> The resulting settlement required Ring to delete content that was found to be unlawfully obtained, establish stronger security protections and pay a hefty fine.
5.6 million dollar fine is hardly hefty for Amazon.
cnst · 2h ago
I think a bigger issue is that AI is being used to censor footage from the owners of the camera themselves. There's been stories about gunshots being censored from the owners of the camera by Ring.
Why would you pay for a security device, which would prevent you from having access to your own security data in case of a security incident?
Honestly, this is one of the many reasons I'd never get a Ring. Quite frankly, I don't even understand why they're so popular given that the hardware is quite subpar, dependability/reliability is dismal, the subscriptions are mandatory, and alternatives from all the other brands are so plentiful. Even Blink, even though it's also owned by Amazon, has a better rep and feature set (2-year battery life, local recording, super small size compared to Ring, to name a few features, although reportedly it still requires an internet connection at all times).
bbatsell · 53m ago
> I think a bigger issue is that AI is being used to censor footage from the owners of the camera themselves. There's been stories about gunshots being censored from the owners of the camera by Ring.
Can you provide sources for this? I just spent a few minutes looking and couldn't find anything, but I'd be super interested in learning more about it.
ge96 · 2h ago
Maybe just being there deters people from trying.
Could get a fake one to mount on a door
kelseyfrog · 2h ago
Once again, this is covered by that evergreen advice: Do Not Talk to the Police.
This includes not just speech but data sharing. There the downside of self-implication rarely justifies the benefit. You're likely not an exception, and only a lawyer can answer that question for your particular circumstances.
[1] https://apnews.com/article/ring-doorbell-camera-settlement-f...
5.6 million dollar fine is hardly hefty for Amazon.
Why would you pay for a security device, which would prevent you from having access to your own security data in case of a security incident?
Honestly, this is one of the many reasons I'd never get a Ring. Quite frankly, I don't even understand why they're so popular given that the hardware is quite subpar, dependability/reliability is dismal, the subscriptions are mandatory, and alternatives from all the other brands are so plentiful. Even Blink, even though it's also owned by Amazon, has a better rep and feature set (2-year battery life, local recording, super small size compared to Ring, to name a few features, although reportedly it still requires an internet connection at all times).
Can you provide sources for this? I just spent a few minutes looking and couldn't find anything, but I'd be super interested in learning more about it.
Could get a fake one to mount on a door
This includes not just speech but data sharing. There the downside of self-implication rarely justifies the benefit. You're likely not an exception, and only a lawyer can answer that question for your particular circumstances.