Ring-Star Jamie Siminoff versucht seit dem Super Bowl, Bedenken hinsichtlich der Privatsphäre zu zerstreuen, aber seine Antworten helfen möglicherweise nicht weiter

> “It is no different than finding a dog in your backyard, looking at the collar and deciding whether or not to call the number,” he said.

There’s a massive difference between „calling a number on a dog tag“ and using a flock of AI cameras to identify an entity.

> the idea that doing nothing counts as opting out, that no one is conscripted into anything.

This is a lie, you are automatically opted into the system, it automatically uses the AI to search. You have the choice to share with the dog owner if the AI flags the dog, but the system is automatically enabled. Their message on the app clearly states that.

Besides, have they read „If You Give a Mouse a Cookie“? Once they have it brushed under the social radar, what’s stopping them from expanding it’s use cases and capabilities quietly.

> he believes actually prompted the backlash was the visual in the Super Bowl spot: a map showing blue circles pulsing outward from house after house as cameras switched on across a neighborhood grid. “I would change that,” he said. “It wasn’t our job to try to poke anyone to try and get some response.”

> “I do believe if they had more [footage from Guthrie’s home], if there was more cameras on the house, I think we might have solved” the case, he said. Ring’s own network, he noted, had turned up footage of a suspicious vehicle two and a half miles from the Guthrie property.

This is exactly the point that got them backlash. Would they have stopped to ask for permission, or simply abuse user trust to solve the crime? Regardless of morals or social benefits, it’s a direct comparison he’s aware of and is trying to spin as a positive for sacrificing privacy for security.

The face your CEO makes when he realizes he bet it all on AI and no one likes it