909
Jason Bassler | @JasonBassler1
Big Brother just got an upgrade.
Starting December, Amazon’s Ring cameras will scan and recognize faces. Don’t want to be in their database? Too bad — walk past a Ring and your face can be stored, tagged, & analyzed without consent.
One step closer to total surveillance.
[Image: A Ring doorbell camera mounted on a brick wall. A digital overlay shows facial recognition scanning a person's face with grid lines. Text on the right reads "Amazon's Ring Adds Facial Recognition to Home Security" with additional text below.]
6:00 PM | Oct 4, 2025
Source: https://x.com/JasonBassler1/status/1974640686419857516
This isn't legal where I live. It's not allowed to record public spaces
Same here. All private cameras that record or process data from a public space need to be announced on entrance of a property. Though now that i think about it, idk how ring got passed that law to begin with in 99% of its use cases..
( if its a front door that can only view private property its fine iirc, and if it has public space like roads its a nono )
It doesn't comply... but the responsibility falls on the person who mounts/uses the hardware, so Amazon does whatever they want.
Right, so i could in theory start sueing. Nice haha
Same as non-legal ebikes perhaps? Where I live the police don't seem to care unless the rider happens to be a drug dealer or otherwise wanted by the police.
I'd take a guess that while a ring doorbell might be illegal and not enforced, it probably means the recorded footage might be not accepted in court if ever needed... Perhaps (I'm not a lawyer or even close to being an expert). Unless a doorbell inspector becomes a thing then it probably just slides.
I was gonna say, I’m not sure this would hold up to legal scrutiny, not that that makes it ok in the first place.
Completely legal in the US.
I really don’t think so.
Sorry to hear you feel that way. It can be tough to be confronted with something you've always felt was true but turns out to be false.
Your superior thinks otherwise, my boy.
Did that sound clever in your head before you wrote it?
Everything I have to say is clever in comparison to your bottom of the barrel idiocy.
All this ad hominem over your lack of understanding of the First Amendment.
I hope you get over yourself one day.
That’s not what ad hominem means. And as I said, I don’t think this is protected by the first amendment. You’re the one who got rude first.
You're way too sensitive if you think I was rude first.
Look it up and feel embarrassed for being an asshole. Or don't and remain ignorant. Either way, shut up so I don't have to block you. People who drown in their own ignorance in the information age with web search a click away are so pathetic.
Jesus Christ, you are a bottom of the barrel intellect. Fuck off, Republican brain.
Lmfao you think I'm Republican because I happen to know the First Amendment applies to photos of people in public?
Touch grass and enjoy your block.
Your moral and intellectual superior never said that this was just about “photos of people in public”. We are talking about a specific way of manipulating that data in a database and its specific application and use.
Furthermore, there are plenty of laws in different states about taking pictures of people in public. At the moment, public photography is acceptable as long as it’s general, but you cannot record individuals specifically. This is quite common. But since there is no federal legislation about this, it can very simply be regulated.
Alexandre Dumas.