Amazon's Ring Partners With Flock, a Network of AI Cameras Used By Police
- Reference: 0179817212
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/25/10/17/2039246/amazons-ring-partners-with-flock-a-network-of-ai-cameras-used-by-police
- Source link:
> Flock cameras work by scanning the license plates and other identifying information about cars they see. Flock's government and police customers can also make natural language searches of their video footage to find people who match specific descriptions. However, AI-powered technology used by law enforcement has been proven to exacerbate racial biases. On the same day that Ring announced this partnership, [3]404 Media reported that ICE, the Secret Service, and the Navy had access to Flock's network of cameras. By partnering with Ring, Flock could potentially access footage from millions more cameras.
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2025/10/16/amazons-ring-to-partner-with-flock-a-network-of-ai-cameras-used-by-ice-feds-and-police/
[2] https://blog.ring.com/about-ring/ring-expands-community-requests-to-additional-community-safety-partners/
[3] https://www.404media.co/ice-secret-service-navy-all-had-access-to-flocks-nationwide-network-of-cameras/
"exacerbate racial biases" (Score:3)
> However, AI-powered technology used by law enforcement has been proven to exacerbate racial biases.
What does that even mean? Whose biases? What sort of bias, exactly?
Re: (Score:2)
> dark skinned people who are typically minorities in America the police get tons and tons of false positives
White guy commits a crime and is recorded. Police feed it into the AI and it pops up with a black guy's name. Yeah, that's shit when it happens. But that sort of error is rare.
Black guy commits a crime and is recorded. Police feed it into the AI and it pops up with some other black guy's name. This happens a lot more often. Because, like you said, facial recognition is much less accurate with dark skin. But it doesn't produce "tons and tons" of false positives. Because if it did, judges wouldn't grant arre
Not even a little. (Score:1)
Actually thats not what it means, what it means is ethnic minorities get fingered for crime much more than their %age of population would seem to indicate.
The implication of course is that that is somehow unfair, the alternative explanation is that just perhaps they commit more crime per population size.
But no, its not because black people get IDed for white crimes, the software is not even a little bit that stupid, and even if it did, as a facial picture exists, it would be trivial to prove false. The reas
Fine by me (Score:2, Insightful)
I have a Ring doorbell and several cameras and can't understand why I wouldn't want the police to access the footage.
Re: (Score:1)
How about them selling it to the highest bidder and knowing when you come and go. what people come over, what you buy? you really need to read 1984..
Re: (Score:1)
You know that book was make-believe, right?
1984 followed a common trope: Oppressive government of the future uses ever-present surveillance to control your every move.
Well, it turns out that in real life, it doesn't work that way. Nobody in the government actually cares what you eat for supper or when you go to bed. The government doesn't care enough about YOU to surveil YOU.
But when a crime is committed, yes, they can and do use surveillance footage to investigate the crime. If that's your concern because
Re: (Score:1)
The police dont need to sell it, Ring sells it..
Re: (Score:2)
> I have a Ring doorbell and several cameras and can't understand why I wouldn't want the police to access the footage.
Imagine this.
You have a daughter. She has the (unwanted) attention of an officer. He is using your footage and the footage of others to track her whereabouts. Don't worry. He won't do anything to her because she's got a new boyfriend. Probably.
Imagine this.
There have been cars broken into and vandalized in your area. Some happens on a night when you went for a walk. An ambitious officer finds your footage showing you coming and going, and either doesn't find or doesn't look for any further footag
Re: (Score:3)
> These aren't absurd.
Not in the least, and here is a recent example: [1]Flock Safety and Texas Sheriff Claimed License Plate Search Was for a Missing Person. It Was an Abortion Investigation [eff.org]
[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flock-safety-and-texas-sheriff-claimed-license-plate-search-was-missing-person-it
Re: (Score:2)
Police enforce the law without respect to the morality of that enforcement.
Look at England where there are jailings for 'hurty words'.
Limiting of state power, while often aiding criminal behaviour, is actually to stop to evil people in government abusing their power.
Re: (Score:2)
What is immoral about access to doorbell cameras?
In the US, you can't be convicted based on unauthenticated video. Somebody has to swear in court as to where the video came from, and to the authenticity of the video. THAT is the key to limiting police abuse.
Now, if the video is authentic, and shows you committing a crime, then sorry, not very sympathetic.
Re: (Score:2)
So: you're cool with everyone having cameras on their houses and piping that data directly to the police.
Presumably you're fine with stepping that up a bit more. Would you be ok if we were able to have cameras covering every inch of visible public space in every urban and suburban area in the country? Why not, that's basically what you want already.
What about having everyone's voice being recorded at all times through billions of tiny, high sensitivity microphones placed to capture all available sound in pu
Re: (Score:2)
We pretty much already have every inch of public space covered by camera and audio recording. And yet, people aren't being thrown in jail in droves for crimes they didn't commit. Why is that? Well, maybe because somebody still has to swear in court as to the authenticity of the video! There are still checks and balances, even with nearly 100% surveillance coverage in public places.
Re: (Score:2)
You probably would want to know and validate the request, even if you always say yes. Same as the difference between regularly donating small amounts to a homeless man, and that man pickpocketing you everytime you pass by. Even though I'm going to say yes without a second thought, you have to ask every single time before taking, using or accessing my belongings.
Re: (Score:2)
I would only want to validate the evidence if it's used in court. And that's precisely how the system works. Just because police have the evidence, doesn't mean they can use it without getting it admitted into court. And that requires a human to authenticate the video and testify to the accuracy of that video.
Learn how... (Score:2)
Learn how you too can contribute to the surveillance state today!
Amazing (Score:2)
Not only have tech companies convinced billions of people to subject themselves to manipulation on a scale that would make Goebbles jealous, theyâ(TM)ve also heavily invested their own personal funds in systems that bug their households and vacuum up petabytes of data about themselves for the benefit of the police state.
Dear Amazon: (Score:2)
Go and piss up a rope
Would be fine if... (Score:1)
...I had control
I would be glad to share videos of theft, burglary, vandalism, arson and other serious crimes
I would NOT want to share video of political protest, undocumented people passing by, traffic violations or other stuff I decided should stay private
Re: Would be fine if... (Score:2)
Remember the South Park episode Human Centipad? You clicked âoeagreeâ so you said that they can. Itâ(TM)s part of the phrase âoeyou agree that we may use your data for any lawful purpose without your additional consentâ. Youâ(TM)d be shocked at what that really means.
Imagine the abuse from employers/romantic partners (Score:2)
Ring footage is frequently abused by Karens in Nextdoor.com. People post videos and images of their neighbors for minor transgressions. One racist POS posted their footage of (minority) kids playing basketball during the COVID lockdown. Some post footage with face showing of people who let their dog wander literally a foot off the sidewalk into their grass (didn't poop or damage the lawn...just technically trespassed because the dog walked a foot off the sidewalk on its leash). Many post videos of dogs
Police States (Score:2)
The United States has a much more extensive surveillance system than China. And lots of people here welcome it because they think it makes them more secure.
I don't want to be with people who have these (Score:4, Insightful)
I know it doesn't matter a great deal to most people, but personally, I don't want to hang around with people wearing glasses that are constantly recording me, fill their homes where I visit with cameras and audio recording devices, have telivisions and smart speakers that are constantly listening to me when I'm there, record videos of themselves when we're doing social activities for their social media/ tictok, etc. If my family or friends buy these things they're going to have to expect to see me a lot less and if they want me to house sit their pets while they go on a cruise they'll just have to pay some stranger $100 a day, because that's a no from me.
Re: I don't want to be with people who have these (Score:3)
I understand how you feel. It was fine whilst it used to be invasive tech was limited to the person using it. Now it seems to capture everything around it too. Personal choice should still be a factor. Besides as proven by this services morph into things they previously werenâ(TM)t. Whoâ(TM)s to say how your data will be used in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
You can figure that you are on camera in most public places you visit these days and near other people's houses. Any large store for sure. Facial recognition isn't very hard to do. Surveillance cameras for your dwelling inside and out are cheap and easy to install.
Is it unpleasant to think about? Dang right it is, but it seems impossible to avoid.
Re: I don't want to be with people who have these (Score:2)
Covid mask with a little bit of padding would defeat most of them it seems. Society changed we do not have to accept it. Facial recognition still seems to be beaten with wearing fake glasses and a mask.
Re: (Score:2)
I 100% agree. I grew up in the 80's, and constant video/audio recording of every action just creeps me out. It was too expensive to do back then. I still live innocently, and act accordingly, I just don't want others to watch me and to make that judgement for me. From the movies I watched, and the books I read, it is Dystopian. I don't want to live in a Dystopia.