That's crazy!
The rules of the contest are so hard to enforce in favour of contestants, let alone the whole issue of pressuring people into installing cameras that automatically send footage to police and probably Amazon as well.
I really hope a team of VFX artists (who already has cameras installed anyway, so no additional cost for them) makes incredibly convincing footage and somehow makes it look like it was part of the raw camera capture.
Mind you, I have no idea how reliable the website politico.com is (this is the first time I heard of it), but OP's article linked to this article starting that Ring footage was sent to the police without consent
Technically, "automatically" would mean it gets sent all the time, while "without consent" would mean it might've got sent on request, just without consent.
"Automatically" would be a perfectly reasonable word choice if a request from the police is granted without interaction. In all honesty even if a human has to send it, if the process doesn't allow them any kind of autonomy or authority to decline the request, that probably qualifies, too.
As Jarfil said, it's not automatically doing anything. The police can get a court order to get footage. It's only given in very limited circumstances, like if the owner goes missing, or the camera might have spotted a significant crime, and it's not just ring but basically anything. If you are suspected of a serious crime police can get your internet browsing history, they can bug your house, they can dig through your bins, and yes, can request the clips taken by your ring camera.
It's happened 11 times this year. That shows how rarely courts give these orders.
The idea that Ring is some evil thing that's doing anything different is just scaremongering.
That's crazy! The rules of the contest are so hard to enforce in favour of contestants, let alone the whole issue of pressuring people into installing cameras that automatically send footage to police and probably Amazon as well.
I really hope a team of VFX artists (who already has cameras installed anyway, so no additional cost for them) makes incredibly convincing footage and somehow makes it look like it was part of the raw camera capture.
Ring doesn't 'automatically send footage to police'.
Mind you, I have no idea how reliable the website politico.com is (this is the first time I heard of it), but OP's article linked to this article starting that Ring footage was sent to the police without consent
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/13/amazon-gave-ring-videos-to-police-without-owners-permission-00045513
Technically, "automatically" would mean it gets sent all the time, while "without consent" would mean it might've got sent on request, just without consent.
Fair enough. In both cases, it's without the camera "owner" consenting, and that's the main problem.
"Automatically" would be a perfectly reasonable word choice if a request from the police is granted without interaction. In all honesty even if a human has to send it, if the process doesn't allow them any kind of autonomy or authority to decline the request, that probably qualifies, too.
Hm, I guess you're right. That's an interesting reflection on the concept of "automation".
I think automated means "no human". I don't think automatic necessarily does, especially if humans don't have agency.
As Jarfil said, it's not automatically doing anything. The police can get a court order to get footage. It's only given in very limited circumstances, like if the owner goes missing, or the camera might have spotted a significant crime, and it's not just ring but basically anything. If you are suspected of a serious crime police can get your internet browsing history, they can bug your house, they can dig through your bins, and yes, can request the clips taken by your ring camera.
It's happened 11 times this year. That shows how rarely courts give these orders.
The idea that Ring is some evil thing that's doing anything different is just scaremongering.