Technology

Amazon handed police Ring video footage without consent or a warrant

A US Congress investigation revealed Amazon has handed Ring video footage over to law enforcement agencies 11 times this year without the consent of the device owner
A US Congress investigation revealed Amazon has handed Ring video footage over to law enforcement agencies 11 times this year without the consent of the device owner

Amazon has revealed it supplied Ring doorbell video footage to police more than 10 times this year without a warrant, court order or permission from the device owner. The revelation comes as part of an investigation into Amazon’s privacy practices by US senator Edward Markey.

Amazon purchased smart doorbell company Ring back in 2018 and swiftly instituted a system known as the Neighbors Public Safety Service (NPSS). The service was ostensibly designed to help Ring users better collaborate with law enforcement agencies in sharing their device footage for public safety purposes.

The NPSS essentially turned into a massive networked system of surveillance cameras and law enforcement agencies could access that footage with the consent of device owners. More than 2,000 law enforcement agencies across the United States are currently part of the NPSS.

However, obtaining Ring footage through NPSS with a device owner’s consent isn’t the only way law enforcement agencies can access the data. Alongside a court order or warrant, Amazon will hand over Ring footage in response to a special “emergency request” application from law enforcement agencies.

As part of Markey’s investigations into Amazon’s practices, he quizzed the company on how often this “emergency request” protocol is used. Amazon responded by admitting there had been 11 occasions this year where it has provided videos to police without user consent.

“Based on the information provided in the emergency request form and the circumstances described by the officer, Ring makes a good-faith determination whether the request meets the well-known standard, grounded in federal law, that there is imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requiring disclosure of information without delay,” Amazon explained in its response to Markey’s queries.

No information has been disclosed as to the nature of those 11 “emergency requests” so it is impossible to know exactly what constitutes an acute need for police to access Ring footage without an owner’s consent. Matthew Guariglia, from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), said it is concerning these decisions are being made behind closed doors between Amazon and the police.

“There will always be reasons why, in emergency situations, authorities might seek live access to cameras but people have the right to be skeptical when police and Ring, behind closed doors, get to decide what reasons meet a threshold of an ‘emergency’ and allow police to get warrantless access to their personal devices,” Guariglia told Recode.

Ring does feature an option for end-to-end encryption, which would protect user data from being accessed by either Amazon or law enforcement. However, in response to Markey’s inquiry, Amazon said it will not make that feature the default option.

A statement from Markey expressed concern over increasing collaboration between private companies and law enforcement agencies. He said it is becoming impossible to inhabit public spaces without being recorded, and it is crucial there are protections for people’s privacy.

“We cannot accept this as inevitable in our country,” Markey said, referring to the idea that there is no privacy in public spaces. “Increasing law enforcement reliance on private surveillance creates a crisis of accountability, and I am particularly concerned that biometric surveillance could become central to the growing web of surveillance systems that Amazon and other powerful tech companies are responsible for.”

An investigation by EFF last year revealed law enforcement agencies used Ring camera footage to track Black Lives Matters protesters during the 2020 protests. This was one of the first documented cases of police using networked home surveillance systems to track political activity.

“Technologies like Ring have the potential to provide the police with video footage covering nearly every inch of an entire neighborhood,” EFF wrote last year. “This poses an incredible risk to First Amendment rights. People are less likely to exercise their right to political speech, protest, and assembly if they know that police can acquire and retain footage of them.”

Source: Senator Ed Markey

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Flipboard
  • LinkedIn
7 comments
czechster
I am having a hard time getting my mind around the violation of the1st Amendment Rights. Has there been an objection by any party?
TedTheJackal
The government and corporations lie as a matter of course, their excuses aren't worth reading. Police will access any data they want regardless of what the law says. They don't care about it, they don't have to. This was settled no later than the Telecom Immunity Act. Read Snowden's book, read about Assange, read about Guantanamo, try and find a government claim that isn't BS. The party line that cross dressing government employees protect individual rights has become openly ludicrous. Privacy, the Constitution, the right to this, the right to that, blah blah blah, are a thing of the past. Articles like this one just give a false sense of reality.
bhtooefr
The violation of 1st Amendment rights would be indirect, through chilling effects. However, there's a more direct violation of the 4th Amendment arguably.
Jinpa
There are other brands, like Wyze. But if you insist on Ring, check the default status. And subscribe to EFF.
FB36
IMHO, doorbell cameras are like a much more advanced & effective Neighborhood Watch (thanx to modern tech)!!!
& so, they are immensely beneficial for law enforcement fighting against crime
& so, they are immensely beneficial for common good of general public!!!

Also, IMHO, general public is NOT obsessed w/ privacy, quite unlike what self-appointed "privacy advocates" (like ACLU & EFF) always claim/pretend!!!

Also, IMHO, general public is always happy to help/support law enforcement (who are just trying to protect & serve common good of general public),
quite unlike what self-appointed "privacy advocates" (like ACLU & EFF) always claim/pretend!!!
foreignthinker
The police were early promoters of Ring on the Nextdoor social media platform; Ring's commitment to owner/subscriber's privacy has always been suspect.

Given the size of Amazon's government contracts, everyone should consider their data passing through Amazon, be it shopping, prime media habits, or any connected device, as just another revenue stream available for the asking.
Daishi
The interesting thing about this is the footage was likely not meant to incriminate the occupants of the home, it was probably pulled because the police were tracking someone that passed in front of it like they do with ATM cameras on crime shows. They used the emergency policy because it was too urgent to ask the homeowner first but I'd bet many homeowners would blanket opt in to the program if provided the option. I could see a future where communities install things like license plate readers and just give police access to the data to deter crime and track criminals. If privacy is already dead why not let criminals be collateral damage?