918
Big Brother just got an upgrade. Starting December, Amazon’s Ring cameras will scan and recognize faces. Don’t want to be in their database? Too bad — walk past a Ring and your face can be stored... (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
185 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Jason Bassler | @JasonBassler1

Big Brother just got an upgrade.

Starting December, Amazon’s Ring cameras will scan and recognize faces. Don’t want to be in their database? Too bad — walk past a Ring and your face can be stored, tagged, & analyzed without consent.

One step closer to total surveillance.

[Image: A Ring doorbell camera mounted on a brick wall. A digital overlay shows facial recognition scanning a person's face with grid lines. Text on the right reads "Amazon's Ring Adds Facial Recognition to Home Security" with additional text below.]

6:00 PM | Oct 4, 2025

Source: https://x.com/JasonBassler1/status/1974640686419857516

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 19 points 1 year ago (9 children)

A camera inside her apartment would have the same results without invading the privacy of every other tenant in the building.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    In that specific case, but most people want to identify people BEFORE they enter their promises. I'm not opening my door to any cops, for instance, unless they can slide a warrant under the door.

    You are missing the point entirely. There are about a million reasonable reasons someone would want to have a doorbell camera, and they have every right to them. The owner of the camera isn't violating your privacy, AMAZON is doing that by collecting the data from a privately-owned source who hasn't given permission to hijack data from their device.

    Don't be mad at the tenant for protecting their safety, be mad at Amazon for exploiting that reasonable fear, encouraging people to get Ring cameras, and then stealing the data they collect.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Is it too much to ask for a doorbell camera to operate like a doorbell? We've had peepholes on doors that can be opened and checked when needed for years with no problem, why do we suddenly need constant surveillance of the public commons? This is also on the owner for buying into the scare tactics.

    IMO it should be flat out illegal to have any permanent camera that monitors a public space. I don't consent to have a stalker track when I enter and leave my home, I won't consent to have a neighbor do the same.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    This isn't the 20th century. We get a LOT more deliveries these days, and a lot of them are expensive small electronics, like phones. They sit there on our front step all day , while we are at work, tempting porch pirates.

    About the only thing keeping those jackals from stealing EVERYTHING, is the fact that they know there are cameras on the house, and also most of the houses surrounding the target. That scares off all but the most desperate thieves.

    Peep holes are the most basic security precaution, but they are severely limited. They are distorted, and can be easily beaten by ducking. You may look out and see one guy, while three more are below the peep hole. They don't record, so there is no evidence to identify troublemakers later. They can't be accessed remotely, so you can't see who is messing with your house while you're out.

    To extend your logic, we shouldn't use cars, because bicycles did the job just fine. Or phones, because we could just yell to our neighbors. Or stoves, because open fires cook food good enough. Or computers, because writing on paper always worked fine. For that matter, why use ballpoint pens, when a quill pen always worked good enough.

    Why bother to improve?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Lacking a secure drop off point is a service issue between you and the company delivering the package. It's just as possible to install a lock box or a set a pickup point or require a signed delivery. Complain to Amazon if they're too cheap to do anything about porch piracy. The convenience of opening your door for a package doesn't stand up to my right to privacy.

    For the rest of your points: sure, if you really need a camera to watch your private porch then feel free to aim it at the porch and not the entire street. I'm not saying it should be illegal to monitor your property but that your right to 24/7 monitoring ends where your property line does.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    They already have porch lock boxes that deliver very guys seldom use. Amazon also has drop off boxes at local businesses.

    Once again, the problem isn't with the person who is justifiably concerned about their safety. The problem is Amazon collecting data without permission. Keep your focus on the actual problem, instead of attacking your fellow citizens.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    No the problem is the cameras, full stop. You can't shift the cultural safety norm to require millions of remotely accessible cameras and expect a company or government to not abuse them.

    The only reason for the popularity of these cameras is big tech's marketing and business strategy. Amazon made a shit ton of money throwing expensive stuff on your unattended doorstep. That leads to obvious problems and the only ways out are:

    • Amazon spends money on proper, secure delivery ❌
    • The customer pays extra in time and money for an existing solution (CCTVs have existed since 1927) ❌
    • Amazon subsidizes a shiny new "solution" which is a thinly veiled data harvesting platform that will generate even more money ✅✅✅

    Even if they were concerned with data collection consent, there is no way to get it by the very nature of an always-on, public facing camera. And if it wasn't that, it would be a fancy peephole.

    I inherited one of these cameras on a previous home and it objectively provided no real value to me. It recorded the coming/going of my neighbors, bugs flying in front of it, visitors who had already texted their ETA, and delivery guys taking pictures that got sent to me seconds later.

    The "peace of mind" factor quickly evaporated when the neighborhood feed was constant posts warning of homeless people or someone walking at night or anyone in a hoodie. Any post where there was a legitimate crime was someone in a mask covering the camera. So how exactly was it keeping anyone safe?

    On the other hand, Amazon got incredible value from years of recording everyone's movements. The fact that rubes will pay a few dollars a month to defray hosting costs for the goldmine of a 24/7 live stream is gravy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    There are also a million ways to achieve the same goals without agreeing to be Amazon's snitch for your entire building. Amazon isn't stealing the data. The ring camera owner sold everyone out.

    Also, just so we're clear, the maintenance worker still had access to her apartment and could have just lied about the reasons. It would not have stopped him in any meaningful way.

    "But she would have known who it was!" .. yeah, AFTER he was inside her apartment. It doesn't even do the one thing you're claiming it would be useful for.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Yeah, except if he knew everyone that entered the apartment at any time was recorded, it would maybe have been a deterrent.

    Her other option could be a hidden nanny cam trained on the door so she'd have proof she wasn't crazy.

    But again the issue isn't people wanting to know who is outside their door, or entering without their knowledge. The issue is the camera companies keeping all the footage for themselves.

    We have an off brand camera aimed at our porch for porch pirates. It's not going to get someone walking by on the street. We have it only recording to the sdcard.

    But we can live view and it alerts through the app. We don't use the cloud service or AI. But there's nothing stopping the app from screenshotting alerts and sending them somewhere.

    I'm trying to figure out how to have an actual closed system so only computers under my control can access camera(s)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent