This article points to concrete actions that Amazon is taking. It explicitly states end result. We can all agree that needing to get a warrant first makes things harder, yes?
Are you implying that they are lying about this? Or are you implying that it’s meaningless because it’s not being done for what you see as commendable reasons?
Please don’t use my questions as an opportunity to get on your soapbox. I am really just trying to understand if this is anything more than “Amazon bad”.
But it sounds like they're freely admitting that they're going to continue giving footage without a warrant. So I wouldn't call it a lie, more a marketing strategy. "Oh we pinky promise we won't give away your footage without a warrant! ... Well, except maybe that one time. But that was a special case, surely you understand."
1. They cannot be trusted, so personally, I think their words are just words. You are welcome to trust them and not if, but when that goes esplodie, you'll know why I don't trust them.
2. It's a minor change to a continued violation of people's privacy, so essentially it's a meaningless change that sounds like change, but isn't really a change at all.