time ago. Zbigniew Brezinksi, former National security advisor of the united states in one of his books...
"The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These f
Re: (Score:2)
finally someone who actually understands what fascism is. It has nothing to do with racism, racism is its own issue entirely and shares no exclusivity with fascism.
Re:While not fascism yet... (Score:5, Interesting)
finally someone who actually understands what fascism is. It has nothing to do with racism, racism is its own issue entirely and shares no exclusivity with fascism.
No, but fascists generally tend to use racism at some level to either energize their base or legitimize their rule, just as they usually tend to use nationalism (usually the nationalism and racism are tied together in that you have to be of a certain ethnic background to be considered a "true citizen" of the fascist state).
Being a racist doesn't immediately make you a fascist, and being a fascist doesn't immediately make you a racist. But you can be both a racist and a fascist, and represent/espouse both ideologies at the same time through the same actions and the same words. This is especially true today with neo-fascism, which itself usually holds elements of racism within it's central tenets.
Re:While not fascism yet... (Score:5, Informative)
Lemme guess, "Wasn't real socialism" ..... uh huh.
National Socialism isn't socialism.... Do you also think the People's Democratic Republic of China is a democracy just because it says so in the name?
What do I know though, I only have a Master's degree in political science.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
You obviously don't have a degree in economics, though!
Arguing that names don't necessarily represent the actuality is only applicable if the name is the ONLY thing suggesting what it is. But the National Socialists were socialists as well as nationalists - hence the large number of socialist economic policies they implemented.
Some of the National Socialist's economic policies:
Strong capital controls on banks
Legal limits on profit margins
Requiring companies to hire works as directed by the government
Preven
Re: (Score:3)
You obviously don't have a degree in economics, though!
Arguing that names don't necessarily represent the actuality is only applicable if the name is the ONLY thing suggesting what it is. But the National Socialists were socialists as well as nationalists - hence the large number of socialist economic policies they implemented.
Some of the National Socialist's economic policies:
Strong capital controls on banks
Legal limits on profit margins
Requiring companies to hire works as directed by the government
Preventing workers from being fired without government approval
Laws preventing transfer of wealth to outside of Germany
Requiring wages be linked to corporate revenue
Large increases in minimum wage
Mandatory public schooling of party-written doctine
Placing government officials onto manage boards of corporations
Seizing industries entirely, placing them in government hands
And all that before 1936. By 1940, the Nazis ran a full war-time economy, and you can actually make a good case that nothing done then was "socialist" - or "capitalist" - but before 1939, you can't support that claim.
But what do I know. I only have a degree in history.
I also have a degree in history. A lot of those things you mention don't apply solely to socialist states: they apply to any authoritarian state. Specifically teaching official doctrine in schools, direct government control over private business (hireability requirements, limitations on flow of capital/transfer of wealth), and seizing private industry. One clear tipoff in regards to the seizing of private industry is who it is being seized for. In a fascist authoritarian state, a seized business is sei
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, uh, because other states also do socialist things doesn't make the Nazis doing those things not socialists. If you've read any of the Nazi propaganda, political campaigns, or even the party platform, you surely know that the Nazis claimed to be doing things for the German people. The Nazis were also most certainly an authoritarian state - one that practiced Socialist economic principles.
Relevant:
Nazis claimed to be socialists.
Nazis did socialist things.
Not Relevant:
Other countries also do socialist
Re: (Score:2)
"Nominally." That's a lot of words to make a pissweak case.
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC, the Nazi movement started out with an agenda that was partially socialist. Universal health care (for good citizens) and such. This became a minor element in their agenda, of course.
P.S.: The fascists were the followers of Mussolini, not of Hitler. War-time propaganda conflated the two, but they really *were* distinct. Modern fascists tend to continue that confusion, but fascism proper is the corporate state, i.e. state and corporations working together to achieve goals both consider desirable.
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC, the Nazi movement started out with an agenda that was partially socialist. Universal health care (for good citizens) and such.
Not so much. [psmag.com] Germany had Universal Healthcare, it was one of the first countries to have it, thanks to Bismark. [wikipedia.org] The Nazis centralized administration and used the system to kill the infirm and "mentally deficient".
Re: (Score:2)
There are two countries calling themselves China: The People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC) (more commonly known as Taiwan). Neither has Democratic in their name.
Re: While not fascism yet... (Score:2)
Yeah, I meant DPRK and Korea. Which makes my point even more: no one could ever mistake North Korea as a democracy
Re: (Score:3)
socialism is litterally the polar opposite of fascism. In socialism the government owns everything, your house, your business, everything. Whats yours is mine and whats mine is mine. In Fascism the businesses own the government. Both are a terrible scenario, but they are not the same and you cant treat them as such. They are nearly as different as a virus and a bacteria. Sure they both make you sick, give you a fever, and knock you on your ass; but you dont treat a viral infection with antibiotics and you
Re:While not fascism yet... (Score:4, Insightful)
No. Socialism is not the opposite of fascism. An enlightened fascist might well also be a socialist, in fact he wouldn't need to be all that enlightened, consider Bismark.
It's difficult to pick an exact opposite of fascism, but I'd suggest anarchism, or some variety of anarchism. And the opposite of socialism is an extreme libertarianism. Note the similarities. This is because both socialism and fascism are based around centralized control, so the opposite would need to deny that.
Re: (Score:2)
A key part of the definition of fascism is that it's on the far right of the scale. Since socialism is on the left, a socialist can't be a fascist. They can still be very bad people, but the specific term fascism means some other type of bad.
There are really two axis on this graph. Left/right political ideology, and authoritarian/libertarian ways of implementing it. Fascists are both far right and authoritarian. The exact opposite would be a libertarian communist, which doesn't make much sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Fascism isn't right wing, anymore than Socialism is.
1) Both are totalitarian and thus on the freedom / totalitarian scale, both line up.
2) Both Socialism and Fascism use government to control the means of the economy.
These two things are linked. The Less liberty we have, the more totalitarian we get. And that ALWAYS spills over to economy. When Government is controls the economy, it controls the people.
Not labeling things correctly allows for bad information to disconnect the link between Government Control
Re: (Score:2)
Re:While not fascism yet... (Score:4, Funny)
ure Socialism: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all the cows. The government gives you as much milk as you need.
Socialism: You have two cows. The government takes one of your cows and gives it to your neighbor. You're both forced to join a cooperative where you have to teach your neighbor how to take care of his cow.
Bureaucratic Socialism: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. They are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and as many eggs as its regulations say you should need.
Pure Communism: You have two cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.
Russian Communism: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk.
Communism: You have two cows. The government seizes both and provides you with milk. You wait in line for you share of the milk, but it's so long that the milk is sour by the time you get it.
Re: (Score:2)
Socialism: You have two cows. The government takes one of your cows and gives it to your neighbor. You're both forced to join a cooperative where you have to teach your neighbor how to take care of his cow.
Your definition of socialism bares no resemblance to any European socialist state. What you describe as socialism is communism.
Pure Communism: You have two cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.
Your definition of "pure communism" is more like actual socialism, as it works in practice. The government facilitates the cooperation between you and your neighbour.
Re: (Score:2)
the bolsheviks were/are very racist. The USSR was home to dozens of different languages and ethnicities. Only the white bolsheviks seem to amass wealth and power. The Nazi party were fascists, but they were also hell bent on genetic purity too. The extreme end of capitolism becomes fascism where the government is beholden to corporations. However the other end of the spectrum is where you find communism/socialism becoming the likes of Animal Farm. Polar opposites and yet both extremes found it justifiable a
Re: (Score:2)
I have been told Mexico seems to have this problem as well. In a country of a lot of brown people, the more brown you are, the shittier your status. Myans seem to get shit on the most, whereas the mostly white latino's hold the highest standings. This I have not seen first hand, but has been relayed to me by more than one person who was from there.
My understanding is that there is a similar effect in Asia. For example in Bollywood most of the big actors are lighter skinned, while in other Asian countries skin whitening/lightening creams are big sellers in the cosmetic industry.
I hate to say it like this, but I wonder if those beliefs have been traditionally held or are holdovers from colonial days where the lighter skinned people (whites) tended to be rich and the masters while the darker skinned people (the locals) were the workers/servants, so eve
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to say it like this, but I wonder if those beliefs have been traditionally held or are holdovers from colonial days where the lighter skinned people (whites) tended to be rich and the masters while the darker skinned people (the locals) were the workers/servants, so eventually even with intermarriage lightness became associated with wealth/status/beauty.
I think theres probably more psychology involved. Ive watched a few videos where they break down the psychology of attraction. They talked a lot about features like high cheekbones and hip shape that signal fertility. Subconsciously you respond without even being aware its happening. Perhaps lighter skin makes these features more easy to identify. Then if you add cosmetics on top of this, were by having light skin gives you blank canvas to do all those makup tricks to give you bone features you do not reall
Re: (Score:2)
The reality [wellcomecollection.org] is that this is 100% a legacy of colonialism [theconversation.com].
Re:Start by firing people (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets start by firing the Chief Executives of both the police and Amazon that signed these "secret" agreements, which on the face look like they are at least unethical, and at worst, a violation of applicable laws.
The funny thing is, on the face of it the agreement is relatively reasonable. If the police are going to use Ring doorbells to gather evidence and the company is providing a portal, it would make sense for the police to promote the adoption of the doorbells within the community.
The main issue is the requirement to keep the agreement confidential. The public should always know when local government is partnering with a private entity, especially in a promotional context. A smaller issue the the contractual requirement for promotion, which is really unnecessary anyway. In fact, it would probably have driven even more adoption if the police had been allowed to say "Hey, we've partnered with Ring, if you have a Ring doorbell and something happens-your house is broken into or you have packages stolen-it will be easier for us to investigate."
Re: (Score:2)
That's crony capitalism, almost by definition: the doorbell, as manufactured by our cozy industrial friends.
If the police want to promote new technologies as part of the overall community's security bundle, that's just fine. If they
Re: (Score:1)
Umm...you know the police don't respond to home alarm systems, right? It's actually policy in this region that even police-connected alarm systems will receive no response from the police. It's going to be exactly the same with Ring doorbells. Heck, the police have no obligation to protect you per actual court rulings. The police have no obligation to know or understand the law.
The reason they didn't say "Hey, we've partnered with Ring..." is because they don't want to make a commitment to this program or p
Re: (Score:2)
Umm...you know the police don't respond to home alarm systems, right? It's actually policy in this region that even police-connected alarm systems will receive no response from the police. It's going to be exactly the same with Ring doorbells. Heck, the police have no obligation to protect you per actual court rulings. The police have no obligation to know or understand the law.
Of course they aren't going to send out a squad car every time someone's dog triggers their neighbor's Ring. But if a homeowner were to report a crime, it's one more avenue where the police could obtain evidence to help with an investigation. It also might make police more likely to investigate harder to pursue crimes such as burglary, car break ins, and porch pirates because it reduces the cost-in terms of effort and manpower- to collect evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Reasonable? Not. E
Re: (Score:2)
better yet, there has already been major security issues with Ring and the fact that their 'AI trainers' are watching your feeds and storing them unencrypted. So now we can sue the living fuck out of these police departments for promoting a product designed to compromise your constitutionally protected rights to privacy. Remember, Ring is not just a doorbell, they have internal cameras too. So next security breach make sure you sue the piss out of the police department for a violation of your 4th and 5th a
Re:Start by firing people (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please explain the ethics principles and laws you are referring to.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuggin' unbelievable.
Amazon is poorly managed in several ways. (Score:2)
I see problems with management at Amazon in many areas.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would they want to keep this a secret?
In the society that Orwell describes, every citizen is under constant surveillance by the authorities, mainly by telescreens (with the exception of the Proles). The people are constantly reminded of this by the slogan "Big Brother is watching you": a maxim that is ubiquitously on display.
Re: (Score:2)
Corruption thrives with secrecy (Score:5, Insightful)
Time for a new law (Score:5, Insightful)
We need "separation of business and state" every bit as much as "separation of church and state".
Re: (Score:1)
At the very least every SINGLE such deal needs to be presented to the local oversight for public comment and hard decisions to be made. Doing it in secret makes the whole thing untenable and unacceptable.
Fascism is the merger of corporate and state interests. We don't want that at all. Not even the Trumpy retards who think they do.
Re: Time for a new law (Score:2)
We've had such laws since the Sherman (Antitrust) Act in 1890. They were strongly enforced in the post-WWII era, and were in part responsible for the golden age of the American economy.
What's needed is to start aggressively enforcing the antitrust laws already on the books. President Trump talks a good game about swinging the trust-busting stick. So does Democrat candidate Elizabeth Warren.
I highly recommend Prof Tim Wu's popular history of antitrust law, _The Curse of Bigness_.
https://globalreports.columbi [columbia.edu]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Peeping Bezos (Score:2)
Nope (Score:4, Insightful)
""keep the terms of this program confidential.""
Nope nope nope. The police are supposed to serve the community. Having secret business deals is NOT serving the community...
Re: (Score:1)
I'm surprised it is even legal to sign contracts in the public sector that require some form of confidentiality.
Does such language not conflict with transparency obligations under the law...and if so, shouldn't transparency requirements overrule the contract text.
Additionally, while Police officers might have signed a contract saying they have to advertise, as government officials, they are not obligated or authorized to do any work that is not budgeted for by the city officials who pay the police departmen
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
sue them for violating your 4th and 5th amendment rights. During discovery subpoena the terms of this agreement. They can either settle out of court for a few billion, or they can disclose. Add the mayors office in the lawsuit for good measure. They report to him/her so they too are responsible.
Re: (Score:2)
During discovery subpoena the terms of this agreement.
And you'll get back "What agreement? There is no such agreement.", and you won't be able to do anything about it.
Or worse, you don't even know what other agreements to ask for in discovery because they were successfully kept secret.
Re:Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
In other news, police like surveillance video (Score:1)
I mean there's a constant battle back and forth between privacy and security. This is just the latest instance of a long, long, long war.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have no problem sharing my security footage with law enforcement if I review it and find anything useful I will supply them only the relevant video. Giving them access to look themselves isn't an option I would consider.
I have given them security footage on a few occasions. A dog got loose and attacked the kid next door, chasing him through my yard. A couple down the street got into a drunken physical fight and the wife decided to run up into my yard daring him to hit her, she knew the cameras where ther
Data access is good. Lack of transparency is bad! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's called a warrant and this is an attempt to circumvent the need to get one.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh- that's why local Police dept is offering Ring (Score:2)
I've heard about this Ring-a-ding thing before, which is what piqued my interest when I saw a "free raffle" offered by our local Police dept for Ring devices. We could all come in for a presentation.
The "come in for a presentation" and "free raffle" had the ear-marks of a Vacation Condo Rental pitch.
But I didn't look anymore closely at the offer.
Knew it was coming (Score:1)
Liability? (Score:2)