Slashdot Mirror
A Smart Doorbell Company Is Working With Cops To Report 'Suspicious' People, Activities (vice.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: Smart doorbell company Ring is making it easier for customers to call the cops on "suspicious" people and activities. The startup, which Amazon acquired for reportedly "more than" $1 billion this year, uses security cameras to let people monitor their entryways. Now, it's launching its Neighbors app -- a platform for reporting crime that, so far, police in Fort Lauderdale and Orlando, and the Ventura Sheriff's Department, have access to. "Over the next days and weeks, law enforcement across the U.S. will be joining Neighbors," a Ring spokesperson told me over email.
The app, while presented as a crime-fighting aid, could also be a new place for paranoid people to profile fellow citizens, as similar platforms in the past have turned out to be. According to the company's statement in a press release for Neighbors today: "In addition to receiving push notifications about potential security issues, app users can see recent crime and safety posts uploaded by their neighbors, the Ring team and local law enforcement via an interactive map. If a neighbor notices suspicious activity in their area, they can post their own text, photo or video and alert the community to proactively prevent crime."
The app, while presented as a crime-fighting aid, could also be a new place for paranoid people to profile fellow citizens, as similar platforms in the past have turned out to be. According to the company's statement in a press release for Neighbors today: "In addition to receiving push notifications about potential security issues, app users can see recent crime and safety posts uploaded by their neighbors, the Ring team and local law enforcement via an interactive map. If a neighbor notices suspicious activity in their area, they can post their own text, photo or video and alert the community to proactively prevent crime."
In Florida it was decided that it was OK to shoot someone much larger than yourself who had you down on the ground and was slamming your head into the concrete. That's not the same thing as just shooting anyone who looks suspicious.
My local police force has something similar already. You get SMS when there are "issues" in your neighborhood. A website also allows you to view recent crime in the area. You don't need to be paranoid to be vigilant.
My daughter's neighborhood had several cars broken into. The neighborhood watch has a facebook group that alerted members. They all polled their surveillance cameras and each found the same van casing their houses throughout the area. They emailed all the pictures to the local Sheriff's department and they caught the van in another area the next night. Cameras are everywhere now and if neighbors unite they have an amazing amount of coverage.
Some women checking out of an AirBNB in California ended up getting a huge police response and detained for a few hours because a neighbor saw them loading their luggage into a car and assumed they were robbing the place.
This shit already happens without a "Neighbors app" and is bound to get worse with one.
It would be difficult for police to set up a network to do this throughout neighborhoods (cost, potential constitutional issues), but it's perfectly legal for a group of private civilians to collect images of the public, tag it almost however they want (as long as it's opinion-based), and upload it wherever they're allowed. They can label as suspicious a minority in an overwhelmingly white neighborhood, a teen in a beater car, or a child without his or her parents as long as they're stating an opinion about it being suspicious, completely ignoring (or oblivious) that the person recently moved in, the teen lives there and just bought their first car with their own money, or the kid is ten and playing just a couple of doors down from home. Having police respond to these wastes resources and contributes to the further deterioration of neighborhood relations.
Crafting laws to cover this without blocking legitimate reports would be difficult, if not impossible. This can only change through social pressure. If a group like this forms in your neighborhood, it could be helpful to join even if you don't want to if only to talk some sense into those who read too much into perfectly innocent activities.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
...also, are we really saying that the appropriate sentencing response to theft is death? I'm not on board with that. That's how you get people you are pretty sure stole something, but who didn't steal something, killed.
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
Paranoid Caucasians living in isolated suburbs. Now im sure this will get downvoted to oblivion, but unless and until you've lived with these people you've no clue just how willing a specific segment of the American population is to buy just one more thing to "keep their family safe."
I moved back into my parents old home in an Ohio suburb temporarily after they died in order to auction off the estate and sell the property. Granted this was in 2010 so the economy was about as stable a foundation as the Los Angles I had lived the bulk of my adult life in, but I was prepared for a long sale anyhow. In the first two weeks I lived there I got 3 neighbors banging on my door announcing themselves and nearly demanding to know who i was, who my wife was, what school my kids went to, and how many cars I owned. I was left politely at some point with a cake from Wal-Mart and a suggested church. At the end of the month I received a phone call from the local police department reporting a burglar had entered the home and had been detained after claiming to be my husband. After confirming he was indeed my husband with police, who seemed stunned to see actual gay people, life settled back down to normal with the exception of the now monthly 'jesus saves' fliers that would arrive unsolicited on my car windshield from neighbourhood kids.
A month passes and we're both playing Borderlands in the living room when we notice a handful of police walking alongside the house to the back yard. The neighbours who were standing proudly in our driveway, had called the police on our utility meter reader, who was black. After enduring a half hour with the neighbours explaining everything from make-believe methamphetamine addicts to the second amendment and gun ownership, they left.
long story short, we finally sold the property and moved back to LA, but the obsession with night prowlers, evil lurking in the shadows, drug addicts, and the paranoid gun culture was pretty shocking. This was a city thats biggest crime was a McDonalds truck that had lost its brakes and slid backwards into an adjacent sandwich shop, yet everyone on the block was geared up like a K-Town shop owner in the LA riots. It made zero sense...however if you're selling a doorbell that profiles people, ive got just the customer.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Of course it will. Pearl-clutching, old, white hags are gonna start calling the cops on any black person they see through their doorbell camera. Walking while black will be the new crime of the day.
In Cali, you can get a restraining order against people solely on the basis of saying you're afraid of them... even if you have a history of hospitalization for paranoia. Take a while to let that sink in.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Are the stereotypical old ladies of the future going to monitor their Neighbors app instead of a police scanner? Joking aside, I wonder if this will do more to create false perceptions of danger than it will to keep people genuinely informed.
Have you ever read the police log of a small town? People are afraid of their own shadows. Your average person is not qualified to assess what is a threat and what isn't.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Depends on the state laws, etc....
A few years back, here in LA, there was a case where a guy came out on the balcony of his 2nd story apartment, and saw just below in the parking lot, 2 thieves in his car rummaging around stealing stuff.
He pulled out his gun and opened fire, killing one and wounding the other I believe, that ran off.
They actually tried to try him, but no jury would convict him.
I was actually surprised it went to trial at all, as that here in LA, the car is considered and extension of your home.
In TX, I believe you can freely open fire if you find someone on your property stealing stuff.
Frankly, I have no problem with that....if they'd not been committing the crime on property they didn't now own, they'd be happily alive and processing oxygen.
If I'm home and someone breaks in to my house, I assume 100%, that the person means bodily harm to myself, family/friends within and I won't even be checking the body till I'm loading my 3rd magazine generally.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Or the three black teens shopping at Nordstrom Rack who clearly had to be shoplifters.
If you have off-duty cops who pull guns on people for suspicion of stealing Mentos then they deserve shooting, yes.
(And does your friend think that pointing guns at people is a friendly gesture?)
No sig today...
>he thinks it was a senseless murder!
Martin was killed by Zimmerman because Martin was assaulting him. Zimmerman showed in court he feared for his life and the use of deadly force was justified. It was not murder. It was not even manslaughter. I invite you to have someone slam your head against concrete and tell me with a straight face you wouldn't be afraid for your life. Zimmerman shooting Martin to stop the attack is actually the most reasonable course of action in that circumstance.
I have one of these cameras and so far it's recorded a couple knock-knock thieves, my BMW M3 getting stolen (yanked onto a flatbed and gone in under 60 seconds) and also captured the boyfriend of a girl I know making out with another girl while they were alone on my porch.
It's also exposed my ring-using neighbors as a (virtually) huddled bunch of paranoid slut shaming racists who aren't aware of due process, or even innocent until proven guilty.
It really is disgusting.
I'm getting rid of my Ring, mostly because it's too unreliable. It often just stops working and doesnt respond to anything for days (i did everything tech support asked and more) It's not a bad idea, the ring thing (and its been around for at least a year so this is not really news) I will miss being about to see whos at the door but i won't miss hearing my neighbors whine about ever pedestrian that passes theie houses.
chris watts íë¦ìS ì(TM)ì
trayvon made the first contact not the other way around, per trayvons girlfriend under oath. last i checked, walking behind someone isnt a crime
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Yeah...
In related news: SMS reports of incidents of "person of color hanging out in a wealthy area" have spiked 500%. News at 11.
You're conflating "Stand Your Ground" with "Castle Doctrine".
Stand Your Ground applies anywhere - not just your home. In states without Stand Your Ground even if you feel your life is in danger, you have whats referred to as a "Duty to retreat". IE, run away if you can. Stand Your Ground states that you have no duty to retreat and if your life is in danger then you can respond with deadly force.
Castle Doctrine applies in your home, and it not only means that you have no duty to retreat, but also that the mere presence of an intruder in your home is by default considered a threat to your life, and so you can use deadly force immediately. IE, if you come downstairs and there's a stranger standing in your living room you're clear to shoot - even if they have said or done nothing else. Their mere presence is considered a threat.
Castle Doctrine does have it's limits though. It's not applicable cases where home owners have "baited" criminals into the home, or where the criminal has already surrendered then the threat is considered ended (ie, you can't tie up an intruder and then shoot them, nor can you leave your door open with a stack of cash visible while you wait in the corner with a gun).
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
I've lived in large single family home residential neighborhood in a city (looks suburban, but is in the city) for 19 years and over the past 5+ years, the amount of nuisance theft has skyrocketed. Just on my *block* it's not unusual to hear about a car being rifled, strange "door to door" sales people with no materials/identification/logos. We had a rash of car entries using keyless entry repeaters and a couple of sneak burglaries (snatching purses from kitchen tables). Over a week last November, the entire larger neighborhood was hit by package thieves, including my house. 3 different people had footage of the car involved.
I had a long conversation with my council member about what can be done and was told that we should just report it and then do insurance or whatever. I asked why we couldn't get more police patrols and was told our area was "too low crime" (the numbers say we're the lowest crime area in the city) and there wasn't sufficient resources.
So what the fuck? Just put up with it? That's the answer? Or just change my thinking, it *must* be my racial bias?
Or this is somehow really ad-hoc redistributive economic justice, and I'm just too racist to notice?
I love the scare quotes around "suspicious", like that's just some crazy impossible concept.
Paranoid Caucasians living in isolated suburbs.
How very racist of you.
Do you not think that people of color might have reason to be concerned about property theft or break-ins? Do they not deserve some security also?
I guess you'd rather they all be fucked over by a system that is afraid to send patrols where they are and rely on 911 calls that could take 30 minutes or more for a response...
Is there any area that is truly without crime anymore? I truly think every homeowner (and apartment resident!) should have cameras outside the doors, because something can happy anywhere, any time and it's good to have a true record of what occurred. It also eliminates bias from police that do show up in response to an issue, but I guess you don't care about that either...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
A losing effort.
The city has had at least two controversial shootings in recent years and activists are wholly opposed to anything involving "more police". One shooting involved an African American male who fought white officers and tried to take their gun and was shot and killed. The OTHER shooting happened about 1.5 miles from where I lived and involved an African American (first Somali immigrant police officer) officer who shot an unarmed white woman who had actually initiated the police call.
So it's a total political clusterfuck with the cops in this town. In last year's mayoral election, a major candidate actually suggested disarming the cops. Another major candidate rose to prominence in the precinct occupation/protest which went on for a month or two (in addition to disrupting things like the Park Board meetings, screaming racism and preventing the meeting from taking place). We use ranked choice voting and both candidates polled top 4, so there's that kind of crazy here.
The latter shooting (white woman shot by Somali cop) has everyone spinning in circles. The African American activists and white liberals don't know whether to be outraged or not because while they're trained to be outraged at police shootings, the racial role reversal here has them flummoxed. The pro-police "conservatives" who usually give the cops the benefit of the doubt are annoyed, but are equally flummoxed because a black cop shot a white woman.
The 100% democratic city government just wants it all to go away. The DA had to turn to the Grand Jury (after saying he would no longer use it after the previous shooting) to forcibly extract testimony as all the officers even tangentially involved in the Officer's career and training went blue wall of silence, making it take 8 months to get an indictment. The so-called legal experts are calling the odds of conviction 3-2 against due to the incredible lack of evidence (body cameras -- turned off, no witnesses, etc).
So yeah, run for city council on a "we need more police patrols" platform? Uh, no.
I'm not a fan of police state tactics by any means, but shit, what else can we turn to?
You obviously don't know much about guns, shooting under pressure, etc.
You NEVER draw a weapon, unless you intend to use it, period.
When you shoot, it isn't like the Lone Ranger where you shoot the gun out of the bad guy's hand, or try to just wing them, you shoot for center mass where you have the best chance, under duress, to hit the criminal to stop them, you shoot until they are stopped.
If someone breaks into my house, I am under the automatic assumption that they are there to do me or my family bodily harm.
I know it is a bit more controversial, but as I mentioned, if you have someone illegally on your property trying to steal from you, you are in many places justified to shoot them. I personally don't have a problem with that, but some do.
Again, if the assailant was not illegally in/on your property committing a crime, they'd be happily on their way and not suffering from gunshot wounds.
It is purely their choice.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The OTHER shooting happened about 1.5 miles from where I lived and involved an African American (first Somali immigrant police officer) officer who shot an unarmed white woman who had actually initiated the police call.
Was that the one with the Aussie tourist who called to report an assault and the trigger-happy cop shot her as she walked up to the car? The sad thing is, your case is precisely what we need police for: to patrol areas to reduce crime. However the increased militarization of police and the hostile "us vs them" mentality that is being trained into police these days (hell, soldiers in Iraq had a more restrictive ROE regarding firing weapons than police do these days) means an increasing distrust of police, both within the population that is being policed and the population being protected.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
I used to think similarly, and then I realized that not having a problem with that meant that I assumed that the ability to judge of people and ability to assess the intentions of people are not likely to be wrong. If your own teenage kid sneaks out one night and re-enters the house in a manner consistent with that of a burglar, I sincerely hope you pause long enough to not kill them. It's a scenario that has happened more than once.
That aside, I don't think capital punishment is appropriate in cases where there's not an obvious intent by the criminal to harm or kill someone. He has a big wrench and is moving towards you? I might buy that you were in enough jeopardy to justify taking his life.
Life is the first of the inalienable rights that our constitution says we have a right to, and I think I agree with its importance in that document. It's not life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the ability to off some jackass who broke into your shit.
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
Yes, Justine Dimond shot by Officer Mohammed Noor.
While I think that "warrior" training and militarization have encouraged cops to shoot people, I often wonder if cops shooting so many people is a byproduct of the reduction of blunt force by police.
Cops used to all carry nightsticks, and many also carried saps or wore sap gloves and these were their first go-to weapons for dealing with uncooperative or physically violent people. But over time these weapons fell out of favor, and not necessarily for the wrong reasons, either. So cities, departments, etc, reduced the use of these weapons to the point where they almost couldn't be used at all or could only be used under the same circumstances that a firearm could be used.
So when you're only left with a gun, all your problems now look like targets.
But cops still face a lot of people who fight them or physically resist arrest. A lot of them end up rolling around on the ground wrestling, which is a great way to lose your gun (or gain a reason to use your gun).
I think they should bring back blunt force weapons and train the police how to use them. The down side is that since it doesn't involve death or gunshot wounds, more people will end up getting beat senseless. The up side is that the cops will have a use of force tool that doesn't involve a firearm and killing people.
I know the Taser was supposed to be the ideal combination, but it mostly seems like a lot of bad compromises. Ineffective on some people, limited number of "shots" -- maybe when it's a "ray gun" and not a dart-firing gun with wires attached it will be better.
Forensics at the trial showed that Martin had straddled Zimmerman, with the latter being on his back, when the shooting occurred. This position is what is colloquially known as a 'ground and pound', with the explicit purpose of limiting the range of motion and ability of someone to defend themself.
This is why 'stand your ground' never even entered into this particular case. Martin had blocked Zimmerman's ability to escape.