zlacker

>>nickth+(OP)
The title incorrectly implies that police can no longer ask users for surveillance video, while the actual change is that Amazon itself is going to stop sharing it without a warrant. You can of course do anything with your video you want, including giving it to police.

>>paxys+tb
It looks like Bloomberg wrote this misleading article and put this title up, deliberately, on purpose. I don’t think it’s the OP’s fault. I wonder what else Bloomberg publishes on, in the same way?

>>g42gre+8j
Can you help me understand why the article/title is "misleading" or what their motive would be to do so "deliberately, on purpose"?

I genuinely don't get the angle here you're suggesting Bloomberg has.

>>redcob+Ql1
The poster above me pretty much explained it. The article suggests that Amazon won’t let the police to ask for videos anymore, which does not sound bad. In reality, Amazon was giving the videos to the police without warrant and, I am assuming, without notifying you. Now, that’s bad. So Bloomberg covers this up.

Also, they call it “modifying public safety stance”? How about calling it “stopping privacy violations”? Also notice, they interweave the real information into the article so that they could say, well we actually told you all of this. But they are artfully trying to create a misdirection.