A really odd post. I am open to the argument but don’t think Mozilla makes it here. The only piece of evidence they cite for harm— hyperlinked to the phrase “facilitate racial profiling”— leads to a think piece by someone a little creeped out by posts on Nextdoor, which doesn’t mention Ring at all.
I get that people don’t love surveillance. But the evidence is not here that a homeowner or renter’s decision to install a cloud-connected security camera on private property makes them or their community less safe. Unless you make a slew of assumptions that go undefended here, namely: cops are natural aggressors, having these cameras will attract cops, and the harm which these aggressive cops are likely to cause when attracted is greater than the combined deterrent effect of the camera’s presence against other crime + their value for genuine investigative work on crimes which were not deterred. Again, I’m open to the argument, but you need to present really good evidence, not just virtue signal. Because I don’t like getting packages stolen off my porch, and Ring seems like a straightforward way to prevent that.
I do not feel that "Cops are natural aggressors" needs further litigation but agree on the rest. However, how do you find Ring cameras protect your packages from theft? Do package thieves notice the camera and avoid your house, or do you send the video to the police who find the person based on their appearance or vehicle? If the former, why does the camera need to even be functional? And if the latter, why is the "cloud" necessary compared to a Ubiquiti style camera, or if you prefer a cloud camera, one from a company other than Ring who has shown extreme eagnerness to use close relationships with law enforcement as a form of marketing?
You have just repeated their question in the negative without answering it. Apparently everybody has an answer they find self-evident despite it being opposite. Also, there were other questions. (I'm aware you are not the OP.)
Hurting someone's privacy is in and of itself harm. Allowing law enforcement unrestricted access exacerbates this problem, however even without that I've already seen quite a few videos (made by ring cameras, or similar) posted, usually without any attempts at anonymization.
Once a verified LEO organization partners with Ring, they can send a geographically and time limited request to Ring for footage.
"please send me all video footage from 123 possum street to 350 possum street from midnight to 3am yesterday"
Ring then identifies who has cameras that may be of interest and sends the owners a request to share footage, which the owners can ignore (deny), explicitly deny or choose to share video.
I get that people don’t love surveillance. But the evidence is not here that a homeowner or renter’s decision to install a cloud-connected security camera on private property makes them or their community less safe. Unless you make a slew of assumptions that go undefended here, namely: cops are natural aggressors, having these cameras will attract cops, and the harm which these aggressive cops are likely to cause when attracted is greater than the combined deterrent effect of the camera’s presence against other crime + their value for genuine investigative work on crimes which were not deterred. Again, I’m open to the argument, but you need to present really good evidence, not just virtue signal. Because I don’t like getting packages stolen off my porch, and Ring seems like a straightforward way to prevent that.