Ring Doorbell

[tiggerblue10]

What do you think of this? Invasion of privacy or useful if you miss a delivery or check who is at the door before opening?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-58911296

[barry1010]

I have mine set to record only my property and my left hand neighbour at his request.
The police have twice knocked on my door to see if it had recorded occurrences that happened opposite and were disappointed.
I like it

[chelle7272]

The device in itself is useful, but you do have to abide by privacy laws as with any surveillance device.

The ones in my neighbourhood have been useful in crime detection too as Barry mentions.

[bookbinder]

There were two options that were open to Dr. Fairhurst: she could have been grateful to Mr. Woodard for having a camera that kept an eye on her property as well as on his; or she could have taken the view that she did, namely, that she saw the camera as an invasion of her privacy. Perhaps, one day, if she has a 'problem', she might wish that she had a neighbour with a camera that watched over her property.

[barry1010]

Mr Woodard could have adjusted the settings on his Ring device to block out her property. It only takes a few seconds.

[tiggerblue10]

Mine is set to the end and sides of my drive. I now live in a quiet cul-de-sac where not much happens apart from squirrels running around.

[chelle7272]

This article gives more info - seems he had a lot of cameras and wasn't very honest....
https://www.theregister.com/2021/10/13/amazon_ring_audio_recording_data_protection/

[barry1010]

The judge said recording video is fine,
"Her Honour Judge Melissa Clarke said that while Woodard's rights to film his doorstep were stronger than his neighbour's right to walk around free from CCTV surveillance, Woodard couldn't lawfully record audio from the camera, which was sensitive enough to pick up conversations more than 40 feet away:

I am satisfied that the extent of range to which these devices can capture audio is well beyond the range of video that they capture, and in my view cannot be said to be reasonable for the purpose for which the devices are used by the Defendant, since the legitimate aim for which they are said to be used, namely crime prevention, could surely be achieved by something less.

"A great deal of the purpose could be achieved without audio at all," added the judge."

[Gromit]

The Ring Door bell is an Amazon product.
It exists to watch and listen to you and your visitors to sell you advertising, and make money for Amazon.
If it detects your garden is overgrown, you will start to get adverts for lawnmowers.
It is an invasion of your privacy, but unless you deny the default settings, you are a willing participant, and deserve to be spammed to death.

[barry1010]

I don't get spam from Amazon

[Vagus]

We have cctv, as do four of the eight houses in our cul de sac. I imagine our cctv sees far more than a ring doorbell does.

[Gromit]

Barry1010,
They track you across apps - you must have noticed it.
You are thinking about a greenhouse, or a trailer or a new Phone, and suddenly all the sites you visit, including AB is full of adverts for stuff you were thinking of buying.
Pervasive taletelling at its worse - because you don’t even realise it is happening (and AB gets a cut on every sale).

[Gromit]

Sorry, predictive text. taletelling Should be teleselling.

[barry1010]

No, Gromit - I don't see targeted adverts, genuinely.
I use a different browser for shopping and have an adblocker on that.

[mushroom25]

the judgment is here:-
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Fairhurst-v-Woodard-Judgment-1.pdf
it's a bid long-winded, but it is an interesting read.