and I hope they sue to stop it. I live in an apartment and my neighbors have a ring camera. The hallway is NOT public space NEITHER is it my neighbor's property and I do NOT consent to them scanning me.

Good. Seems privacy rape (and other rape, including children) is something the current US administration will continue to use as its selling points though.

> "Ring spokeswoman Emma Daniels said that Ring's features empower device owners to be responsible users of facial recognition and to comply with relevant laws"

What a bunch of nonsense. She knows, everyone knows, most users will take whatever the defaults are and most others will turn the feature on, without any concern for others' privacy, and also won't likely know about laws (if there even are any).

> "It's typically legal to film in public [...]Privacy experts said that Ring's use of the technology risks crossing ethical boundaries because of its potential for widespread use[...]"

Yeah, yeah, "in public" and whatever. But the whole concept of "in public" was created without any possible dream of what that would mean with the technology available today. Always on, always computing, storing everything, uploading everything, connected behind the scenes to all kinds of secret data selling and "sharing." We are just getting a little tiny taste of what is to come.

> "Other companies, including Google, already offer facial recognition for connected doorbells and cameras. You might use similar technology to unlock your phone"

There is a huge difference between my enabling a feature on something I own and recorded, used, and stored locally, and what these companies are most certainly doing with these "cloud-connected" devices. Those scans are stored and used off-site and shared with other customers, and potentially businesses and government.

> "Amazon calls it an example of their vision for "tools that make it easier for neighbors to look out for each other"

Right, like I said, "sharing." And what are the examples they are not going to advertise to us? And what new secret uses will be found later?

I am not saying there are any easy answers here. But I hope people are thinking about where all this stuff is going. It is a rapid and accelerating march to sacrificing more and more privacy in the name of safety.

I'm not opposed to these technologies, nor even their use.

I'm strongly opposed to the imbalance of power that is created when authorities and major corporations are the only ones that have access to the total body of data.

If I could perform facial recognition on Jeff Bezos or Senator shithead and track their movements for the last few days/weeks/months, as easily as they can me, then I'd be fine with it. But, it's a one way street where they can use it against me and there is a massive power imbalance.

> Other companies, including Google, already offer facial recognition for connected doorbells and cameras.

Interesting how Google and the plethora of professional- and amateur-level cameras which already have this feature, some of them turned on by default, don't get called out but Amazon does. This is in part because Walmart (and to a lesser extent other retailers) will deliberately place ads in publications which bad talk Amazon, publishers see this (and reportedly have been openly told this is the case) and run anti-Amazon hit pieces at the slightest excuse. Gotta keep that ad revenue rolling in!

Then you have consented to be identified. Don't want that, stay away. That said, we should avoid identifying people just walking by on the sidewalk. The lost dog thing is overdue. I suggested that two years ago.