zlacker

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+(OP)
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.

>>g42gre+24
> In reality, Amazon was giving the videos to the police without warrant and, I am assuming, without notifying you.

Is this actually true? My understanding was that Amazon was allowing law enforcement a simple form to ask the user of the Ring device if the police could access the videos, without a warrant.