Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Fun with numbers
Next Post: Congressional roundup
Posted in:
* Bob Susnjara at the Daily Herald…
As suburban police tout the crime-fighting benefits of striking deals for access to video from Amazon’s Ring doorbell cameras, several critics, including a prominent civil-rights organization, are raising concerns about privacy and about law enforcement helping a private company build a surveillance network.
In nearly 1½ years, Ring, with its associated Neighbors app, has gained relationships with at least 90 police departments in Illinois — many clustered in the suburbs, according to a company map. Aurora was the first Illinois department to link with Ring in September 2018, and Palatine, Schaumburg, Barrington and Libertyville are among this year’s newcomers.
But those deals could be troubling to residents who don’t support police teaming with Amazon’s subsidiary, said Ed Yohnka, spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois. Elected officials should place the Ring contracts on an agenda for debate and public approval, he said, even though no money is involved.
“When law enforcement is making these agreements, I think elected officials ought to be responsible for them,” Yohnka said. “Building out this kind of system isn’t simply a law enforcement decision. It’s a community decision. It’s the kind of community one wants to live in.”
Rolling Meadows Police Chief John Nowacki, whose department was the second in Illinois to forge an agreement with Ring and the Neighbors app, countered that the deal with his town — just like in other communities — was a standard administrative function that didn’t need city council approval.
Susnjara has written an insightful story that I really think you should read from beginning to end. So, please, click here.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 11:55 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Fun with numbers
Next Post: Congressional roundup
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
If you are inside the house, Ring is great for dodging process servers. If you are on the porch, Ring makes life much more difficult to get a petition signature for your candidate.
Comment by Ahh Yes Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 12:11 pm
At very least municipal governments need to have these agreements on their agendas to discuss and debate. Its going to be interesting when someone FOIA’s a Ring video because of these agreements.
Comment by Peace, Love and Guitars Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 12:14 pm
Looks interesting but one needs a subscription to DH in order to read the article.
Comment by Responsa Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 12:22 pm
===Its going to be interesting when someone FOIA’s a Ring video===
99% chance it gets denied under a section 7 exemption.
Not that such a denial would be valid, but police departments around here are notoriously bad at releasaing things under FOIA. I’ve had to fight more than one department for their obvious flagrant application of section 7 (and won). But most people don’t know how to get that overturned.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 12:27 pm
FYI… Peoria has also recently hooked up with Ring.
Comment by JudgeDavidDavis Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 12:34 pm
I don’t have a Ring doorbell but I was going to door to door in Evanston on Saturday for a judge running for election in the 9th subcircuit and a ton of the houses I went to did have them.
Comment by Paddyrollingstone Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 1:02 pm
Not to mention Ring has glaring security holes
https://art19.com/shows/reset/episodes/f753fad4-eee6-459e-97c3-e5f3f86d4c1d
Comment by Precinct Captain Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 2:10 pm
Some cities are using federal funds to install doorbell cameras in high crime areas, with owner consent. As long as owner consent (or subpeona) is required each time the government gets access to the a recording, I am fine with the partnership. It makes it just a tiny bit easier to collect evidence when a crime is reported, and it is really no different than all the security cameras at gas stations, restaurants, and other public areas.
Comment by thechampaignlife Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 2:14 pm
From the article:
“Ring facilitates these requests and user consent is required in order for any footage or information to be shared with local police,” a statement from Ring reads. “Local police are not able to see any information related to which Ring users received a request and whether they declined to share or opt out of future requests.”
——————–
Why couldn’t video footage be obtained by police through a subpoena or search warrant? There will certainly be a test case on that, provided a violent felony is involved.
Just as police are getting search warrants for cell phones, these cameras will be next.
Comment by Streator Curmudgeon Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 2:29 pm