On Friday, December 6, 2019, 12:52:01 AM PST, grarpamp
   <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:

   [1]https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/zmjp53/how-ring-went-from-shark-t
   ank-reject-to-americas-scariest-surveillance-company
   [2]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21705982
   >by Caroline Haskins Dec 3 2019, 3:59pm
   How Ring Went From âShark Tankâ Reject to Americaâs Scariest
   Surveillance Company
   Amazon's Ring started from humble roots as a smart doorbell company
   called "DoorBot." Now it's surveilling the suburbs and partnering with
   police.
   >This is the first of a three-part series, where weâll explore how Ring
   transformed from start-up pitch to the technology powering Amazon's
   privatized surveillance network throughout the United States.
   When police partner with Ring, they are required to promote its
   products, and to allow Ring to approve everything they say about the
   company. In exchange, they get access to Ringâs Law Enforcement
   Neighborhood Portal, an interactive map that allows police to request
   camera footage directly from residents without obtaining a warrant.
   Interesting rhetorical question:  Could/Is this system set up to allow
   the owner of the camera to have absolute veto power over whether that
   camera's output can be used in an investigation and/or prosecution?  Or
   perhaps even more, veto power over the use of that information against
   specific people being prosecuted, and not others?
              Jim Bell

References

   1. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/zmjp53/how-ring-went-from-shark-tank-reject-to-americas-scariest-surveillance-company
   2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21705982