Democratic Senator Edward John Markey says he is very concerned about the role private companies are playing in what he calls mass surveillance.
A report by US Senator Edward John Markey points to the increasing use of data from Ring and Nest intercoms by law enforcement. Since November 2019, the amount of exchanges has increased fivefold – perhaps also due to the massification of these devices. However, in “emergency cases”, these disclosures are made without the explicit consent of the users concerned, and without control.
Unequivocal terms of use
We use the term explicit because, it is written black and white in its confidentiality rules and its conditions of use, Google is required to communicate certain data to the administrative authorities in the context of civil, administrative and criminal cases, as well as in those related to national security. However, these requests must comply with US legislation, that of the requesting country if applicable, international standards (those of the Global Network Initiative) and of course Google’s rules.
On the Amazon side, the company says it discloses the contents of customer accounts and other personal information when it is legally obliged to do so or if such disclosure is necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of Amazon, users or other people.
In his report, however, the senator finds worrying the generalization of these emergency requests, allowing the police to obtain sequences without prior authorization or warrant.
Word of defense: protection first
In response to Edward John Markey’s investigation, Amazon issued a statement which reads:
“So far this year, Ring has provided video to law enforcement in response to an emergency request only 11 times. In each case, we determined in good faith that there was an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to a person, requiring the disclosure of information without delay. »
This endangerment of life requiring an immediate reaction is also the argument put forward by Google for requests for information in emergency cases. The firm states:
“If we have reasonable grounds to believe that we can prevent a person from dying or sustaining serious physical injury, we may provide information to a government agency (for example, in connection with bomb threats, shootings in a school, kidnappings, suicide prevention and the search for missing persons). We will always consider such requests in accordance with applicable laws and our rules. »
Word to the prosecution: no control, therefore possible abuses
You will agree, at first glance, a position aimed at contesting these provisions likely to save lives seems rather delicate to hold. Simply the accusations do not relate so much to these emergency devices as to the lack of control a posteriori.
Indeed, as pointed out by Jason Kelley and Matthew Guariglia for the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation), “ guarantees for the protection of civil liberties are insufficient in this process “.
They particularly regret the lack of a procedure that would allow the individual concerned, or a judge, to determine later whether the situation was indeed an emergency.
This lack of control, and therefore of possible challenge or sanction, opens the way to abuse according to them: they think that the police will be tempted to use these emergency requests for ” less and less urgent situations “.
Widespread surveillance operated by private companies
Additionally, Senator Edward John Markey and members of the EFF are concerned about the recording range of Ring devices. A publication of Consumer Reports states that Ring intercoms can pick up sounds up to 25 feet away, or just under 8 meters.
These abilities have implications for people who walk, bike or even drive past dozens of these devices every day, unaware that their conversations may have been picked up and recorded “say Jason Kelley and Matthew Guariglia. A fear all the more justified that Amazon has refused to change the default automatic recording setting for its devices.
Senator Edward John Markey summarizes:
“It has become increasingly difficult for the public to move around, meet and converse in public without being tracked and recorded. We cannot accept that this is inevitable in our country. Law enforcement’s growing reliance on private surveillance is creating an accountability crisis, and I’m particularly concerned that biometric surveillance could become a central part of the growing network of surveillance systems, including Amazon. and other powerful technology companies are responsible. »
Sources: Amazon, Google, WebProNews, CLEAR, Ed Markey
2