• jarfil@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Technically, “automatically” would mean it gets sent all the time, while “without consent” would mean it might’ve got sent on request, just without consent.

        • Crotaro@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Fair enough. In both cases, it’s without the camera “owner” consenting, and that’s the main problem.

        • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          “Automatically” would be a perfectly reasonable word choice if a request from the police is granted without interaction. In all honesty even if a human has to send it, if the process doesn’t allow them any kind of autonomy or authority to decline the request, that probably qualifies, too.

          • jarfil@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Hm, I guess you’re right. That’s an interesting reflection on the concept of “automation”.

      • Devi@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        As Jarfil said, it’s not automatically doing anything. The police can get a court order to get footage. It’s only given in very limited circumstances, like if the owner goes missing, or the camera might have spotted a significant crime, and it’s not just ring but basically anything. If you are suspected of a serious crime police can get your internet browsing history, they can bug your house, they can dig through your bins, and yes, can request the clips taken by your ring camera.

        It’s happened 11 times this year. That shows how rarely courts give these orders.

        The idea that Ring is some evil thing that’s doing anything different is just scaremongering.