Doors across the United States are now fitted with Amazon’s Ring, a
combination doorbell-security camera that records and transmits video
straight to users’ phones, to Amazon’s cloud—and often to the local
police department. By sending photos and alerts every time the camera
detects motion or someone rings the doorbell, the app can create an
illusion of a household under siege. It turns what seems like a
perfectly safe neighborhood into a source of anxiety and fear. This
raises the question: do you really need Ring, or have Amazon and the
police misled you into thinking that you do?
Recent reports show that Ring has partnered with police departments
across the country to hawk this new surveillance system—going so far as
to draft press statements and social media posts for police to promote
Ring cameras. This creates a vicious cycle in which police promote the
adoption of Ring, Ring terrifies people into thinking their homes are in
danger, and then Amazon sells more cameras.
How Ring Surveils and Frightens Residents
Even though government statistics show that crime in the United States has been
steadily decreasing for decades, people’s perception of crime and danger in their communities
often conflict with the data. Vendors prey on these fears by creating products that inflame our greatest anxieties about crime.
Ring works by sending notifications to a person’s phone every time
the doorbell rings or motion near the door is detected. With every
update, Ring turns the delivery person or census-taker innocently
standing on at the door into a potential criminal.
Neighborhood watch apps only increase the paranoia. Amazon promotes
its free Neighbors app to accompany Ring. Other vendors sell competing
apps such as Nextdoor and Citizen. All are marketed as localized social
networks where people in a neighborhood can discuss local issues or
share concerns. But all too often, they facilitate reporting of
so-called “suspicious” behavior that really amounts to racial profiling.
Take, for example, the
story
of an African-American real estate agent who was stopped by police
because neighbors thought it was “suspicious” for him to ring a
doorbell.
Even law enforcement are noticing the social consequences of
public-safety-by-push-notification. At the International Associations of
Chiefs of Police conference earlier this year, which EFF attended,
Chandler Police Assistant Chief Jason Zdilla said that his city in
Arizona embraced the Ring program, registering thousands of new Ring
cameras per month. Though Chandler is experiencing a historic low for
violent crime for the fourth year in a row, Ring is giving the public
another impression.
“What happens is when someone opens up the social media, and every
day they see maybe a potential criminal act, or every day they see a
suspicious person, they start believing that this is prevalent, and that
crime is really high,” Zdilla said.
If getting an alert from your front door or your neighbor every time a
stranger walks down the street doesn’t cause enough paranoia,
Ring is trying to alert users to local 911 calls.
The Ring-police partnerships would allow the company to tap into the
computer-aided dispatch system, and alert users to local 911 calls as
part of the “crime news” alerts on its app, Neighbors. Such push alerts
based on 911 calls could be used to instill fear and sell additional
Ring services.
From Neutral Guardians to Scripted Hawkers
Thanks to in-depth reporting from
Motherboard,
Gizmodo,
CNET, and others, we know a lot about the symbiotic relationship
between Amazon’s Ring and local police departments, and how that
relationship jeopardizes privacy and circumvents regulation.
At least
231 law enforcement agencies around the country have partnered with Ring,
a report by Motherboard revealed. This partnership takes both a financial and digital form.
Police that partner with Ring reportedly have access to Ring’s “Law
Enforcement Neighborhood Portal,” which allows police to see a map of
the locations of Ring cameras. Police may then ask owners for access to
their footage—and when owners give permission, police do not need to
acquire a warrant.
The arrangement is also financial. Amazon encourages police to
encourage residents to install the Ring app and purchase cameras for
their homes.
Per Motherboard,
for every town resident that downloads Ring’s Neighbors app, the local
police department gets credits toward buying cameras it can distribute
to residents. This arrangement makes salespeople out of what should be
impartial and trusted protectors of our civic society.
This is not the first time the government has attempted to use an
economic incentive to expand the reach of surveillance technology and to
subsidize the vendors. In 2017,
EFF spoke out against legislation that would provide tax credits for California residents who purchased home security systems.
Police departments also get communications instruction from the large global corporation.
Documents
acquired by Gizmodo
revealed that questions directed at police departments concerning Ring
are often passed on to Ring’s Public Relations team. Thus, many
statements about Ring that residents think are coming from their trusted
local police, are actually written by Ring. Worse, Ring instructed
police departments
not to reveal
their connections to the company. Instead of getting an even-handed
conversation with your local police about the benefits and pitfalls of
installing a networked security camera, residents are fed canned lines
from a corporation whose ultimate goal is to sell more cameras.
Even the Monitoring Association, an international trading
organization for surveillance equipment, announced its concern regarding
Ring's police partnerships. The organization's President, Ivan Spector,
told
CNET,
"We are troubled by recent reports of agreements that are said to drive
product-specific promotion, without alerting consumers about these
marketing relationships...This lack of transparency goes against our
standards as an industry, diminishes public trust, and takes advantage
of these public servants."
Dissemination of Your Video Images
So, Ring and the police have an intimate relationship revolving
around sharing data and money. But at least users own their own video
footage and control who gets access to it, right? Not if you ask Amazon.
Earlier this year, social media users pointed out
that Ring was using actual security camera footage
of alleged wrong-doers in sponsored ads. Amazon harvested pictures of
people’s faces and posted them alongside accusations that they were
guilty of a crime, without consulting the person pictured or the owners
of the cameras. According to their terms of service, Ring and its
licensees have “an unlimited, irrevocable, fully paid, and royalty-free,
perpetual, worldwide right to re-use, distribute store, delete,
translate, copy, modify, display, sell, create derivative works,” in
relation to the footage taken from your front door.
Police will also seek access to residents’ video footage. Residents may deny police access when requested. However,
Amazon actively coaches
police on how to persuade residents to hand over the footage. A
professional communications expert instructs police on how to manipulate
residents into giving away their Ring’s footage.
If convincing the resident doesn’t work, police can go straight to
Amazon and ask them for the footage. This process circumvents the
camera’s owner. Amazon
says
it will not disclose Ring video to police absent a warrant from a judge
or consent from the resident. And California law generally requires
police to
get a warrant
in this situation. But some California police say they don’t need a
warrant. Tony Botti of the Fresno County Sheriff’s department told
Government Technology
that police can “subpoena” a Ring video. A subpoena typically does not
require judicial authorization before it is sent. Botti continued: “as
long as it’s been uploaded to the cloud, then Ring can take it out of
the cloud and send it to us legally so that we can use it as part of our
investigation.” Amazon needs to clear up this uncertainty.
Next Steps
The rapid proliferation of this partnership between police
departments and the Ring surveillance system—without any oversight,
transparency, or restrictions—poses a grave threat to the privacy of all
people in the community. It also may chill the First Amendment rights
of political canvassers and community organizers who spread their
messages door-to-door, and contribute to the unfair racial profiling of
our minority neighbors and visitors. Even if you chose not to put a
camera on your front door, video footage of your comings and goings
might easily be accessed and used by your neighbors, the police, and
Amazon itself. The growing partnerships between Amazon and police
departments corrodes trust in an important civic institution by turning
public servants into salespeople for Amazon products.
Residents of towns whose police department have already cut a deal
with Ring should voice their concern to local officials. Users of Ring
should also consider how their privacy, and the privacy of the
neighbors, may be harmed by having a camera on their front door,
networked into a massive police surveillance system.
Source: eff.org
