Hmmm, given the number of folks here who are concerned about privacy I'm surprised more folks have not picked up on this...
To me a bigger concern that the Flock Safety program presented is the fact that it highlights that Ring and most other modern home surveillance gadgets all store their data in the Cloud. The main benefit of course is that the end-user can access their surveillance system with any internet-connected device. In "the Old Days" video/audio was mainly stored on HDD's in the home owners equipment and you had to be at home to access the logs.
That is no longer the case. DISCLAIMER: I do not own a Ring camera system nor any other brand so I'm guessing on the exact details of their cloud storage policies.
That said, odds are the homeowner can set how many days/weeks are archived (and can no doubt pay for longer storage) before data is overwritten in a FIFO algo. Fine in theory but - Flock Safety makes mention of using 'residual data' as well more recent or real-time data. My guess is the older data file are not completely deleted or overwritten but rather are treated like Windows does things - the files are moved to a Trash bin outside of the homeowners access and held for MUCH longer, possibly years.
While the consumer does not have the needed permissions to access the long-term video/audio data Ring et al are collecting, Law Enforcement (aka 'The Government') can and does get warrants for it and provided a 3rd-party (Flock et al) have contracts with the surveillance equipment vendor or consumer granting said permissions.
Is no one else concerned about Privacy issues raised by this long-term surveillance data storage or its possible misuse? Pretty sure it has never occurred to the majority of consumers purchasing Ring et al devices. Along that line, Ring has had a large number of folks who HAVE cancelled the Ring contracts after seeing the Super Bowl commercial which is why Ring has parted ways with Flock Safety. Google it.
Sometimes I forget that not everyone knows The United States constitutional amendments.
Rights to privacy 4th, 5th and 14th.
I feel like we established that our digital information was protected back when the internet began its evolution as an everyday form of communication but the erosion began rapidly after 9/11
Here is where the idea of consent becomes especially useful, because we are giving up privacy for "safety".
The Superbowl commercial "getting us in the feels" making us -all fuzzy warm ;-) and agreeing in advance for our information to be stored that way.
It also used to be that companies we agreed to share our information with would not release it without warrant but our system has been corrupted by money.
Texas was using license plate scanning (ALPRs) to track women who go to another state where abortions are legal.
There is facial recognition on every street corner in most big cities, there are places where you can "opt out" but that may only get you a pay out after its violated then litigated.
Taken from Google:
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individuals against "unreasonable searches and seizures" by the government. Ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, it ensures that people are secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.
Core Provisions
Protection Against Unreasonable Searches: Government agents cannot search people or property without a valid reason.Warrant Requirement: Warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, based on probable cause, and must specifically describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Reasonable Expectation of Privacy: The amendment applies when the government violates a person's "reasonable expectation of privacy". Key Concepts and Exceptions
While a warrant is generally required, the Supreme Court has established several exceptions:
Consent: If an individual voluntarily allows a search, a warrant is not required.
Plain View: Officers may seize items in plain view if they are lawfully present.
Search Incident to Arrest: Police may search an arrestee and their immediate surroundings for weapons or evidence.
Exigent Circumstances: Emergency situations, such as pursuing a suspect or preventing the imminent destruction of evidence, allow for warrantless searches.
Automobile Exception: Vehicles may be searched without a warrant if there is probable cause to believe they contain evidence of a crime.
Stop and Frisk: Officers may briefly detain and pat down a person for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is happening.
Border Searches: Routine stops and searches at international borders do not require a warrant or individualized suspicion.
Enforcement: The Exclusionary Rule
Evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is generally inadmissible in criminal trials, a principle known as the "exclusionary rule". This is intended to deter law enforcement from conducting illegal searches.
Modern Applications
Digital Data: The Supreme Court has ruled that police generally need a warrant to search a cell phone, even during an arrest, due to the vast amount of personal information it contains.
Third-Party Doctrine: People generally have no expectation of privacy for information voluntarily given to third parties (e.g., bank records), although this has been narrowed in cases involving cell phone location tracking.
Technology & Surveillance: The Fourth Amendment faces new challenges regarding drone surveillance, geofence warrants (tracking all phones in an area), and facial recognition technology.
BTW Thank you for this news source.
