Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Technology

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Amazon Requires Police To Shill Surveillance Cameras in Secret Agreement

Comments Filter:
  • by Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Thursday July 25, 2019 @12:31PM (#58985596) Journal

    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.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25, 2019 @12:36PM (#58985626)

      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.

      • by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Thursday July 25, 2019 @12:40PM (#58985640)

        we've had corporate fascism in the USA for decades, this is yet another example of it

        • 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

      • by e3m4n ( 947977 )

        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.

        • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Thursday July 25, 2019 @01:15PM (#58985824)

          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.

          • by e3m4n ( 947977 )

            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

            • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

              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

              • by e3m4n ( 947977 )

                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

    • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Thursday July 25, 2019 @12:45PM (#58985670)

      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."

      • by epine ( 68316 )

        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.

        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

      • by Anonymous Coward

        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

        • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

          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.

      • 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.

        Reasonable? Not. E

    • by e3m4n ( 947977 )

      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

      • by bjwest ( 14070 ) on Thursday July 25, 2019 @01:39PM (#58985990)
        Unfortunately, this is how the government gets around those Constitutionally protected rights. We're forced/tricked into allowing corporations to do whatever they want with our data via EULAs that no one ever reads. Once that data is owned by the corporations, the government no longer needs a warrant to access it, all they have to do is ask.
    • by Kohath ( 38547 )

      Please explain the ethics principles and laws you are referring to.

    • The use of these cameras also violates laws in not only Two Party Consent states like Kali but in One Party Consent states if the homeowner doesn't put up a warning sign.

      Fuggin' unbelievable.

    • Amazon is insufficiently managed. [slashdot.org]

      I see problems with management at Amazon in many areas.
    • 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.

    • Both answer to the Ministry of Truth.
  • by liquid_schwartz ( 530085 ) on Thursday July 25, 2019 @12:32PM (#58985602)
    Real transparency and a lack of secrecy are some of the best tools against corruption.
    • Time for a new law (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25, 2019 @12:37PM (#58985628)

      We need "separation of business and state" every bit as much as "separation of church and state".

      • by Anonymous Coward

        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.

      • 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]

  • If anyone had any doubts about Big Brother watching you through any of Amazon cameras, here is the proof.
  • Nope (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MitchDev ( 2526834 ) on Thursday July 25, 2019 @12:34PM (#58985618)

    ""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...

    • by Anonymous Coward

      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

    • by e3m4n ( 947977 )

      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.

      • 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)

      by Dunbal ( 464142 ) * on Thursday July 25, 2019 @01:58PM (#58986116)
      Why a secret deal? Surely if the police is doing nothing wrong then they have nothing to fear...
  • 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.

    • The 'constant battle' is largely a construct held up by an artificially-created sense of terror, driving urgency to be 'safe', and overriding any ability of the average person to think critically about what it is they're opting-in on. In other words, make people afraid enough long enough and they'll agree to almost anything someone suggests when they show up claiming to be able to 'save them' from what they're so afraid of.
  • I don't have any problem the police being able to pull data from Ring cameras to investigate crimes, but they need to be very public and transparent about it. Perhaps even require posting a sign on the cameras.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      but they need to be very public and transparent about it.

      It's called a warrant and this is an attempt to circumvent the need to get one.

    • How about a warrant?
  • 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.

  • We are really pre-cyberpunk now, aren't we?
  • Would this open the police to some sort of liability now? We know that they have access to the ring videos. We know they LOVE to use facial recognition. Put the two together, and there should be no reason in hell why they can't find the thief who is stealing my Amazon parcels!

No skis take rocks like rental skis!

Working...