Now Doorbell Cams Are Destroying America Or Something

[PeteS in CA]

Now Doorbell Cams Are Destroying America Or Something

But now another sort of camera is coming under attack. It’s the newly ubiquitous doorbell camera that lets you know when someone is at your door even when you’re not home. Video taken by these cameras can be shared among neighbors and even the local police to catch porch pirates, burglars and other ne’er-do-wells, varlets and cullions. In some cases, as with the Amazon offering called “Ring,” police departments are partnering with the company to offer discounted camera deals. This, of course, means that they have to be done away with. (Associated Press)

Critics also say Ring, a subsidiary of Amazon, appears to be marketing its cameras by stirring up fear of crime at a time when it’s decreasing. Amazon’s promotional videos show people lurking around homes, and the company recently posted a job opening for a managing news editor to “deliver breaking crime news alerts to our neighbors.”

“Amazon is profiting off of fear,” said Chris Gilliard, an English professor at Michigan’s Macomb Community College and a prominent critic of Ring and other technology that he says can reinforce race barriers. Part of the strategy seems to be selling the cameras “where the fear of crime is more real than the actual existence of crime.”

The arguments being made against Ring (and related products) for teaming up with police are bizarre, to say the least. First of all, arguing that these are unnecessary measures during a time of falling crime rates is bogus. Thankfully, it’s true that violent crime continues to fall across most of the nation (except in several larger cities), but porch piracy is on the rise and has been for some time.

Also, the usefulness of these devices for homeowners is beyond question. It allows you to instantly communicate with someone coming to your door when nobody is home. And if they are on your porch or at your doorway, you have a right to know about it.

The same applies to the privacy argument. Your expectation of privacy drops dramatically when you walk out your door and into the public square. When you set foot on someone else’s property, your expectation of privacy evaporates. (With the exception of using personal facilities like bathrooms, locker rooms or showers with the permission of the owner.)

What it comes down to in the end is that the advocates arguing against this technology simply want to make it as difficult as possible for law enforcement to do their jobs if it involves “Big Brother” having an image of you or any other data on record. I continue to find this argument unconvincing.

Playing the Race Card, invoking bogus privacy concerns ... a smokescreen for arguing, "I shouldn't have gotten caught!" "Internet of Things" devices can have very real cyber-security issues, but this is a cloud of bogons (particles of bogusness).

[Cyber Liberty]

You can count on Rats trying to keep people from protecting their families from predators.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

Someone I've never heard of called the other day.  They were offering to install "free" security devices.  When I told them I wasn't interested in some random joker installing cameras in/around my home, they asked how long I had on my existing contract.  At that point, there might have been a couple f-bombs as I explained that I don't generally share information about my personal security with some [yep, there's one of those f-bombs right there] idiot that calls my cell.

They were probably just trying to get me hooked up to a monthly monitoring contract.  Probably.

[jmyrlefuller]

Russian company steals people's pictures: bad.

Multibillionaire-owned American corporations steal people's pictures: good.

Got it.

[Cyber Liberty]

Russian company steals people's pictures: bad.

Multibillionaire-owned American corporations steal people's pictures: good.

Got it.

That can be said about virtually every camera made since 2010.

[Applewood]

I had to put this here:


Error 404 (Not Found)!!1