Mitchell Oakley: Privacy is as important as the right to remain silent

Okay, let me get the disclaimer out of the way because I am certain a few folks may not appreciate my stance on a recent change in a company’s policy of sharing video recordings with police.

Here goes: I am pro-police. I do not take part in any anti-police defunding rhetoric fueled by the liberal Democrats. I support the police and know that their efforts keep our crime rates much lower than they would be otherwise. I also know they have tough jobs. I’ve seen what they do and have personally witnessed the great work many of them do.

Now, to what I’ve learned and my opinion of it.

It was interesting to me to read a recent story prepared by The Associated Press pointing out that Amazon, the owner of the doorbell camera, Ring, will no longer provide video footage to law enforcement from Ring clients.

Offering no reason for the change, Ring announced in a blog post, per the AP, that it would eliminate its “Request for Assistance” tool in Ring’s Neighbors app. The tool allowed law enforcement and other public safety agencies an opportunity to get a copy of videos from doorbell cameras.

Police will still be able to interact within the app, the AP reported.

Obviously, for law enforcement to be able to simply request the video from a person’s doorbell camera immediately sets off privacy concerns and is essentially a warrantless search. In other words, law enforcement has essentially been able to use Ring to invade another’s privacy without having to develop probable cause of a crime, which is required to obtain a warrant for a search. Viewing a private individual’s doorbell video, in my view, is a search.

Matthew Guariglia, quoted in the story, said, “Now, Ring hopefully will altogether be out of the business of platforming casual and warrantless police requests for footage to its users.” Guariglia was identified in the AP story as a senior policy analyst at the digital rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation.

The recent action by Ring will not deter law enforcement from doing its job in a timely manner. They retain the right, when a crime is committed, to obtain a search warrant to search a home, business, vehicle, a person or to obtain video footage. The difference, of course, is law enforcement must have enough evidence to make a reasonable person believe that what they are seeking is evidence of a crime.

Although this seems to be a significant change, Ring still reserves the right to release video to police in “exigent or emergency” situations. I find this suspect because who is going to decide what an emergency is? Will it remain an easy way to get video without the owner’s knowledge? I would argue that a search warrant should be required in every case of release of private video.

Additionally, Consumer Reports said “… privacy and civil rights advocates say the protections (made by Amazon’s Ring) still fall short.” However, at least two online ratings of doorbell cameras rate Ring in the top five for use in homes.

On another matter, theverge.com reports that Amazon has agreed to pay $5.8 million to settle a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) lawsuit that its doorbells illegally spied on users. There were numerous allegations, including one that Ring employees watched hours of private video footage that “surveilled intimate spaces in their homes.”

The FCC settlement raises real concerns about personal privacy for those who purchase the Ring doorbell camera and sets the tone for why Ring should be even more adamant that if law enforcement has reason to believe a crime has been committed, they should go to a judge or magistrate and make an application for a search warrant.

I believe in privacy as much as I do good law enforcement. Both can co-exist. It’s a matter of — in the event of a crime — following search warrant procedures that are already laid out fully in law. It’s really nothing new.