4/25/2023 0 Comments Doorbell security cameraLarkin’s case raises new red flags about law enforcement’s ability to get footage inside people’s homes even when it’s irrelevant to the investigation in question. In Larkin’s case, Daley confirmed to POLITICO that Ring reviewed Larkin’s warrant, and provided a full response to the legal request: It sent all the footage police asked for. Ring can deny requests, provide partial responses or hand over everything that’s included in the warrant, according to the company. “We review all legal documents served on us, and if we have reason to believe that a demand is overbroad, we question the request and may ask law enforcement to suggest a more limited production of information,” Ring spokesperson Brendan Daley said in a statement. Markey has publicly criticized the company and also questioned Ring on its policies in letters, but hasn’t introduced any legislation to address the privacy implications of networked home-surveillance devices.Īsked about its policies, Ring said it doesn’t automatically hand over footage in response to every request from law enforcement. Ed Markey has publicly criticized Ring and also questioned the company on its policies in letters. “I’ve been ringing alarms about this company’s threats to our privacy and civil liberties for years.” Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said in a statement to POLITICO about Ring’s products. “They are part of an ever-expanding web of surveillance in communities across America,” Sen. They amount to a large and unregulated web of eyes on American communities - which can provide law enforcement valuable information in the event of a crime, but also create a 24/7 recording operation that even the owners of the cameras aren’t fully aware they’ve helped to build. The company offers a multitude of products such as indoor cameras or spotlight cameras for homes or businesses, recording videos based on motion activation, with the footage stored for up to 180 days on Ring’s servers. In the debate over home surveillance, much of the concern has focused on Ring in particular, because of its popularity, as well as the company’s track record of cooperating closely with law enforcement agencies. “It really takes the control out of the hands of the homeowners, and I think that’s hugely problematic,” said Jennifer Lynch, the surveillance litigation director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights advocacy group. And when law enforcement gets involved, even the slim existing legal protections evaporate. Questions of who owns private home security footage, and who can get access to it, have become a bigger issue in the national debate over digital privacy. The notice informed him it was obligated to send footage from more than 20 cameras - whether or not Larkin was willing to share it himself.Īs networked home surveillance cameras become more popular, Larkin’s case, which has not previously been reported, illustrates a growing collision between the law and people’s own expectation of privacy for the devices they own - a loophole that concerns privacy advocates and Democratic lawmakers, but which the legal system hasn’t fully grappled with. And a week later, Larkin received a notice from Ring itself: The company had received a warrant, signed by a local judge. They asked for more footage, now from the entire day’s worth of records. He thought that was all the police would need.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |