Private security footage is nothing new to criminal investigations, but two factors are rapidly changing the landscape: huge growth in the number of devices with cameras, and the fact that footage usually lands in a cloud server, rather than on a tape.
When a third party maintains the footage on the cloud, it gives police the ability to seek the images directly from the storage company, rather than from the resident or business owner who controls the recording device. In 2022, the Ring security company, owned by Amazon, admitted that it had provided audio and video from customer doorbells to police without user consent at least 11 times. The company cited “exigent circumstances.”
Obligatory reminder that just getting into a car (or walking past one) is considered by pretty much every car manufacturer to be acceptance of their privacy policy:
You’re right but it reminds me of that cop that killed that fumigator guy in Arizona. Total cold blood murder and that was illegal as well. I used to always tell me dad “no they can’t do that” and he would look at me serious as fuck and say “They are the government they can do whatever the fuck they want” its the same idea with rich companies they steal wages and kill workers through incompetence or lax safety practices all the time and sure its illegal but that doesnt matter when you can do it and face no repurcusions anyway.
Should there be an expectation of privacy in public? Definitely wrong for footage to be able to wirelessly, without the owners consent, leave a car.
Should there be an expectation of privacy in public?
No, but there should be an expectation of not being recorded by every car you come across.
