Amazon's Ring Plans to Scan Everyone's Face at the Door (msn.com) 106
Amazon will be adding facial recognition to its camera-equipped Ring doorbells for the first time in December, according to the Washington Post.
"While the feature will be optional for Ring device owners, privacy advocates say it's unfair that wherever the technology is in use, anyone within sight will have their faces scanned to determine who's a friend or stranger." The Ring feature is "invasive for anyone who walks within range of your Ring doorbell," said Calli Schroeder, senior counsel at the consumer advocacy and policy group Electronic Privacy Information Center. "They are not consenting to this." Ring spokeswoman Emma Daniels said that Ring's features empower device owners to be responsible users of facial recognition and to comply with relevant laws that "may require obtaining consent prior to identifying people..."
Other companies, including Google, already offer facial recognition for connected doorbells and cameras. You might use similar technology to unlock your iPhone or tag relatives in digital photo albums. But privacy watchdogs said that Ring's use of facial recognition poses added risks, because the company's products are embedded in our neighborhoods and have a history of raising social, privacy and legal questions... It's typically legal to film in public places, including your doorway. And in most of the United States, your permission is not legally required to collect or use your faceprint. Privacy experts said that Ring's use of the technology risks crossing ethical boundaries because of its potential for widespread use in residential areas without people's knowledge or consent.
You choose to unlock your iPhone by scanning your face. A food delivery courier, a child selling candy or someone walking by on the sidewalk is not consenting to have their face captured, stored and compared against Ring's database, said Adam Schwartz, privacy litigation director for the consumer advocacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation. "It's troubling that companies are making a product that by design is taking biometric information from people who are doing the innocent act of walking onto a porch," he said.
Ring's spokesperson said facial recognition won't be available some locations, according to the article, including Texas and Illinois, which passed laws fining companies for collecting face information without permission. But the Washington Post heard another possible worst-case scenario from Calli Schroeder, senior counsel at the consumer advocacy and policy group Electronic Privacy Information Center: databases of identified faces being stolen by cyberthieves, misused by Ring employees, or shared with outsiders such as law enforcement.
Amazon says they're "reuniting lost dogs through the power of AI," in their announcement this week, thanks to "an AI-powered community feature that enables your outdoor Ring cameras to help reunite lost dogs with their families... When a neighbor reports a lost dog in the Ring app, nearby outdoor Ring cameras automatically begin scanning for potential matches."
Amazon calls it an example of their vision for "tools that make it easier for neighbors to look out for each other, and create safer, more connected communities." They're also 10x zoom, enhanced low-light performance, 2K and 4K resolutions, and "advanced AI tuning" for video...
"While the feature will be optional for Ring device owners, privacy advocates say it's unfair that wherever the technology is in use, anyone within sight will have their faces scanned to determine who's a friend or stranger." The Ring feature is "invasive for anyone who walks within range of your Ring doorbell," said Calli Schroeder, senior counsel at the consumer advocacy and policy group Electronic Privacy Information Center. "They are not consenting to this." Ring spokeswoman Emma Daniels said that Ring's features empower device owners to be responsible users of facial recognition and to comply with relevant laws that "may require obtaining consent prior to identifying people..."
Other companies, including Google, already offer facial recognition for connected doorbells and cameras. You might use similar technology to unlock your iPhone or tag relatives in digital photo albums. But privacy watchdogs said that Ring's use of facial recognition poses added risks, because the company's products are embedded in our neighborhoods and have a history of raising social, privacy and legal questions... It's typically legal to film in public places, including your doorway. And in most of the United States, your permission is not legally required to collect or use your faceprint. Privacy experts said that Ring's use of the technology risks crossing ethical boundaries because of its potential for widespread use in residential areas without people's knowledge or consent.
You choose to unlock your iPhone by scanning your face. A food delivery courier, a child selling candy or someone walking by on the sidewalk is not consenting to have their face captured, stored and compared against Ring's database, said Adam Schwartz, privacy litigation director for the consumer advocacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation. "It's troubling that companies are making a product that by design is taking biometric information from people who are doing the innocent act of walking onto a porch," he said.
Ring's spokesperson said facial recognition won't be available some locations, according to the article, including Texas and Illinois, which passed laws fining companies for collecting face information without permission. But the Washington Post heard another possible worst-case scenario from Calli Schroeder, senior counsel at the consumer advocacy and policy group Electronic Privacy Information Center: databases of identified faces being stolen by cyberthieves, misused by Ring employees, or shared with outsiders such as law enforcement.
Amazon says they're "reuniting lost dogs through the power of AI," in their announcement this week, thanks to "an AI-powered community feature that enables your outdoor Ring cameras to help reunite lost dogs with their families... When a neighbor reports a lost dog in the Ring app, nearby outdoor Ring cameras automatically begin scanning for potential matches."
Amazon calls it an example of their vision for "tools that make it easier for neighbors to look out for each other, and create safer, more connected communities." They're also 10x zoom, enhanced low-light performance, 2K and 4K resolutions, and "advanced AI tuning" for video...
Absolutely NO (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Absolutely NO (Score:5, Insightful)
It's likely already illegal in GDPR countries. It seems like the law has fallen behind technology in the US.
I don't mind facial recognition if it's just matching the owner's faces and all done locally on the device (easy enough these days), it's when it gets uploaded to the cloud or worse shared with law enforcement that it becomes a problem.
Re:Absolutely NO (Score:4, Informative)
Works reasonably well at recognizing friendlies, and detecting unknown persons.
Re: Absolutely NO (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's likely already illegal in GDPR countries. It seems like the law has fallen behind technology in the US.
US law is based on freedom. Everything is legal, unless it is prohibited.
* Default = Allow
This encourages innovation, as no permission is required before trying something new. It also leads to abuse, as early adopters get away with overt misbehavior before their actions are outlawed.
You are arguing for law to be based on restriction. Everything is illegal, unless it is allowed.
* Default = Deny
This approach slows innovation as permission must be sought before attempting anything new. It does help to limi
Re: (Score:2)
You misunderstood GDPR. It's saying that your personal data belongs to your, you get to control how it is used. There are exceptions for legitimate interest uses of that data, but beyond those it's your property and treated as such.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand the GDPR. I have read it. I also understand how it does not apply in the USA.
In the USA, data-about-you is not your personal data. Knowledge is the property of whomever knows it. No permission is required to know things, or to act based on that knowledge, or to share that knowledge with others (specific exceptions exist -like HIPAA, attorney-client relationship, confidentiality agreements, etc.)
It is a different basic approach to the rule of law, not just a different law.
Re: (Score:2)
US law is based on freedom
...
Re: (Score:2)
Try to read beyond the first sentence.
Re: (Score:2)
Try to read beyond the first sentence.
You're right. I apologise for being flippant. The first sentence hit hard.
But you have a good point. If the law "allows" by default, that will leave more room for innovation.
It's a tricky balance to strike.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is this is inevitable. And so the question is how much you want to fight it for how long.
For your apartment hallway, as a common space, it's entirely up to the building owner (or HOA/Strata) to determine whether this would be allowed.
Your consent doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a microscopic chance we might get back on track in the next two elections but it's vanishingly small. Two weeks before the election your eyes are going to be blasted with propaganda specifically designed to push whatever buttons you have. Maybe you will see through it maybe you won't. A lot of your neighbors won't.
Re: (Score:2)
America gave up privacy and freedom last year.
You're an idiot.
Yup. It was last year.
Tech catches up to the dreams (nightmares) of people who have been warning you that this was going to happen after dabblings began decades ago.
It's amusing to see where on the spectrum you've drawn the line where the change happened, though.
Re: (Score:2)
No, there were not 17 million Democratic votes suppressed.
It is quite obvious that at least 10 million Democratic votes stayed home, but that wasn't any kind of doing by Republicans.
Re: (Score:2)
>"America gave up privacy and freedom last year. "
You are so blinded by your bias, you see the entire world through DJT-colored lenses. Privacy/freedom traded for safety/convenience has been going on for decades and decades. It hasn't magically changed "last year". The technology advancements are leaping ahead and Americans are gobbling it up left and right with little concern for its implications. Trying to make everything hyper-partisan, as you always do, will not help advance the fight. It just l
Re: (Score:2)
America gave up privacy and freedom last year.
Ummm, no. privacy and freedom were officially given up when the PATRIOT act was enable, but Total Information Awareness and such existed prior to that. Your recency bias is stupid and infantile.
There is a microscopic chance we might get back on track in the next two elections
Moron. It is already over and you helped it with your explicit acceptance of the two party system. Your hopes about elections are already denied. Speak to me after two years to receive the classic Nelson Ha HA... assuming you or I haven't been rounded up yet.
Before Trump we could pull back (Score:2)
Trump getting a second term, barring a miracle, it means Trump is going to get a third term. And that's it game over for democracy and for you having any say in anything.
Allowing the Patriot act to pass while we were all panicking about 9/11 was bad news but it was never anything we couldn't fix. The same way we eventually fixed the horrible things done during the Red scare.
But we can only fix things like that when we have a functioning democra
Re: (Score:2)
Cuz we still had a functioning Democratic apparatus.
And we still do, until proven otherwise. Stop spreading FUD.
We're in between elections. Declaring democracy dead in between elections is nothing but political fucking horseshit.
Trump getting a second term, barring a miracle, it means Trump is going to get a third term.
This is the dumbest shit you've said in recent memory.
Trump winning a second election means, barring a miracle, that our Republic is going to be replaced by a vanguard-party state? No, that's not what that means.
It means he won a second election. Nothing more, nothing less.
That it represents the end of democracy is what you are a
Re:Absolutely NO (Score:4, Interesting)
The hallway of your apartment building is a shared private space. It's use is governed by the rules of the owners of the property. You agreed to the rules when you signed your lease. As did your neighbor. Ask your landlord to determine whether or not recording is allowed.
Re: (Score:2)
This will require laws to make non-consensual facial recognition scanning illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
I live in a condominium, and I have in the past been active with my COA.
Hallways and such are the commons. We have cameras there, and there isn't fuck-all anyone can do about it. You have no expectation of privacy there.
Re: Slashdot vs. my neighborhood (Score:2)
In my neighborhood, nearly everybody's got a Ring or Nest doorbell. The crime rate for the community of 2,500 homes is close to zero. Neighbors watch out for other neighbors. And if police ever ask for Ring footage, they happily give it to the police, no warrant required.
The two concepts are linked, I believe: people who collaborate with police, and the extremely low crime rate.
Re: (Score:2)
A laser pointer is hell on camera.
Makes this crap illegal in Europe (Score:3, Insightful)
Good. Seems privacy rape (and other rape, including children) is something the current US administration will continue to use as its selling points though.
Re:Makes this crap illegal in Europe (Score:4, Informative)
This is already illegal in Illinois [ilga.gov], has been since 2008.
Six Flags used to use thumb prints for season pass holders, that got shut down and they had to pay out a class action [harvard.edu] to everyone who had their thumb scanned.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, at lest some people noticed something then. Good.
Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
>"Ring spokeswoman Emma Daniels said that Ring's features empower device owners to be responsible users of facial recognition and to comply with relevant laws"
What a bunch of nonsense. She knows, everyone knows, most users will take whatever the defaults are and most others will turn the feature on, without any concern for others' privacy, and also won't likely know about laws (if there even are any).
>"It's typically legal to film in public [...]Privacy experts said that Ring's use of the technology risks crossing ethical boundaries because of its potential for widespread use[...]"
Yeah, yeah, "in public" and whatever. But the whole concept of "in public" was created without any possible dream of what that would mean with the technology available today. Always on, always computing, storing everything, uploading everything, connected behind the scenes to all kinds of secret data selling and "sharing." We are just getting a little tiny taste of what is to come.
>"Other companies, including Google, already offer facial recognition for connected doorbells and cameras. You might use similar technology to unlock your phone"
There is a huge difference between my enabling a feature on something I own and recorded, used, and stored locally, and what these companies are most certainly doing with these "cloud-connected" devices. Those scans are stored and used off-site and shared with other customers, and potentially businesses and government.
>"Amazon calls it an example of their vision for "tools that make it easier for neighbors to look out for each other"
Right, like I said, "sharing." And what are the examples they are not going to advertise to us? And what new secret uses will be found later?
I am not saying there are any easy answers here. But I hope people are thinking about where all this stuff is going. It is a rapid and accelerating march to sacrificing more and more privacy in the name of safety.
Re: (Score:2)
It's marketed as for "safety" but that's really just bullshit that preys on paranoid folks and possibly it could be done for an insurance break but that's pure speculation on my part.
The real point of these devices is to collect as much information about people as possible and then sell it to anyone and everyone that wants it.
I'm Not Opposed, Much (Score:3)
I'm not opposed to these technologies, nor even their use.
I'm strongly opposed to the imbalance of power that is created when authorities and major corporations are the only ones that have access to the total body of data.
If I could perform facial recognition on Jeff Bezos or Senator shithead and track their movements for the last few days/weeks/months, as easily as they can me, then I'd be fine with it. But, it's a one way street where they can use it against me and there is a massive power imbalance.
Re: (Score:2)
for one, this one is very easily shot down by simply not buying that crap, but ..
the imbalance of power that is created when authorities and major corporations are the only ones that have access to the total body of data.
indeed, imbalance of power has been our main issue since we started farming i guess. i've come to believe that all our conflicts are just expressions and artifacts of the single underlying class war. this is ages old but technology is announcing grim prospects indeed.
If I could perform facial recognition on Jeff Bezos or Senator shithead and track their movements for the last few days/weeks/months, as easily as they can me, then I'd be fine with it.
agreed. i'm ready to fully forfeit my privacy if it is done universally, no exceptions.
Not something new (Score:2)
Other companies, including Google, already offer facial recognition for connected doorbells and cameras.
Interesting how Google and the plethora of professional- and amateur-level cameras which already have this feature, some of them turned on by default, don't get called out but Amazon does. This is in part because Walmart (and to a lesser extent other retailers) will deliberately place ads in publications which bad talk Amazon, publishers see this (and reportedly have been openly told this is the case) and run anti-Amazon hit pieces at the slightest excuse. Gotta keep that ad revenue rolling in!
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps I trust Amazon less than Google to transmit the FR data back to the servers regardless of the user settings.
Remember thatRing promised only to pass on footage to LEO with owner permission, except that the Ts & Cs allowed them to bypass the permission requirement when they wanted too.
Re: (Score:2)
I used to work at Amazon so I'm obviously biased, but I remember the annual data security training that we were required to take. They're VERY strict about it, never sell their data, and it literally requires lower permissions to access Jeff Bezos personnel file than to access personally identifying customer data. That fortunately wasn't an issue with my work, but some groups had to go to really extreme measures to work around the policies. They bill themselves as "The most customer-centric company in th
Re: (Score:2)
Effectively everything you did on a Kindle was tracked. Amazon's whole deal is spying on its customers (and its contractors and its employees. The company is excessively metric driven). Just because random employees couldn't randomly fuck around with that data doesn't mean they weren't collecting it.
If you walk up to my door (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: If you walk up to my door (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
That's not how privacy laws work.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
You have no expectation of privacy on my property ...
Don't tell me what I expect.
I think you mean to say I have no legal expectation of privacy on your property. Unfortunately, too many people equate legality with morality. "If there's no law banning it, it must be ok."
I do expect some measure of privacy, even walking down the street or approaching your door. Whether I get that, or whether it's legally enforced, is often different from my expectations, unfortunately.
The public ultimately writes the laws we live under, so privacy laws could be chan
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I do if I can convince all my neighbors to install doorbell cameras and then pass me the data. No laws have been broken in the vast majority of states. TFS mentions Texas and Illinois as having laws against this, but didn't mention anything about California, Florida or New York, which major amounts of US citizens live in.
Re: (Score:1)
... I have the right to record you on a public street.
You're only proving my point. "I have the right" is synonymous with "There is no law banning."
Your statement does not change my expectations for how moral people behave.
Re: (Score:2)
You can expect anything you want but that doesn't mean your expectations are reasonable in this day and age.
I mean, I expected to be rich with a hot wife that doesn't have to work and a nanny to take care of the kids.
Needless to say, that expectation didn't really pan out. I'd say my expectations were highly unrealistic, much like your expectation of any kind of privacy in an always connected, constantly surveilled society.
If you don't want to be recorded, I suggest you never leave your home. Keep the blind
Re: (Score:2)
You have no expectation of privacy on my property or on the public street in front of it.
That is generally true in the US (though not universally so), and almost universally false in the EU.
It's also subject to change, and frankly it needs to, because little wannabe petty-lords such as yourself are an active danger to society.
I've seen the online communities where local ring camera owners sit there and exchange their racist bullshit with each other.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe not in the US. Here in the EU I have. And I don't need to sue you myself, we have authorities that regulate this. We have privacy that even regulates that you cannot sell a doll with a microphone and cloud service because people cannot expect a doll to record their conversations.
Re: (Score:2)
"Everyone has a doorbell camera"
False.
Depends if you live in a city. (Score:2)
The bigger problem is that all this data will be stored almost forever and someone could compile where you were any point in your life in a city.
We've gone from a collection of individuals to members of a hive.
Re: Depends if you live in a city. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, customers can only access video files for a limited time. You can bet the companies store metadata about what person or license plate entered into view a lot longer.
Re: Depends if you live in a city. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't speak to the EU, but in USA you can collect bounties if you report vehicles that are able to be repossessed. There's automated license plate scanner software for this. Some people drive around parking lots looking for reportable vehicles. It's not a popular practice, but having a 24x7 camera and hooking it up is easy.
Two other angles are general traffic tracking and specific vehicle tracking. The general tracking is useful for ad metrics, as in how busy is this area at which times thus how much
Re: Depends if you live in a city. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have no expectation of privacy on that street and no consent is required to film you.
Re: (Score:2)
Is data storage free where you live? It's certainly not here. I've spent 16 years working in physical security, the number of times that I've had a request for video that was more than 3 months old could be counted on one hand, and if I took my shoes off I could count the number of times people wanted data from over a month ago.
Re: (Score:2)
They already do that with my cellphone and probably my car as well. I guess I could go no phone and walk everywhere, but turns out my privacy isn't worth that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: If you walk up to my door (Score:2)
Probably not in the EU (Score:2)
That's definitely not conform with EU privacy laws. You do not only need to put up signs well before someone gets into the range of the camera (doable), but you also cannot force the post man (who has to deliver the letters to you) to accept that invasion of privacy.
Just carry a little paint (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck with that. You think the police will care? Especially in a blue state or high crime area? You will have to find the perp yourself and sue them.
Re: (Score:2)
In Texas, you'll be lucky if you are just prosecuted. You might just get yourself shot.
Thank you Amazon, that's a great leap (Score:3)
A great leap forward in the enshittifaction of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Next cameras have had this for years already.
Paranoia (Score:2)
The levels of paranoia creeping into modern America are ridiculous. Like all crime in the US property crime is incredibly low by historic standards https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com], if your home was safe in the 80's and 90's just by locking your doors odds are its safe today doing the same. Unless you live in an area with unusually high rates of crime it's very likely you don't need that privacy robbing camera on your front door that you pay a monthly fee for.
Kids don't play outdoors on their own anymore,
Re: (Score:2)
Some cities and small towns do have a crime problem, but it's not general. At least around here it's drug based as in fentanyl although meth is still surprisingly popular.
Re: (Score:2)
However, Parent's point remains true: What we call a problem today is ~40% of historical "problem" highs from just a few decades ago.
Re: (Score:2)
The eternal refrain of "Be afraid! Be very afraid!" works for far too many people. One of my neighbors thinks it's great that troops are being sent to Chicago (where he has never visited in his life) because he believes that the place is swimming in blood.
Re: (Score:2)
In my neighborhood in Houston, kids actually do play outdoors on their own. Neighbors watch out for each other's kids. Kids walk themselves to school, even elementary school.
What you are describing doesn't match what I see around me.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been hearing about and observing the fact that kids play outside far less the they used to https://web.mit.edu/writing/20... [mit.edu] for so long I'm genuinely surprised to hear someone challenge this fact.
Re: (Score:2)
It's true, children do spend less time outside playing than they used to. Your article points out that on average, they spend 50% less time outside. While not good, they do still spend 50% as much time outside, compared to the 1970s.
So both things can be true: children spend less time outside, but they still do play outside.
Re: (Score:2)
You must be a blast at parties.
Re: (Score:2)
I can tell elephant jokes for 30 minutes straight. Doesn't that sound like a blast?
Whatever (Score:2)
Re:Whatever (Score:4, Insightful)
"And then they came for me, and there was nobody else left to speak for me'
Re: (Score:2)
cloud (Score:2)
The problem with this is that the data goes straight to the corporation. If it were kept strictly only on the user's equipment or secure data store at a third party company, it would be a good thing. Going straight to Ring's cloud, it's a bad thing.
Re: (Score:1)
Why is this a problem?
Re: (Score:2)
They could then sell that data to the government. ICE would love that information. Then when the Democrats retake power, they'll use the same technology to go after people they don't like. It's a lovely cycle of government control.
Re: (Score:2)
that the data goes straight to the corporation.
So? Amazon 1) never sells their data, 2) keeps video data for only a very limited time, after which it is deleted. I'd be more annoyed about Google, whose major line of business is selling "your" data.
We should say no and complain (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I bought a Nest doorbell camera several years ago, in part because it already had this feature. I like that it tells me who's at the door (as long as it's somebody I've labeled).
All your face ... (Score:2)
How about continuous recording? (Score:2)
Even at low resolution, continuous cloud recording 24/7 will be useful. Does it have that? It didn't used to. When there is some even happening it can bump up the resolution. I don't use Ring .. I built my own that's 10x better and more private, so not sure if Ring already has that feature.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it's always recording. The more you pay for your subscription, the more days of recorded content are kept active on the system.
a Juggalo a day (Score:2)
You might be interested in my latest product, Daily Juggalo. We send you a monthly box of makeup and different style ideas for each day of the month. It is important to vary your look daily to confuse the recognition, be the Ninjalo you know you can be.
No Funny (Score:2)
Come to think of it, there probably isn't much Funny potential here.
Another reason to not buy Ring doorbells.... (Score:2)
Hey chooms. (Score:2)
You need an optical camo upgrade to your deck.
*Cyberpunk 2077 theme starts playing*
Trespassers will be (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Facial recognition has gotten really good, surgical masks aren't much of an impediment any more.