Amazon's Ring to stop letting police request doorbell video from users(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Amazon's Ring to stop letting police request doorbell video from users
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-24/amazon-s-ring-to-stop-letting-police-request-video-from-users
9 comments
I'm completely ok with the police asking me for video from my doorbell. I'm not ok with the police using the third party doctrine and asking the hosting service for my video without asking me. That video is every bit my property as the files in my desk drawer and should be subject to the same protections.
It's a mistake to trust a cloud service with your data and expect no one to take advantage of the fact that they are the ones holding it.
Yah, that's not the problem he's referencing.
He's referencing that we have early 20th and late 19th century case law about third parties holding documents, etc, that is used to make everything sitting at a cloud service subject to subpoena without a warrant (email, etc, too).
There's all kinds of precedent that was based on sane tradeoffs for the 1800's that doesn't make sense anymore with the more complicated ways we transact and interact and with the ability of technology to commit mass surveillance.
He's referencing that we have early 20th and late 19th century case law about third parties holding documents, etc, that is used to make everything sitting at a cloud service subject to subpoena without a warrant (email, etc, too).
There's all kinds of precedent that was based on sane tradeoffs for the 1800's that doesn't make sense anymore with the more complicated ways we transact and interact and with the ability of technology to commit mass surveillance.
But if Western countries really had liberal principles of democracy and freedom why do we not already have these protections?
I think we are moving away from some of those principles, particularly with regard to privacy and the balance between individual rights vs society/government.
Attitudes have changed a lot.There is an episode of Yes Minister where the minister does not want to push a shared govt database law because of privacy concerns. Another where the idea of ID cards is called political suicide. Absolutely true at the time, but the former is happening, and the latter is still not with us the UK but its no longer unacceptable to push the idea.
Kids are growing up expecting to be tracked (a lot of parents use "apps" to track what their kids do) so it will become even more normalised. People are used to being tracked as the tradeoff for map apps. There is a lot of surveillance anyway (CCTV and face recognition, number plate recognition, paying by card) so its already normal
Attitudes have changed a lot.There is an episode of Yes Minister where the minister does not want to push a shared govt database law because of privacy concerns. Another where the idea of ID cards is called political suicide. Absolutely true at the time, but the former is happening, and the latter is still not with us the UK but its no longer unacceptable to push the idea.
Kids are growing up expecting to be tracked (a lot of parents use "apps" to track what their kids do) so it will become even more normalised. People are used to being tracked as the tradeoff for map apps. There is a lot of surveillance anyway (CCTV and face recognition, number plate recognition, paying by card) so its already normal
If western leaders today believed in individual rights they could ban facial recognition, license plate readers and require businesses to take cash right now. Why do you think they don’t?
Because politicians and bureaucrats want to centralise power. They may very well sincerely believe they need that power for everyone's good.
Someone goes into politics because they want the power to run things.
Bureaucrats and agencies of the government want the power to run things for similar reasons, and it makes their jobs easier. Will the police ever say they do not want more powers to investigate crimes, or catch criminals? Will social services either? There are all kinds of things that can be better enforced with more information.
On top of all that they are part of the same cultural change that puts a lower value on individual liberties. It means politicians are a lot less inclined to refuse. There has also been a political drift to following expert advice with less scepticism, and the experts on these issues are the police, intelligence agencies, etc.
One cause close to my heart is that in the UK a number of local authorities keep hassling home educators (trying to bully them into sending their kids to school) even though their kids tend to do better than school going kids (their are studies showing better outcomes) because it seems inconceivable to them that people can do a better job than they do. I know people affected by this. A lot of them are utterly opposed to the idea that parents can make this decision at all.
Someone goes into politics because they want the power to run things.
Bureaucrats and agencies of the government want the power to run things for similar reasons, and it makes their jobs easier. Will the police ever say they do not want more powers to investigate crimes, or catch criminals? Will social services either? There are all kinds of things that can be better enforced with more information.
On top of all that they are part of the same cultural change that puts a lower value on individual liberties. It means politicians are a lot less inclined to refuse. There has also been a political drift to following expert advice with less scepticism, and the experts on these issues are the police, intelligence agencies, etc.
One cause close to my heart is that in the UK a number of local authorities keep hassling home educators (trying to bully them into sending their kids to school) even though their kids tend to do better than school going kids (their are studies showing better outcomes) because it seems inconceivable to them that people can do a better job than they do. I know people affected by this. A lot of them are utterly opposed to the idea that parents can make this decision at all.
>politicians and bureaucrats want to centralise power. They may very well sincerely believe they need that power for everyone's good.
So you admit they are not actually liberals and when they say they are they are incorrect.
So you admit they are not actually liberals and when they say they are they are incorrect.
Is there a country or a system of government that doesn't have this class of problems? I sure can't find one and I've been to quite a few.
Because slow moving legal precedent and interpretation of constitutional documents is important. But sometimes, underlying facts change in ways that break the analogies used in past reasoning, and we need to catch up.
The problem has only been super significant for 15-20 years, which is a blink of an eye in this sense; not even enough time for the populace to really understand and appreciate the issue.
It is, of course, still broken.
The problem has only been super significant for 15-20 years, which is a blink of an eye in this sense; not even enough time for the populace to really understand and appreciate the issue.
It is, of course, still broken.
Right but why should “the populace” even need to be aware of the problem? If the people with political power believe in these principles themselves shouldn't they just draft some new legislation to fix it? When Russia invaded Ukraine our leaders jumped into action to help them defend their country even on another continent, but when what is supposedly one of the founding principles of the US is totally broken you think its consistent with the assumption that our leaders share these values with us for them to drag their feet for multiple decades?
Legislation doesn't affect the interpretation of the constitution.
And in this case, judicial precedent follows evolving (both popular and legal) ideas of what the words in the constitution mean.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..."
"Persons, houses, papers, and effects" has been interpreted in terms of what things a person had, excluding things that they had given someone else to hold. It was a pretty reasonable interpretation and compromise, until it was the governing case law that covered the cloud.
And in this case, judicial precedent follows evolving (both popular and legal) ideas of what the words in the constitution mean.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..."
"Persons, houses, papers, and effects" has been interpreted in terms of what things a person had, excluding things that they had given someone else to hold. It was a pretty reasonable interpretation and compromise, until it was the governing case law that covered the cloud.
> Legislation doesn't affect the interpretation of the constitution.
Legislation can limit what Federal agents are allowed to do totally irrespectively of whether those things would separately violate the constitution.
Legislation can limit what Federal agents are allowed to do totally irrespectively of whether those things would separately violate the constitution.
Sure, but we're not really talking about federal agents for the most part. We're talking about local police forces in states sending subpoenas to Ring.
I cant believe you are making me say this but…
s/federal agents/local police/g
s/federal agents/local police/g
Federal law's ability to enjoin local police activity is limited.
And in any case: the law is a blunt instrument. It's (usually) better as a slowly changing representation of conventions and social consensus instead of something that we make sweeping changes in (whether legislatively or judicially).
And in any case: the law is a blunt instrument. It's (usually) better as a slowly changing representation of conventions and social consensus instead of something that we make sweeping changes in (whether legislatively or judicially).
What limits it?
Yeah, I'm familiar with 3rd party doctrine and not a fan, myself.
> It's a mistake to trust a cloud service with your data
Eventually, this has to change for the better. Right now, users don't understand/don't care...
Eventually, this has to change for the better. Right now, users don't understand/don't care...
>Eventually, this has to change for the better.
How? Things don't magically get better "eventually" just because we wish for them to. Things change if rich and powerful people push for them or if millions of little people revolt about it in order to impact the elected leaders, otherwise everything stays the same or gets worse.
Currently the rich and powerful are not on your side on this, and the little people care more about putting food on the table and making rent rather than who gets to access their cloud storage.
>Right now, users don't understand/don't care...
Nor will they anytime soon if what happened after Snowden (nothing) is anything to go by.
How? Things don't magically get better "eventually" just because we wish for them to. Things change if rich and powerful people push for them or if millions of little people revolt about it in order to impact the elected leaders, otherwise everything stays the same or gets worse.
Currently the rich and powerful are not on your side on this, and the little people care more about putting food on the table and making rent rather than who gets to access their cloud storage.
>Right now, users don't understand/don't care...
Nor will they anytime soon if what happened after Snowden (nothing) is anything to go by.
> rich and powerful people push for them or if millions of little people revolt about it
You'd be surprised how easy it is to get time one one-on-one with a congressperson/senator and their entire legislative team. My strategy is simple, I just call and ask if I can stop by and say hi for 20 minutes or so. If you get 10 minutes, you are doing as well as most lobbyists. If you do get a meeting be nice, even if you disagree with the Senator. Your not going to debate them into changing their vote. But... if you share engaging and emotional stories, especially about people back in the home district, you might just get what you need. Also, be ready for this question: "What's your ask?" That is where you can be really direct: "I'd love it if we could get ___ passed, or It would be really good for the home district if ____ didn't pass." Have a quick story answer for why: "so people like ___ don't have to close ____ on ___ st in home city." Schedule around meals - a lot of time the legislator will go to lunch (and pay for yours) just to avoid another hour with legislators and negotiators.
You'd be surprised how easy it is to get time one one-on-one with a congressperson/senator and their entire legislative team. My strategy is simple, I just call and ask if I can stop by and say hi for 20 minutes or so. If you get 10 minutes, you are doing as well as most lobbyists. If you do get a meeting be nice, even if you disagree with the Senator. Your not going to debate them into changing their vote. But... if you share engaging and emotional stories, especially about people back in the home district, you might just get what you need. Also, be ready for this question: "What's your ask?" That is where you can be really direct: "I'd love it if we could get ___ passed, or It would be really good for the home district if ____ didn't pass." Have a quick story answer for why: "so people like ___ don't have to close ____ on ___ st in home city." Schedule around meals - a lot of time the legislator will go to lunch (and pay for yours) just to avoid another hour with legislators and negotiators.
This is true only because our laws allow such a thing. The 3rd party doctrine is something that should be heavily restricted to encapsulate people's reasonable expectation of privacy for hosted services. The least of which for our industry because as it stands it requires wasteful work to add unnecessary security just to play legal games and hurts our ability to sell products that store people's sensitive data.
If the so-called liberal Western regimes respected privacy rights they way they claim to it would be perfectly reasonable to trust a cloud provider with your data.
Technology moves faster than law, so we’re seeing areas where the existing precedent, such as the “Third Party Doctrine,” just doesn’t work well when I’m renting server space (all SaaS is this way) for much of what would have been personal property and papers. The nice thing about Western democracies is that they evolve over time and generally get better. In the US things are changing as judges are forced to review decisions and laws are changed as both judges and representatives start to understand new tech. It takes time.
I think I'm not understanding your point. GDPR seems to be the current gold standard for privacy at the moment. Are there any similar policies in non-western nations to speak of?
How is what non-western countries do relevant to the question of if western governments actually practice the values they claim to hold?
You're making this out to be a western problem, but I suspect it's actually a general human thing. Actually, I have a hunch that the west has made more progress here than anywhere else, and I'm curious if anyone disagrees.
I doubt anyone would disagree with that statement. Would you agree that the actions of western leaders reveal their liberalism is superficial?
Somewhat, sure. They certainly haven't achieved 100% of the liberal ideal. But if they're currently setting the bar for policy in this regard, can it be entirely superficial?
Yes and it is. If they actually believed in libety or democracy they wouldnt drag their feet like this and be content with merely bei g “more liberal” than your standard dictatorship.
My understanding is that even though you view it as your property, according to the patriot act, it’s a “business record” of the provider and subject to disclosure without a warrant.
Wasn't most of the patriot act left to expire by the trump administration back in 2020? Were those parts ever renewed since?
This is unconstitutional and needs to stop.
Could you cite a source for that claim please? This is the first that I'm hearing this.
I think it's important to consider any data being held on someone else's server as being effectively publicly available. That's one of the main reasons why I don't use cloud services and would never use a device that required someone else's server to hold or process sensitive data.
Do you have some recommended devices that follow that rule?
For doorbell cameras specifically? No, it's not a product category that I'm interested in and so haven't looked into it. For surveillance cameras generally, the market is full of non-cloudy ones. It's hard to give recommendations without knowing what your needs are, and even then I'd hesitate because I don't maintain a mental list of what's current on the market.
I know that's not helpful, and I'm sorry. My process is to research options when the time comes that I am actively trying to solve a problem and just buy the one that fits best. For surveillance cameras, for me, this means "dumb" ones that I feed into a control unit that manages multiple cameras and applies any smarts I may want.
I know that's not helpful, and I'm sorry. My process is to research options when the time comes that I am actively trying to solve a problem and just buy the one that fits best. For surveillance cameras, for me, this means "dumb" ones that I feed into a control unit that manages multiple cameras and applies any smarts I may want.
Pretty sure if you read the fine print that video is not your property, but even if it was, how can you enforce that if it’s not on your own servers?
He's not asking about how to enforce it, I don't think.
He's wishing that things like your e-mail, videos in the cloud, etc, required a warrant for the police to search, instead of just a subpoena to a third party.
The article falsely implies that a warrant is required, but in practice police can just subpoena the information.
He's wishing that things like your e-mail, videos in the cloud, etc, required a warrant for the police to search, instead of just a subpoena to a third party.
The article falsely implies that a warrant is required, but in practice police can just subpoena the information.
Which in itself blows my mind. Imagine if Canon told me the pictures taken with my camera were not my property.
The canon camera is self sufficient writing to your memory card. The ring doorbell is functionally useless without the server side components (afaik, I could be wrong). The whole issue arises because the video isn’t stored on your own servers.
Those server side components provide a lot of value and that’s why people choose to buy those products, as opposed to similar products that are just dumb wifi cameras.
Those server side components provide a lot of value and that’s why people choose to buy those products, as opposed to similar products that are just dumb wifi cameras.
At one point one of the big camera manufacturers tried using DRM to force use of their software to process image. I cannot recall when one or exactly what the restrictions were. I think it was with RAW image.
Encryption. Anyone org than can side step it doesn't matter anyway.
I agree with the sentiment, but in this case you just licensed software, you don't own the bits, the service, the components, or the video. Those files were never in your desk drawer, they've always been in amazon's desk drawer. While this is a step in the right direction, I would look to an RTSP doorbell if you're concerned.
> I would look to an RTSP doorbell if you're concerned
The problem is that the market success of products from Ring and similar companies have obliterated the market for DIY systems, so the few RTSP doorbells that exist aren't very good.
The problem is that the market success of products from Ring and similar companies have obliterated the market for DIY systems, so the few RTSP doorbells that exist aren't very good.
Is it even <your> video?
After reading the product description on Amazon, it looks like it is the hardware that you need to buy in order to use Amazon's doorbell and monitoring service.
See: In order to view "your" video history, you must subscribe to the Amazon Protect plan.
After reading the product description on Amazon, it looks like it is the hardware that you need to buy in order to use Amazon's doorbell and monitoring service.
See: In order to view "your" video history, you must subscribe to the Amazon Protect plan.
We'd be much better off as a society if more of our governing systems were voluntary. That's no silver bullet for sure, but it would go pretty damn far.
One of the more ridiculous examples I have come across, unpasteurized milk. In the US, as well as Canada and other western countries I believe, it is illegal to sell raw milk for human consumption. Meaning that if I have a neighbor with a milk cow, I can't buy a gallon of milk from them to drink or cook with. Stores can obviously do what they want, and requiring FDA certification for example would effectively block raw milk from stores. But why can't I choose to ignore FDA guidelines meant for industrial milk production and just buy a damn gallon of milk from a local farm?
One of the more ridiculous examples I have come across, unpasteurized milk. In the US, as well as Canada and other western countries I believe, it is illegal to sell raw milk for human consumption. Meaning that if I have a neighbor with a milk cow, I can't buy a gallon of milk from them to drink or cook with. Stores can obviously do what they want, and requiring FDA certification for example would effectively block raw milk from stores. But why can't I choose to ignore FDA guidelines meant for industrial milk production and just buy a damn gallon of milk from a local farm?
We have pasteurization for a reason mate. Raw milk goes bad pretty quickly, even in our modern, cleaner farm system. 3 day old raw milk, even if kept perfectly chilled can be deadly.
Have you actually tested this?
We have dairy cows these days. Raw milk straight from the cow takes an extremely long time to actually spoil in a dangerous sense. If left out it will sour and eventually separate, while it isn't usually what a person would want to eat it isn't dangerous. It absolutely doesn't go bad in a fridge, we've had jars in the fridge for weeks with absolutely no problem.
3 day old, unrefrigerated pasteurized milk is absolutely dangerous, don't drink it. Pasteurization of milk became commonplace as a solution for shipping milk long distances and storing it in warehouses for days or weeks. If pasteurized and managed properly the flavor won't changed. Raw milk will effectively ferment at room temp as the lactic acid bacteria begins to consume lactose. The byproducts aren't dangerous and are effectively the curds and whey that Little Miss Muffet told us all about, that's just not what you want to find in a jug of milk at the store.
We have dairy cows these days. Raw milk straight from the cow takes an extremely long time to actually spoil in a dangerous sense. If left out it will sour and eventually separate, while it isn't usually what a person would want to eat it isn't dangerous. It absolutely doesn't go bad in a fridge, we've had jars in the fridge for weeks with absolutely no problem.
3 day old, unrefrigerated pasteurized milk is absolutely dangerous, don't drink it. Pasteurization of milk became commonplace as a solution for shipping milk long distances and storing it in warehouses for days or weeks. If pasteurized and managed properly the flavor won't changed. Raw milk will effectively ferment at room temp as the lactic acid bacteria begins to consume lactose. The byproducts aren't dangerous and are effectively the curds and whey that Little Miss Muffet told us all about, that's just not what you want to find in a jug of milk at the store.
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.
> Next week, the company will disable its Request For Assistance tool, the program that had allowed law enforcement to seek footage from users on a voluntary basis,
How is this not stopping the police from asking users for surveillance video? Are you saying this statement is a lie?
I don't think anyone is stupid enough to think that Amazon are somehow physically restraining the police from knocking on people's doors and asking them face to face. It's about requests facilitated by Amazon.
How is this not stopping the police from asking users for surveillance video? Are you saying this statement is a lie?
I don't think anyone is stupid enough to think that Amazon are somehow physically restraining the police from knocking on people's doors and asking them face to face. It's about requests facilitated by Amazon.
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?
You don't have to wonder. Read like 5 more lines beyond the title and figure it out for yourself.
[deleted]
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.
I genuinely don't get the angle here you're suggesting Bloomberg has.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
Good, that is the way it should have been the whole time. The default view of government by businesses and people should be as an adversary. It is the duty of everybody to tell the government to stuff it when they aren't following the rules we have laid out for them.
program that had allowed law enforcement to seek footage from users on a voluntary basis
This was a voluntary program though. Blocking the police from asking for help is unnecessarily adversarial. You are right about police collecting video from Ring without user involvement, but this was transparent and voluntary.
This was a voluntary program though. Blocking the police from asking for help is unnecessarily adversarial. You are right about police collecting video from Ring without user involvement, but this was transparent and voluntary.
Yeah, if someone commits a crime at my neighbor's house, I appreciate that there's an easy way to collect data from any cameras that might be used to catch them. This kind of thing is far more useful for good things than for bad.
It isn't like they were pulling videos without consent to send tickets for rolling stops. Although if they did, they could collect enough revenue to fix every road in the country. :lol
It isn't like they were pulling videos without consent to send tickets for rolling stops. Although if they did, they could collect enough revenue to fix every road in the country. :lol
I have a friend who’s abusive and manipulative partner setup ring cameras around the house. After they broke up, the bad ex then took videos of day to day life and sent them to the police as evidence of physical abuse.
A good lawyer got the case dropped pretty quick, but not before she spent a weekend in jail, got fired as a teacher, and spent thousands on legal fees. The police had “video evidence” and therefore refused to drop the case even when the ex retracted the claims, and required months of fighting the legal system.
Beyond that awful freak incident, there’s tons of cases of police planting evidence, police ignoring real evidence, and police using an individual’s voluntary will to help them catch one crime to implicate an innocent person in a petty crime unexpectedly. There’d have to be a pretty big crime for me to voluntarily show the police any video of myself.
A good lawyer got the case dropped pretty quick, but not before she spent a weekend in jail, got fired as a teacher, and spent thousands on legal fees. The police had “video evidence” and therefore refused to drop the case even when the ex retracted the claims, and required months of fighting the legal system.
Beyond that awful freak incident, there’s tons of cases of police planting evidence, police ignoring real evidence, and police using an individual’s voluntary will to help them catch one crime to implicate an innocent person in a petty crime unexpectedly. There’d have to be a pretty big crime for me to voluntarily show the police any video of myself.
I'm confused. If you are being falsely accused, wouldn't you want video evidence? Otherwise it becomes one person's word vs another, which often comes with its own biases (first to call the police wins, better lawyer wins, etc).
Carefully selected video evidence, out of context, can be highly misleading.
True, but nothing about this stops someone from having their own cameras and selecting for themselves. The part that this restricts is the police selecting for themselves. So which do you trust less, the abusive partner or the police?
That's setting aside that this was also all about interior cameras, which are really a different subject from the exterior cameras. There are much stronger arguments for public requests for external camera feeds than interior ones.
That's setting aside that this was also all about interior cameras, which are really a different subject from the exterior cameras. There are much stronger arguments for public requests for external camera feeds than interior ones.
> So which do you trust less, the abusive partner or the police?
"Which do you want for dinner, broken glass or razor blades?"
> True, but nothing about this stops someone from having their own cameras and selecting for themselves.
A lack of a time machine does; the post upthread says "after they broke up". You won't be able to go back in time and install a second set of cameras to provide the cops with the full context.
"Which do you want for dinner, broken glass or razor blades?"
> True, but nothing about this stops someone from having their own cameras and selecting for themselves.
A lack of a time machine does; the post upthread says "after they broke up". You won't be able to go back in time and install a second set of cameras to provide the cops with the full context.
> A lack of a time machine does; the post upthread says "after they broke up". You won't be able to go back in time and install a second set of cameras to provide the cops with the full context.
I feel like my point wasn't clear. Nothing about Ring's decision here stops the bad one from doing what they did in your scenario. If the bad person controlled the cameras (and it sounds like they did), they'd still do the same thing regardless of this policy.
I feel like my point wasn't clear. Nothing about Ring's decision here stops the bad one from doing what they did in your scenario. If the bad person controlled the cameras (and it sounds like they did), they'd still do the same thing regardless of this policy.
Sorry, but what does this have to do with the topic? A manipulative ex manipulated police... is not new nor does it have anything to do with the question of voluntarily handing video evidence to police.
If we were to structure our lives around things that evil people misused good-intentioned processes for, then we would be continually paranoid and society would grind to a halt.
I am certainly in favor of limited police powers, but the conversation you are having is a different one from that.
If we were to structure our lives around things that evil people misused good-intentioned processes for, then we would be continually paranoid and society would grind to a halt.
I am certainly in favor of limited police powers, but the conversation you are having is a different one from that.
My point was that “more cameras” and “police access” doesn’t always translate to “only bad people get hurt”.
And that police do bad things, and someone giving them more evidence of their own life is probably not in anyone’s best interest. Because no one can guarantee that the police won’t decide to use it against themselves.
Considering the point I was replying to was someone discussing using cameras to watch for crimes, I think we’ve pierced the topic around paranoia and structuring life around evil people - that’s the whole topic at hand with security cameras.
And that police do bad things, and someone giving them more evidence of their own life is probably not in anyone’s best interest. Because no one can guarantee that the police won’t decide to use it against themselves.
Considering the point I was replying to was someone discussing using cameras to watch for crimes, I think we’ve pierced the topic around paranoia and structuring life around evil people - that’s the whole topic at hand with security cameras.
There's a reason for "Don't talk to cops without your lawyer present." Even if you have nothing to hide, your words can be misconstrued against you.
I'm fully on board with assisting with a real investigation. But unless they have a warrant, I get to have oversight of what they get.
I'm fully on board with assisting with a real investigation. But unless they have a warrant, I get to have oversight of what they get.
>> Good, that is the way it should have been the whole time.
The corpse of John Adams probably has a smirk.
> government ... people ... as an adversary.
Adams had some interesting views, ones the courts dont share but he did. In his thought, the final check on power was the jury. It did not matter what the LAW said, it matters what the jury thought, that a jury at any point could just choose to nullify a law.
In many places talking about this near courts will get you held in contempt. But at lest one of the founding fathers though "telling the government to stuff it" was the right thing to do.
The corpse of John Adams probably has a smirk.
> government ... people ... as an adversary.
Adams had some interesting views, ones the courts dont share but he did. In his thought, the final check on power was the jury. It did not matter what the LAW said, it matters what the jury thought, that a jury at any point could just choose to nullify a law.
In many places talking about this near courts will get you held in contempt. But at lest one of the founding fathers though "telling the government to stuff it" was the right thing to do.
Thanks for reminding us about this.
Also another reminder, for everybody throwing a lasso around everything and hating on it, you're actually upset with the bureaucracy (which contains law enforcement).
Remember folks, the U.S. gov't is split into four parts: 1. Legislative branch (makes laws for the executive branch to approve, and for the judicial branch to possibly overturn, and creates functions within the bureaucracy) 2. Judicial branch (throws away or reenforces work done by the legislative+executive branch) 3. Executive branch (controls the bureaucracy, great filter for the legislative branch) 4. Bureaucracy network (the informal branch of the gov't of employees rendering services for the citizens, most people end up complaining about: law enforcement, department workers, the postoffice and military)
So yes, tell the bureaucracy to stuff it. Telling one of the other three branches to stuff it probably doesn't fly too well.
Also another reminder, for everybody throwing a lasso around everything and hating on it, you're actually upset with the bureaucracy (which contains law enforcement).
Remember folks, the U.S. gov't is split into four parts: 1. Legislative branch (makes laws for the executive branch to approve, and for the judicial branch to possibly overturn, and creates functions within the bureaucracy) 2. Judicial branch (throws away or reenforces work done by the legislative+executive branch) 3. Executive branch (controls the bureaucracy, great filter for the legislative branch) 4. Bureaucracy network (the informal branch of the gov't of employees rendering services for the citizens, most people end up complaining about: law enforcement, department workers, the postoffice and military)
So yes, tell the bureaucracy to stuff it. Telling one of the other three branches to stuff it probably doesn't fly too well.
> The default view of government by businesses and people should be as an adversary
This is never ever going to be the default unless it is legislated. A business has much more to gain by aligning itself with the government than with the general population.
This is never ever going to be the default unless it is legislated. A business has much more to gain by aligning itself with the government than with the general population.
> The default view of government by businesses and people should be as an adversary.
This is ridiculous. The default view in a parliamentary democracy should be that government is your employee and that its job is to watch out for you. Where your interests collide with those of your fellow citizens, government or judiciary should be mediating and managing, seeking consensus or compromise, ideally with your involvement.
Yes, this is naive. But it's the core function we should be able to rely on; it should be the measure we use to assess the efficacy of our governments. Anything else and you're replicating feudalism or dictatorship.
If you default to government being your adversary, your system is broken and you should be working to fix it rather than giving up and calling it the enemy. Frankly, this labelling of government as the enemy is exactly what allows opportunists to sieze power.
This is ridiculous. The default view in a parliamentary democracy should be that government is your employee and that its job is to watch out for you. Where your interests collide with those of your fellow citizens, government or judiciary should be mediating and managing, seeking consensus or compromise, ideally with your involvement.
Yes, this is naive. But it's the core function we should be able to rely on; it should be the measure we use to assess the efficacy of our governments. Anything else and you're replicating feudalism or dictatorship.
If you default to government being your adversary, your system is broken and you should be working to fix it rather than giving up and calling it the enemy. Frankly, this labelling of government as the enemy is exactly what allows opportunists to sieze power.
When the government behaves as an adverse actor, they lose this trust.
Would you like datapoints about times the government lied and subverted communities?
Bc I have data points.
Many data points.
From many cultures that were illegally infringed upon hy the government.
And practices
Just say the word.
Would you like datapoints about times the government lied and subverted communities?
Bc I have data points.
Many data points.
From many cultures that were illegally infringed upon hy the government.
And practices
Just say the word.
> Just say the word.
Please share, if you please.
Please share, if you please.
Jacksons handling of the Cherokee
Jim Crow laws
Nypd use of stingers to violate your privacy then replicate a criminal investigation independent of the stinger information to subvert DoJ processes and the rights of protection against unlawful search and seizures.
internment of US citizens due to their Japanese heritage.
CIA involvement in the Iran Contra debacle fueling the cocaine epidemic
The burning of unarmed civilians at Waco Texas
Would you like more?
Jim Crow laws
Nypd use of stingers to violate your privacy then replicate a criminal investigation independent of the stinger information to subvert DoJ processes and the rights of protection against unlawful search and seizures.
internment of US citizens due to their Japanese heritage.
CIA involvement in the Iran Contra debacle fueling the cocaine epidemic
The burning of unarmed civilians at Waco Texas
Would you like more?
> Would you like more?
I appreciate the Starship Troopers reference, and yes.
I appreciate the Starship Troopers reference, and yes.
“Read Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States. That book'll knock you on your ass.”
That was on my reading list for one of my classes at CCSF. There’s a hidden treasure of amazing instructors at that community college, though it is or was the largest community college in the world by number of students.
I’m not sure what it says about the state of the world or about me that I’m already familiar with all of these things, but I do sincerely appreciate you for taking the time to share them with the rest of the class.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_College_of_San_Francisco
I’m not sure what it says about the state of the world or about me that I’m already familiar with all of these things, but I do sincerely appreciate you for taking the time to share them with the rest of the class.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_College_of_San_Francisco
adversary - one that contends with, opposes, or resists
It is a matter of trust of other humans with power. Government can do good but is made of flawed humans. Trusting the government to always be good and stay good is a recipe for disaster. For government to stay trustworthy it requires people to oppose oversteps. It is an adversarial relationship. That isn't a bad thing. It is necessary for everything to work and stay working.
It is a matter of trust of other humans with power. Government can do good but is made of flawed humans. Trusting the government to always be good and stay good is a recipe for disaster. For government to stay trustworthy it requires people to oppose oversteps. It is an adversarial relationship. That isn't a bad thing. It is necessary for everything to work and stay working.
They will still be able to access the data... using secret laws this time.
We are taking about a random local cop here, not the NSA.
You obviously haven't heard about parallel construction (or evidence laundering)....
Yes this is the weird part. Since this activity was always voluntary, I wonder about the real reason for this policy change.
Going to a judge for a warrant is not a "secret law." The intelligence community is legally barred from collecting on US persons anyway, and they also DGAF about petty crime, because they have more important national security-related fish to fry.
> The intelligence community is legally barred from collecting on US persons
Only for their made-up definition of the word "collecting", which in some cases is "retrieving the data which we have already collected and stored".
Only for their made-up definition of the word "collecting", which in some cases is "retrieving the data which we have already collected and stored".
Plot twist: they want the officers to ask amazon directly (for a fee).
Cut out the person who actually owns the device. And who supposedly owns the recording.
Cut out the person who actually owns the device. And who supposedly owns the recording.
This isnt a traffic stop. Companies of size have daily relationships with law enfocement. While they certainly have obligations to customers, we cannot expect companies to be aggressively confrontational in every situation.
I don't think it needs to be confrontational to say "no" when it's not required by law. In the US we have been led to believe that it's confrontational to stand up for your rights to police (e.g. to deny IDing yourself when asked without being detained, etc in most states).
But what if one is wrong about one's rights? A person mistakenly asserting themselves might have a car window smashed and spend a night in jail for obstruction. But a company mistakenly asserting rights can see equipment seized, fines, civil liabiliy, and possibly very negative regulator treatment. It is not unreasonable for a company to be very careful when saying no to US law enforcement. Cassually telling the cops to "stuff it" is a protest best left to individuals at the roadside.
If the cops are asking, it means they need your permission and you have the right to say no. They might be dicks about it but if they’re asking, you can say no. Conversely if they don’t need your permission, they won’t bother asking. And you can always verbally tell them you don’t consent to searches; you only really get in trouble for physically interfering.
Also, companies in particular have lawyers whose entire full time job is to know when to tell the government to “stuff it” (though usually in much classier terms). Apple famously did this with the FBI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple–FBI_encryption_dispute
Also, companies in particular have lawyers whose entire full time job is to know when to tell the government to “stuff it” (though usually in much classier terms). Apple famously did this with the FBI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple–FBI_encryption_dispute
It is unreasonable. But it is a broken system.
I mean, in general, there shouldn't be situations that are described as "mistakenly asserting rights". But as you say, the alignment and incentives are opposed, and it's too easy, not better, for companies to choose the path of least resistance, rights be damned.
I mean, in general, there shouldn't be situations that are described as "mistakenly asserting rights". But as you say, the alignment and incentives are opposed, and it's too easy, not better, for companies to choose the path of least resistance, rights be damned.
I would definitely pay more for an iPhone for Apple to hire more lawyers to (legally) obstruct law enforcement requests
That's why we have process like warrants and judicial review. For the law to set appropriate limits and procedure to demonstrate necessity. In practice even this is usually not enough, and too many warrants are court orders are approved.
Warrants are to obligate companies. We must also accept that some companies actively want to cooperate. They have their own agendas over who owns what data, agendas that often conflict with the views of privacy advocates. One would hope that market forces would drive these companies away but that doesnt seem to happen much these days.
Sorry to go there, but it's more or less the same as saying there were some in 1930s Germany who "just wanted" to cooperate with their government. Being too lazy or ignorant of why the checks and balances exist and voluntarily violating their spirit is not really an excuse, and I give no one a pass for it. If it's important and justified, they can follow the law and get a warrant.
Your comments read as someone who isn't aware of all the terrible stories of cops not doing their jobs correctly and in some cases going after innocent people on the flimsiest of evidence. They should not be trusted by default.
Your comments read as someone who isn't aware of all the terrible stories of cops not doing their jobs correctly and in some cases going after innocent people on the flimsiest of evidence. They should not be trusted by default.
No, they read like someone who has had to write realworld policies on handling such requests, not lawschool dissertations where there are no consiquences.
[deleted]
The current state of things with a lot of big tech interactions with law enforcement seems to be "that's great! lets work together on making this easier!", they don't come off as even questioning law enforcement requests beyond the minimum needed to cover their backs, let alone being anywhere near approaching 'aggressively confrontational'.
I wish those doorbell cameras would blur the background in such a way that passersby and neighbors' houses don't show up in their video. If this was the case it wouldn't matter much whether people or the manufacturer itself share the video.
In the US, Google has streeview. My house and my neighborhood is publicly available. Including whatever or whoever is in view.
The location, size, description, ownership details, price and in some cases even pictures of your house are all a matter of public record. Google taking a picture of it from the street once every few years isn't eroding your privacy.
Uh did I miss something? Is google street view live?
I’m much more ok with a static image of the front of my house than a continuous stream of everyone coming/going and everything that happens in the windows.
I’m much more ok with a static image of the front of my house than a continuous stream of everyone coming/going and everything that happens in the windows.
When I lived in Germany you could have your entire address blurred. Is that not possible anymore?
Google Street View blurs faces.
They blur people from view with street view so it isn’t quite the same.
This should be a legal requirement.
You have a legal right to view your property.
A better law would simply say video that is viewing your property from the outside cannot be used as evidence or something like that.
A better law would simply say video that is viewing your property from the outside cannot be used as evidence or something like that.
Is this actually a “right”?
Genuinely don’t know, but do you have a right to fly a drone overhead and film “your property” and your neighbors backyard while they skinny-dip? Do you have the right to videotape your driveway… and the elementary school across the street?
I’m very suspicious that “if the video includes your property, you have the right to film it” - which is the implication here.
Genuinely don’t know, but do you have a right to fly a drone overhead and film “your property” and your neighbors backyard while they skinny-dip? Do you have the right to videotape your driveway… and the elementary school across the street?
I’m very suspicious that “if the video includes your property, you have the right to film it” - which is the implication here.
Do you have the right to look outside your door? Then why is this any different than that. If you skinny dip in your backyard and your neighbor sees you from his house can you sue him for having the memory of you naked?
This is just the programmer's fallacy. If a human could do something "look out their window" then a machine is allowed to do the same 24/7/365 with perfect memory that can be proven to others completely ignores that the nature of the act has now completely changed.
"I saw them walking down the street yesterday" is not the same as "I saw them walking down the street yesterday at exactly 4:27 PM and returning at 9:19 PM here's exactly what they look like, what they were wearing, what they were holding and since everyone else on my street is also doing this you can get a full recording of their actions the entire time they were outside."
"I saw them walking down the street yesterday" is not the same as "I saw them walking down the street yesterday at exactly 4:27 PM and returning at 9:19 PM here's exactly what they look like, what they were wearing, what they were holding and since everyone else on my street is also doing this you can get a full recording of their actions the entire time they were outside."
Yep, but apparently SCOTUS doesn't dispute that fallacy:
https://www.aclu.org/cases/moore-v-united-states
https://www.aclum.org/en/press-releases/us-supreme-court-dec...
In the case, Moore v. United States, federal agents, without a warrant, surreptitiously installed a small surveillance camera near the top of a utility pole in a Springfield, Massachusetts neighborhood and used it to record the activities at and around a private home over an uninterrupted eight-month period. Agents could watch the camera’s feed in real time, and remotely pan, tilt, and zoom close enough to read license plates and see faces. They could also review a searchable, digitized record of this footage at their convenience. The camera captured every coming and going of the home’s residents and their guests over eight months, what they carried with them when they came and went, their activities in the home’s driveway and yard, and more.
https://www.aclu.org/cases/moore-v-united-states
https://www.aclum.org/en/press-releases/us-supreme-court-dec...
In the case, Moore v. United States, federal agents, without a warrant, surreptitiously installed a small surveillance camera near the top of a utility pole in a Springfield, Massachusetts neighborhood and used it to record the activities at and around a private home over an uninterrupted eight-month period. Agents could watch the camera’s feed in real time, and remotely pan, tilt, and zoom close enough to read license plates and see faces. They could also review a searchable, digitized record of this footage at their convenience. The camera captured every coming and going of the home’s residents and their guests over eight months, what they carried with them when they came and went, their activities in the home’s driveway and yard, and more.
I'm not sure I would agree that letting a split decision on a case that ended up being decided on non 4th amendment grounds is really taking a position on the matter but you're right. I'm genuinely not sure what the outcome would be if there was a circuit split and they were pressured into hearing it.
If there is a fence or other barrier, I think the answer is yes. There is implied privacy and it has been violated. “Having the memory” is not the same thing as taking a video that can be infinitely reproduced and shared, and I think it’s obvious we should and probably do treat that differently.
Can ring cameras see through fences?
Ya but people end up recording a lot more than just their property.
You have a right to the view from your property whatever that may be too. I don't understand the issue here. If someone is a busybody neighbor and looking out their window all day they can also be called to testify against you. People's property is and should be treated as an extension of themselves in this matter. Using a camera to view you doesn't change the fact that they are the ones doing the viewing.
I fully agree governments should not be participating and they shouldn't have a secret backdoor. I also agree that you should have the expectation of privacy in your house (hence why I question whether the video ought to be admissible). However, handicapping people's equipment is against even the most basic principle of private property.
I fully agree governments should not be participating and they shouldn't have a secret backdoor. I also agree that you should have the expectation of privacy in your house (hence why I question whether the video ought to be admissible). However, handicapping people's equipment is against even the most basic principle of private property.
The whole argument here is that it isn’t just your property. Filming your property… and something/someone beyond is where the question lies. Generally people don’t have the expectation of privacy when in public (aka on the street) but I would think we conversely don’t expect “not private” to include “video of every time I’ve left my front door”.
Like, if you’re in a public park and someone takes a picture that includes you, generally we say that you consented by being in public. If someone takes a picture of you every morning as you jog by the park because they’re stalking you, we don’t extended “implied consent” to that. If you aim a camera at my house, does that count as implied consent, or is it closer to stalking?
Like, if you’re in a public park and someone takes a picture that includes you, generally we say that you consented by being in public. If someone takes a picture of you every morning as you jog by the park because they’re stalking you, we don’t extended “implied consent” to that. If you aim a camera at my house, does that count as implied consent, or is it closer to stalking?
But that's my point you have a right to look out from your property and observe what you see. If you glance out your window and see a stabbing in someone else's property or a theft you can be called to testify. You can be compelled.
What next? Anyone with a cochlear implant can't use the phone because it's a recording device?
A camera is an extension of our eyes. If we have a right to look out from our property and observe so do the cameras.
It's not nice but this is clearly a situation where two competing and important rights coincide and conflict.
What next? Anyone with a cochlear implant can't use the phone because it's a recording device?
A camera is an extension of our eyes. If we have a right to look out from our property and observe so do the cameras.
It's not nice but this is clearly a situation where two competing and important rights coincide and conflict.
For me this is not about anyone's ability to watch the camera feed whenever they want to.
> A camera is an extension of our eyes. If we have a right to look out from our property and observe so do the cameras.
Personally, for me, it's about recording and storage that I'd be uncomfortable with. I have a hearing aid and I it's "recording", sure, but only to apply some kind of amplification/equalizing and then the audio is gone. Not stored, not sent to Amazon, not sent to police. If doorbell cameras worked the same way, then that'd be awesome. But afaik they don't.
> A camera is an extension of our eyes. If we have a right to look out from our property and observe so do the cameras.
Personally, for me, it's about recording and storage that I'd be uncomfortable with. I have a hearing aid and I it's "recording", sure, but only to apply some kind of amplification/equalizing and then the audio is gone. Not stored, not sent to Amazon, not sent to police. If doorbell cameras worked the same way, then that'd be awesome. But afaik they don't.
Stalking:
The behaviour must give you good reason to fear for your personal safety and it must have no legitimate purpose
It doesn't apply here.
Believe it or not you have neighbours watching you leave your house every morning. All streets have nosey neighbours.
The behaviour must give you good reason to fear for your personal safety and it must have no legitimate purpose
It doesn't apply here.
Believe it or not you have neighbours watching you leave your house every morning. All streets have nosey neighbours.
I take no offense with you watching/recording your property. But I guess we can agree that lots of door cameras are actually pointed directly at the street in front of the house. So they are recording public property if you so will.
And that should not be allowed, if we want to continue to live in a free society, where freedom includes not being digitally trackable at any time.
And that should not be allowed, if we want to continue to live in a free society, where freedom includes not being digitally trackable at any time.
> And that should not be allowed, if we want to continue to live in a free society, where freedom includes not being digitally trackable at any time.
This really, truly does not follow for me. You do not have a right to not be viewed in public. That is fundamentally not a right. It's like... if you and your friend set up shop on a sidewalk, and shout at each other your conversation, and someone records it... should they be charged for illegal recording? If so, why is that any different than recording a street preacher / politician's speech? At some point there's an implied consent w.r.t fair use.
There should be limitations. I do think you should not be able to redistribute such content without permission, but that's not what's happening here. The cameras are meant for your own viewing. There are ethical issues in my opinion with the data being sent to a third-party 'cloud' provider, but there is no fundamental ethical issue with simply recording the view from your abode in such a way that any human would normally be able to also view.
Look... I get the creepiness aspect. I get it might feel wrong. Rights are like that. The right to do what you wish with your property, including to look out from it and view whatever it is you see, is actually also a basic right, and insofar as the rights are coming into contact, I don't see why it would be held subservient to your alleged right to privacy on a public view.
I don't see why we arbitrarily draw a line saying 'being recorded in public' means it's not a free country. Couldn't you also say that 'not being able to record what you'd otherwise see from your person' is also anti-freedom. I feel there's an immense amount of nuance lost here and people are quick to sacrifice one freedom for another.
This really, truly does not follow for me. You do not have a right to not be viewed in public. That is fundamentally not a right. It's like... if you and your friend set up shop on a sidewalk, and shout at each other your conversation, and someone records it... should they be charged for illegal recording? If so, why is that any different than recording a street preacher / politician's speech? At some point there's an implied consent w.r.t fair use.
There should be limitations. I do think you should not be able to redistribute such content without permission, but that's not what's happening here. The cameras are meant for your own viewing. There are ethical issues in my opinion with the data being sent to a third-party 'cloud' provider, but there is no fundamental ethical issue with simply recording the view from your abode in such a way that any human would normally be able to also view.
Look... I get the creepiness aspect. I get it might feel wrong. Rights are like that. The right to do what you wish with your property, including to look out from it and view whatever it is you see, is actually also a basic right, and insofar as the rights are coming into contact, I don't see why it would be held subservient to your alleged right to privacy on a public view.
I don't see why we arbitrarily draw a line saying 'being recorded in public' means it's not a free country. Couldn't you also say that 'not being able to record what you'd otherwise see from your person' is also anti-freedom. I feel there's an immense amount of nuance lost here and people are quick to sacrifice one freedom for another.
You are misrepresenting my argument here. I have zero intention to restrict your rights to view the public. What I take offense with is uncontrolled (permanent) storage of views of the public.
If there is no agreement on these things being materially different, and thus requiring a different evaluation of competing rights, then further discussion is mood.
If there is no agreement on these things being materially different, and thus requiring a different evaluation of competing rights, then further discussion is mood.
Adding in company blog post in case anyone else is interested:
https://blog.ring.com/about-ring/ring-announces-new-neighbor...
https://blog.ring.com/about-ring/ring-announces-new-neighbor...
> This week, we are also sunsetting the Request for Assistance (RFA) tool.
This is pretty narrow wording with no explanation of why.
I'd be a lot more bullish about this if it talked about some new commitment to user privacy, but I'm a bit suspicious there's just a new tool somewhere.
This is pretty narrow wording with no explanation of why.
I'd be a lot more bullish about this if it talked about some new commitment to user privacy, but I'm a bit suspicious there's just a new tool somewhere.
i agree, this all reaks of a pr charity piece while it actually just went dark like everything else
Ring offers video end-to-end-encryption (E2EE) on at least some devices, in which case they can't access the footage even if they want to (short of sneaking it out of the app post decryption). I hope they'll find ways to support more features when E2EE is enabled over time.
https://ring.com/support/articles/7e3lk/Understanding-Video-...
https://ring.com/support/articles/7e3lk/Understanding-Video-...
Is it stored encrypted and only decrypted with my key? If not, e2ee doesn't really prevent hosting provider from sharing your content without your consent.
If not, it's not e2ee!
I wish more people that wanted cameras would invest in systems that store all recordings locally. Video recordings can be very important, personal, and/or important in criminal investigations.
If you own the camera and put it on your property, please don't allow all recordings to be sent to a emote server you have no control over. And seriously please font leave the camera accessible to the public internet 24/7, it may be convenient but its also begging for trouble.
If you own the camera and put it on your property, please don't allow all recordings to be sent to a emote server you have no control over. And seriously please font leave the camera accessible to the public internet 24/7, it may be convenient but its also begging for trouble.
Storing CCTV footage on-prem is at odds with preserving said footage. It’s usually easier for an intruder to destroy or steal the physical storage device on site compared to gaining access to an off-site storage device in an unknown or practically inaccessible location. This is especially true for residential properties.
Do you hide it in a wall or in an attic somewhere?
Do you hide it in a wall or in an attic somewhere?
If we're considering the adversaries here as both a centralized provider for recording access and storage, and the intruder who might look for a DVR and destroy it, then it's reasonable to want a way to decentralize all copies of the data and also not want untrusted individuals from having access to the decentralized copies. The argument GP provided wasn't that off-site storage was bad, but that off-site storage in a SaaS platform that is easily identified as a destination to subpoena by virtue of seeing the Ring brandname on the doorbell and/or cameras is risky and in their opinion undesirable.
It really depends on your threat model, like anything else with privacy and security. Storing the tapes out of site would probably work, honestly on-prem is so uncommon that I'd expect any intruder to think the cameras are connected to an online service anyway.
If I wanted to get clever I'd have a dummy setup of some kind. Stash a few real enough looking and literally label it "cameras". I'm not worried about defeating Danny Ocean here, I'd be surprised if an intruder even looked for the storage system let alone would recognize it.
If I wanted to get clever I'd have a dummy setup of some kind. Stash a few real enough looking and literally label it "cameras". I'm not worried about defeating Danny Ocean here, I'd be surprised if an intruder even looked for the storage system let alone would recognize it.
This is literally the reason I didn't buy Ring, and instead bought Eufy.
Ooof.
https://www.theverge.com/23573362/anker-eufy-security-camera...
> First, Anker told us it was impossible. Then, it covered its tracks. It repeatedly deflected while utterly ignoring our emails. So shortly before Christmas, we gave the company an ultimatum: if Anker wouldn’t answer why its supposedly always-encrypted Eufy cameras were producing unencrypted streams — among other questions — we would publish a story about the company’s lack of answers.
https://www.theverge.com/23573362/anker-eufy-security-camera...
> First, Anker told us it was impossible. Then, it covered its tracks. It repeatedly deflected while utterly ignoring our emails. So shortly before Christmas, we gave the company an ultimatum: if Anker wouldn’t answer why its supposedly always-encrypted Eufy cameras were producing unencrypted streams — among other questions — we would publish a story about the company’s lack of answers.
Do Ring doorbells allow users to connect directly to video streams via RTSP or similar?
Short answer is no. It's been a while since I last looked at it but the long answer is "kinda in a hacky way, with a lot of work, and Ring is gonna fight you the whole way because they want you to pay."
Example: https://github.com/tsightler/ring-mqtt-ha-addon
Example: https://github.com/tsightler/ring-mqtt-ha-addon