- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
Serve Robotics, which delivers food for Uber Eats, provided footage filmed by at least one of its robots to the LAPD as evidence in a criminal case. The emails show the robots, which are a constant sight in the city, can be used for surveillance.
A food delivery robot company that delivers for Uber Eats in Los Angeles provided video filmed by one of its robots to the Los Angeles Police Department as part of a criminal investigation, 404 Media has learned. The incident highlights the fact that delivery robots that are being deployed to sidewalks all around the country are essentially always filming, and that their footage can and has been used as evidence in criminal trials. Emails obtained by 404 Media also show that the robot food delivery company wanted to work more closely with the LAPD, which jumped at the opportunity.
The specific incident in question was a grand larceny case where two men tried (and failed) to steal a robot owned and operated by Serve Robotics, which ultimately wants to deploy “up to 2,000 robots” to deliver food for UberEats in Los Angeles. The suspects were arrested and convicted.
archive: https://archive.ph/997sA
You must log in or register to comment.
So someone tried to steal one of the robots, and the robot company was keen to give the footage to the cops?
There’s a lot of potential for fuckery here, but dishonestly spinning this non-issue to look like some kind of crisis distracts from real problems with privacy and the police. Hack “journalists”.
This specific case is like saying someone tried to steal your car that had a dash cam in it and you agreed to send the footage to the police.
Yeah they really buried some critical information on this one. I get the point of the article about general surveillance but when people feel tricked they get burned out on the issue and trust the media less. They could have made the point they wanted without making it clickbait.
After finding out Ring lets police access their camera footage at will, I’m wary of any other instances of the same. This might not rise to this level yet but the possibility exists, as you mentioned.
(late to respond here - sorry) As I said, the risk is certainly there, but writing stories like this that so dishonestly frame a non-issue sets the expectation that people are going to kick up a fuss about every non-issue, so any concerns along these lines should simply be ignored. This means that the real issues will be dismissed when they do inevitably arise.
“Food Delivery Robots Are Feeding Camera Footage to the LAPD, Internal Emails Show” implies secretive, leaked collusion with the cops to stream live video to them… a more accurate headline (that fails to beat a story out of nothing) would be “Robotics company gives footage of attack on its robot to police”.
Yes but that’s a practice as old as the profession itself. Write a headline that’s not legally a lie, regardless of the implications, for the attention. It’s not something you can get rid of so long as they make money on said attention.
The Ring situation however is a real issue. Police can just grab footage from those because the company allows it and it’s really fucked up.
It’s an old practice, not an excusable one. Any “news” outlet pushing this misleading trash out should face similar consequences to false advertising without the need to initiate litigation (this isn’t libellous for example).
But yeah, the ring situation is indeed very real, entirely fucked, and unlikely to change until their sales start taking a kicking.
Somebody tried to steal a robot and was surprised that video footage from the robot was used as evidence?
Well, I don’t think that’s the profound bit, more, that, you have an army of video surveillance robots. The time you are walking down the street being recorded is only ever increasing. Granted, every official is going to come at it from the “reduced crime” stat, which, surveillance does combat, but, it’s a slippery slope.
If they had cause, I’m sure the majority of my private conversations, and where I’ve been have all been recorded and could be used against me in court. Am I a criminal? No. I’m not “scared” of it necessarily. I don’t think it’s ethical though.
The issue is that if a crime is committed then the police will be interested in gathering any video footage they can get their hands on (I’ve had it at work where I’ve been asked for CCTV footage from cameras that may have had an outside chance of capturing something important). If a company is sending robots out with cameras on them, and they are recording footage, then that footage is going to be requested (whether the company admits to working with the police or not).
Should there be this many cameras watching our every move? Probably not, but as the cameras are there, they are going to be used, and people should expect to be recorded - especially if they are committing a crime.
I agree. And I most definitely understand, you don’t have, not should you expect a right to privacy the second you leave your front door. (Arguably before that too, but that’s neither here nor there.)
I think what bothers me most is, I don’t want, let’s say my walking pattern in a city, monitored(it already is) to then have some camera see that I’m having a “bad day” then in inundated with ads that, “based on my profile, x emotion shows I’ll spend money here.” Idk. It just feels very dystopian, if that reasoning makes sense. Though, it’s sorta like climate change, it’s inevitable and the individual is essentially powerless.
Personalised billboard ads based on individuals have been patented and I believe they’re actually being worked on. They’re not going to be very useful in a big city, but on calmer roads you may just see an ad specifically targeted at you and your family.
Behaviour tracking ad screens are a thing. Where I’ve seen them, they didn’t actually use the data they collected for ads yet, but it’s certainly a possibility. I believe ad companies take a quick profile of you (i.e. white, male, 18-25, sad, brown hair) and feed that data back to the mothership to gain information about the audience for specific areas to sell ads for more money.
I don’t think it makes financial sense for a panel in the wall to show you, and everyone around you, personalised ads that only “work” for you, but there’s nothing stopping them from doing it with the technology already installed all over the world.
If you see an advertising panel with a little camera above it, the ethical thing would be to put a little sticker over the lens. If you find a bunch of them in your area, I’m sure the EFF or other organisations sell stickers for privacy awareness.
Absolutely agree, that’s the stuff of science fiction and hopefully stays in the fiction realm.
I’m afraid it’s real: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ads-tailored-to-your-age-sex-and-mood-can-tell-if-youre-a-happy-40-something-m376n9hb3
They don’t do facial recognition (yet) but they will profile you, detect your mood, and use that data to enrich advertising data or even pick ads that target you most. The worst part is that they’ve been doing this for years and almost nobody has noticed.
Conversation recording actually needs to meet a much higher standard than video recording, thanks to wiretapping laws. Many Ring camera deployments result in illegal recordings (e.g., of neighbors) because of this.
I guess the Internet of things just became the Internet of mobile surveillance cameras.
Is timeline as quickly becoming very dystopian.
Where can I get one of those face scrambling masks from A Scanner Darkly?
The mask industry pivoted from covid-19 to copvid-23
As a link aggregation site, I wish lemmy had the ability to let me hide links from specific domain names. Like, any clickbait or ragebait “news” sites could get added to my personal list so I don’t have to see them anymore.
Sync on android has this function. I blocked YouTube and it’s associated domains.
Also going to block this one, this story is such bad journalism.
