948
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
Simple - Because she doesn't trust the strangers living in the building any more than the strangers on the outside. I don't blame her one bit. In my lifetime, I've seen countless stories of women being raped and/or murdered by other tenants and the complex 's own security.
In the olden days, before electricity, I used to be friendly with a neighbor, and she became convinced that someone was sneaking into her apartment when she was at work, and stealing her underwear and prescription meds. She took a day off because she was under the weather, and one of the maintenance guys, who was always overly-friendly, unlocked her door, and walked right in.
It turned out that he'd been warned about this before, and he was fired. But if she, or other neighbors, had Ring cameras, they would have caught on to him immediately.
A camera inside her apartment would have the same results without invading the privacy of every other tenant in the building.
In that specific case, but most people want to identify people BEFORE they enter their promises. I'm not opening my door to any cops, for instance, unless they can slide a warrant under the door.
You are missing the point entirely. There are about a million reasonable reasons someone would want to have a doorbell camera, and they have every right to them. The owner of the camera isn't violating your privacy, AMAZON is doing that by collecting the data from a privately-owned source who hasn't given permission to hijack data from their device.
Don't be mad at the tenant for protecting their safety, be mad at Amazon for exploiting that reasonable fear, encouraging people to get Ring cameras, and then stealing the data they collect.
There are also a million ways to achieve the same goals without agreeing to be Amazon's snitch for your entire building. Amazon isn't stealing the data. The ring camera owner sold everyone out.
Also, just so we're clear, the maintenance worker still had access to her apartment and could have just lied about the reasons. It would not have stopped him in any meaningful way.
"But she would have known who it was!" .. yeah, AFTER he was inside her apartment. It doesn't even do the one thing you're claiming it would be useful for.
Yeah, except if he knew everyone that entered the apartment at any time was recorded, it would maybe have been a deterrent.
Her other option could be a hidden nanny cam trained on the door so she'd have proof she wasn't crazy.
But again the issue isn't people wanting to know who is outside their door, or entering without their knowledge. The issue is the camera companies keeping all the footage for themselves.
We have an off brand camera aimed at our porch for porch pirates. It's not going to get someone walking by on the street. We have it only recording to the sdcard.
But we can live view and it alerts through the app. We don't use the cloud service or AI. But there's nothing stopping the app from screenshotting alerts and sending them somewhere.
I'm trying to figure out how to have an actual closed system so only computers under my control can access camera(s)