Thank you. I'm baffled by how positive the HN community was to AirTags, but not to this...?
And aren't more networks a good thing? Shouldn't there be another competitor here?
Also, I'm not sure where people are getting that Amazon is bad at privacy. Amazon isn't Facebook, nor is it even Google Analytics, nor has it been involved in any user/privacy data scandal I can think of. I mean, most of the criticism of Amazon seems to do with worry that electronics you buy might turn out to be counterfeit... but that has nothing to do with this.
> Also, I'm not sure where people are getting that Amazon is bad at privacy.
Oh, I dunno, profiting from selling law enforcement nearly unrestricted access[1] to their existing IOT offerings as part of what they call "the new neighborhood watch"[2] while also profiting facial recognition offerings (Rekognition) doesn't really give me the impression they're good at privacy. In fact, it makes Google Analytics seem down right charitable in comparison.
What you claim is completely false. Key quotes from the articles you linked:
> Ring, she added, “does not own or otherwise control users’ videos, and we intentionally designed the Neighbors Portal to ensure that users get to decide whether to voluntarily provide their videos to the police.”
> The user can click to share their Ring videos, review them before sharing, decline or, at the bottom of the email, unsubscribe from future footage-sharing requests.
> Ring says police officers don’t have access to live video feeds and aren’t told which homes use Ring cameras or how homeowners responded unless the users consent.
So, please explain how this is "nearly unrestricted access"?
When it requires the owner to explicitly choose to share their own private video with police on a per-request basis?
Yes. But ONLY if the user VOLUNTARILY shares the footage on a per-incident basis. As the article says explicitly.
Guess what? If the police come to my house and ask me for physical photos and I show them photos out of the kindness of my heart, that's without a warrant too. I'm under no obligation though, and neither is a Ring user.
You're making it sound like police have access to footage without a user's consent, or without consent per individual incident. That's simply FALSE.
We also may disclose personal information about you (1) if we are required to do so by law or legal process (such as a court order or subpoena); (2) to establish, exercise or defend our legal rights; (3) when we believe disclosure is necessary or appropriate to prevent physical or other harm or financial loss; (4) in connection with an investigation of suspected or actual illegal activity; or (5) otherwise with your consent.
I'm not a lawyer so I'm not qualified to interpret what (4) means -- its legal purpose or ramifications.
But Amazon has explicitly and publicly stated they don't share Ring videos with law enforcement without user consent (at least not without a court order), and there have been zero news articles about them doing so.
So your insinuation that Amazon is handing police user videos without consent or warrants continues to be utterly unsubstantiated.
There's lots of details out there about the great lengths Apple has gone to preserve actual privacy with AirTags. AirTags have been designed so nobody, not the random device holder, or even Apple, can ever see any information.
But look at Amazon's language on "privacy" - they basically say "everything is encrypted" which is essentially meaningless for privacy. It's meaningful for _security_.
And that is the difference. There's no evidence that Amazon has actually tried to create a system that respects the user's privacy (including from Amazon). Secure, yes. Private? no.
Plus Apple's model is opt-in by default. "Find My" has always been opt-in. Buying an AirTag is an opt-in decision.
Amazon announced Sidewalk with a "most Echoes and Ring devices that have never had a feature like this before are going to support it opt-out by default in the near future". Even if they had the best intentions that sort of planned roll out isn't a great way to assuage people's privacy fears.
No, the internet and mesh networks like these are both surveilance networks. Increasing the number of options availiable doesn't really do much if the end result is the same. So tell that to your folks.
>Also, I'm not sure where people are getting that Amazon is bad at privacy
I think you should forward all your emails, internet traffic, and transaction history to me. Also install a microphone/tracking device in your house, on your kids and on your pets. Why? Well you don't really gain anything, but it will give you convenient access to my new lineup of time-wasting machines. Don't worry, I haven't had any major user privacy/data scandals so it's cool. But if you don't want to do that, it's fine because your neighbors are part of the program and their devices will snitch to me about your TV/Car/Thermostat. Be seeing you.
The internet isn't a "surveillance network". It's just a network. It's deceptive to just make up terms like that.
Also, what on earth does email or internet traffic have to do with any of this? They use secure protocols in the first place, and they all already rely on large companies like Google and ISP's. And Amazon sure already knows everything I've bought on Amazon.
So I have absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make here.
>The internet isn't a "surveillance network". It's just a network.
I posit that the internet is a surveillance network. Not only because its surveillance is a now primary function, but because it was always designed to be susceptible to various forms of surveillance.
It should be clear to programmers that the flaws in the internet and related protocols are numerous and tied to it's fundamental structure.
This webpage discusses a number of them: https://secushare.org/broken-internet .
Additionally, the economic incentives adjacent to the internet and related protocols encourage the use of fingerprinting, as they don't otherwise have a means of dis-incentivising unwanted messages (this manifests itself in spam, denial-of-service attacks, botting, etc.)
>Also, what on earth does email or internet traffic have to do with any of this?
That paragraph was to make fun of the parent comment (crazygringo's) statement: "Also, I'm not sure where people are getting that Amazon is bad at privacy". the parent commenter seemed to suggest that it would be a good idea to share a dangerous amount of information with an organization like amazon simply because they are trustworthy (or rather, simply because they have not been proven to be untrustworthy) despite the fact that they have no incentive or regulation to prevent them from abusing that information in the future.
I joked that if crazygringo was so eager to share his personal information with third parties, then he should share his information with a stranger like me, as I've not yet been exposed for abusing my (non-existent) client's information.
>They use secure protocols in the first place, and they all already rely on large companies like Google and ISP's. And Amazon sure already knows everything I've bought on Amazon.
The fact that you would make a comment like this is unsettling. Think about what you are stating. Email is secure? Secure for whom? How does TLS prevent your email provider from reading your emails? How does it prevent the government from reading your emails? How does TLS help if connections can be downgraded to insecure and broken protocols? How does end-to-end encryption prevent attackers to see what you're doing when they need only know what domains you access? How does public key infrastructure prevent MITM attacks (Hint: it doesn't, it just outsources the problem to certificate authorities)?
The exploitation of the internet and related protocols is not some theoretical tsunami. It is a global flood that is occuring right now a million times a second under authoritatian regimes around the world.
I agree that many of these protocols already rely on large companies such as service providers; The fact that a transaction of information between two parties on the internet requres such a great number of
arbitrarily powerful third parties is why we must dismantle the existing infrastructure (and replace it) in order to free ourselves (and future generations).
The age of blind trust will end one way or another.
And aren't more networks a good thing? Shouldn't there be another competitor here?
Also, I'm not sure where people are getting that Amazon is bad at privacy. Amazon isn't Facebook, nor is it even Google Analytics, nor has it been involved in any user/privacy data scandal I can think of. I mean, most of the criticism of Amazon seems to do with worry that electronics you buy might turn out to be counterfeit... but that has nothing to do with this.
This seems like really cool tech, folks.