Also this one... "Racial profiling is at the heart of Amazon Ring’s business model."

There's a liberal tendency to hyper-focus on race and see everything in the lens of race only. Ironically, I don't think this helps racial injustice that they are set out to resolve.

I don't know about "liberal tendency", I wouldn't go anywhere near that far...

However, I do so hate when people clearly use a maligned group and exploit them in their language to further their own agenda.

I've seen similar language used by groups to advocate for the wildest things like remote work, or bike lanes.

I think that is just a cheap deflection as this does pretty much normalize people having video cameras surveilling their neighbors as the discussion about the measure itself is delegated to a side show.

Not a conspiracy, they are just a bit clumsy about it.

I agree with you.

The only thing I find more threatening than Amazon's pervasive surveillance is the intended audience this site is catering to.

I mean, the headline of this post is literally about divesting Ring access from police, so I'm not sure why that's much of a surprise.

They’re talking about divesting generally.

Well, if they start from a police abolitionist position obviously the rest of what they say follows.

Isn't divesting different than police abolition?

Is anyone in this thread cognizant of some data that shows whether divestment has a correlation to actual crime data? I would really like to know.

There have been a lot of people talking about divesting. But, I wonder how much has actually occurred. And, whether in places where it has occurred, there has been demonstrated uptick in crime, or whether there are places where crime has risen alongside a marginal reduction in police forces (due to attrition, or whatever).

I would really like to see a factual discussion because it feels like the arguments are generally coming from a bias on both sides and the crime wave happening could be occurring because of number of contributing factors, not just divestment.

Well, first you'd have to find some place where it happened. I don't think there was much in that way, howls to the contrary notwithstanding. What people mean by the terms they throw around is a little inconsistent so I'm not going to hazard a guess as to exactly what the article writers think.

Right, and I'm suggesting that it's not much of a stretch to infer that given the nature of the headline.