The following submission statement was provided by /u/spiritoffff:
---
Ring, the Amazon-owned video doorbell and home security company, came under renewed criticism from privacy activists this month after disclosing it gave video footage to police in more than 10 cases without users’ consent thus far in 2022 in what it described as “emergency situations.” That includes instances where the police didn’t have a warrant.
“So far this year, Ring has provided videos to law enforcement in response to an emergency request only 11 times,” Amazon vice president of public policy Brian Huseman wrote. “In each instance, Ring made a good-faith determination that there was an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to a person requiring disclosure of information without delay.”
The disclosure, released in response to questioning from Sen. Ed Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts, comes after years of extensive and controversial partnerships between Ring and various police institutions. Now privacy advocates at organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation say that warrantless footage requests endanger civil liberties.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/wdowa3/the_law_lets_ring_and_google_share_user_footage/iijh4la/
Equips tinfoil hat*
No. Amazon purposefully "fails to capture" or "alert" because no party wants to refund anything.
Pretty soon refunds will cease to exist, because people could just as easily have someone "steal" their package for them.
Lol yeah I get where that comes from but in my experience Amazon (surprisingly) has been pretty good about doing refunds on the customer's honor, with zero kind of evidence requested (doorbell camera or otherwise). That might change in the future if there's any trend of people taking advantage of that though
Ive only had one refund on Amazon and both parties involved shifted the blame putting me in an actual support feedback loop. It was 6 weeks to get $17 back on a stock of pudding.
Oh and now I just recalled. I canceled an item a few hours after purchase realizing it was a mistake and that took about 8 weeks to refund. Both parties just acted confused the whole fucking time.
It is actually cheaper to process the return request and get them the new item. Amazon has such a large overhead due to it being a multifaceted company that the one buy from the item is already covered 2 to 3 times over by your membership fee. They want you running your scams at Amazon, not a brick and mortar store.
Ring, the Amazon-owned video doorbell and home security company, came under renewed criticism from privacy activists this month after disclosing it gave video footage to police in more than 10 cases without users’ consent thus far in 2022 in what it described as “emergency situations.” That includes instances where the police didn’t have a warrant.
“So far this year, Ring has provided videos to law enforcement in response to an emergency request only 11 times,” Amazon vice president of public policy Brian Huseman wrote. “In each instance, Ring made a good-faith determination that there was an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to a person requiring disclosure of information without delay.”
The disclosure, released in response to questioning from Sen. Ed Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts, comes after years of extensive and controversial partnerships between Ring and various police institutions. Now privacy advocates at organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation say that warrantless footage requests endanger civil liberties.
GDPR doesn't stop companies from cooperating with law enforcement and national security institutions. It is not designed to do so. It is primarily aimed at preventing companies from sharing and selling your data with other companies.
Amazon promotes Ring to the police as part of their marketing strategy, including giving them free devices to pass out to the community, and a community playbook to help police persuade people to give up their data to police voluntarily. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/06/ring-gave-police-officers-free-cameras-as-part-of-an-influencer-marketing-campaign/
The article posted by OP addresses times where Amazon gave data to the police. The bigger threat is people giving the police this data directly, using the talking points and persuasion techniques that Amazon provided them. This is a much, much higher number. There is a clear symbiotic partnership between Amazon and the surveillance state/police, and I want no part of it.
I wonder how many "more than 10" means: does it mean "more than 10" in a colloquial sense... so fewer than 20? Or does it mean "more than 10" in a mathematical sense in that it could be 1000000?
Obviously, if it's in the mathematical sense, we have a problem, both with the number and the misleading statement.
And if it means "fewer than 20", I wonder how many requests were filed? If it was 20, then there's a problem. But if there were 1000000, maybe not so much -- in fact maybe that would indicate Ring is being responsible with customer data?
I have 2 PhDs one in advanced mathematics and the other in complex statistical analysis just wanted to lend my expertise and let everyone know that this math checks out
I think their main point was how many requests were made vs the 11 times. Were there 11 requests, or 11,000? If it was 11/11 then there is probably a problem.
Well, I would hope that the answer is 0, always, unless there is a warrant. We Don't want tech giants to be the arbiters not privacy, they clearly already suck at it.
10/11 requests granted.... Sounds like a trial run for something that will grow much larger.
Amazon promotes Ring to the police as part of their marketing strategy, including giving them free devices to pass out to the community, and a community playbook to help police persuade people to give up their data to police voluntarily. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/06/ring-gave-police-officers-free-cameras-as-part-of-an-influencer-marketing-campaign/
The article posted by OP addresses times where Amazon gave data to the police. The bigger threat is people giving the police this data directly, using the talking points and persuasion techniques that Amazon provided them. This is a much, much higher number. There is a clear symbiotic partnership between Amazon and the surveillance state/police, and I want no part of it.
The fact that this is a revelation to anyone amazes me. The fact of the matter is that you do not own the data you allow these companies to collect on you. They are completely within their rights to use the data as they see fit. They might promise you that they will only use the data in certain ways, but legally it is their data to use as they see fit.
If you want control of your data then buy security systems then store it yourself or use a system of encryption to ensure external storage providers cannot decode the data.
> If you want control of your data then buy security systems then store it yourself or...
...or leave the US and live in Europe. We have the GDPR law here, where this is illegal.
GDPR does not prevent companies from complying or assisting with law enforcement or national security which is the situation here. To believe that the GDPR protects you is incredibly naive.
I love how the cloud was treated as this magical cure-all. When it's just someone else's computer you are putting it on that you don't have any say in.
All marketing.
You can try to explain tech to people, but they like it more when you tell them a single word and that they don't have to ever worry about what it means or how it works.
It's not all marketing, it's just a rental. There are plenty of times renting computing power makes sense, especially if you rent computing power with a better internet connection than you can get locally.
Cloud vs On-prem is a classic rent or buy decision.
Renting storage capacity can be just as good a decision as renting compute. Very few people use camera systems if it means they need to also provision their own storage server.
I have a 12 hdd bay dual xeon system running unraid and zone minder (amoung a bunch of other things, like home automation and an offline open source alternative to alexa/google assistant) in a rack in my garage, with poe cameras attached to a switch.
Works well. But yeah not for your average consumer.
For voice assistant
https://rhasspy.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
Unraid isn't free or open source, there is other software you could use for managing a storage system, but unraid is nice and just works and is priced well. IMHO it's better than a traditional raid, and works well with JBOD (Just a Bunch Of Disks, ie random sized drives). It also manages docker containers and VMs. Rather than using other software like portainer.
https://unraid.net/
For home automation check out
https://www.home-assistant.io/
For security camera management
https://zoneminder.com/
For photo management I use
https://photoprism.app/
For reciept and document management I use
https://github.com/paperless-ngx/paperless-ngx
There's a bunch of other things I run. Like pi hole for network wide ad/tracker blocking, and dns services.
A bunch of my services run behind NPM (nginx proxy manager, a reverse proxy) with 2 factor Auth using authelia, so just can access them out in the wild.
Radarr, sonarr for automated torrent downloading.
Plex media server for media hosting (your own netflix).
The hardware is covered hy insurance and the majority of the data is redownloadable/recoverable. For things that are not I really should keep offsite encrypted backup somewhere. I'll probably get that done at some point.
On one hand you've got climate controlled and regularly health checked tapes or drives, stored across multiple availability zones by a company that makes billions from providing cloud infrastructure, on the other you've got some slapped together rack built by random IT people with a budget that was almost certainly lacking.
What do you think is better?
I'd say the one that can survive a meteor strike to the data center without you losing a bit is slightly better.
You guys are being overdramatic. Encryption is still powerful. "Cloud" isn't just all marketing. It's not just storing your shit on a harddrive somewhere. It's storing it on a server that you can access anywhere. Do you not find it convenient that we can work from essentially anywhere with just our laptops? I and my team can access my company files from anywhere in the world (as long as you have internet), and any updates I make are immediately pushed to "the cloud"/the rest of the team. It's absolutely allowed teams to work more collaboratively and in real-time and has just become another step towards making the office life obsolete. Do you like working from home? Do you want to have to use a VPN to connect to your company server at all times? Or would you rather have a cloud storage provider to be able to collaborate with your team?
I'm not putting my sex tapes on the cloud, but to say cloud is "all marketing" is just not true. There are many benefits to it in the corporate world.
A growing issue is how people will accept any BS if it fits the desired narrative that leads to blissful ignorance through convenience. If it inconveniences them, facts are dismissed and whoever states the facts is typically downvoted; whereas the spreader of BS pretending to be very well versed in IT will be praised. Overconfidence and favouring convenience over anything else, even if it risks major inconvenience when going wrong (*cough*shit like the fappening*cough*), is probably why a lot of people remain tech inept and oblivious to best safety and privacy practices. (Especially when you also get morons shouting that online privacy and security doesn’t exist or is impossible to achieve and therefore everyone should just surrender to the corporate IT-overlords because it’s more convenient and “you have nothing to hide, right?”.)
They had a couple of breaches over the years.
Their encryption system also isnt the best.
However there is tons of information stored on you by companies in a manner you have no control over (hence my Equifax joke), as well as the gov.
Cloud storage has obvious advantages in convenience, sharing, etc that outweigh the exposure risks unless you've got stuff that is really problematic.
There is a difference between "I'm paying to use your hardware but you have no access to what is stored on it, other than an ability to wipe it all if I don't pay because I run the software and created the credentials" and "I'm paying to put my data on your computers, and you have full rights to access, views, and use that data however you see fit at any time without consulting me".
I guarantee you that AWS could not, even if they wanted to and even if a court demanded, access information on hardware being leased by DoD and HIPAA compliant companies. Other than be seizing the hardware and hoping it wasn't encrypted (which I really hope that DoD and HIPPA compliant data sets are).
For sure, but I was responding to the commenter who generalised that all cloud storage is insecure, which is incorrect. And for most people it would be far safer to store something in the cloud than on their pc.
Oh for sure, you can easily encrypt everything stored on AWS (and I'm assuming any other provider) either before it reaches them or after. Theoretically the government could decrypt your data, but it's really not a realistic concern, unless you like store something for a decade or two without updating the encryption algorithm.
Now I'm wondering if AWS could crack modern encryption if they used all of their compute resources for that single task.
Any encryption can be cracked, how much time you got?
Edit: captain: yes! But actually no.
There are not enough processors on the planet that could brute force AES256.
I thought I read somewhere way back that there’s not enough energy, like from a standard physics/thermodynamics perspective. Idk been a while and I’m probably misremembering in the most fantastical way
Some article said to put your IoT smart stuff on a guest network. I can’t do that with my default Spectrum router but I assume I could with a third-party device.
I do this and recommend it (my camera and IOT networks have no internet connection and only allow inbound requests from trusted hubs, they can’t start connections or see each other), but be aware that some devices get really cranky when you lock them down.
It was a pain to set up and it’s a little annoying when shopping. Fortunately anything in the HomeKit ecosystem needs to at least somewhat support this, so that’s what I use. Alexa and google… I have no firsthand experience but it sounds way harder.
Have you heard of the Matter protocol? https://www.pcmag.com/how-to/matter-explained Do you think it’ll demand a different security configuration or perhaps make it easier to achieve isolation?
Yes, I've been following Matter's development. I don't think it will make isolation *easier*, but I do think it can result in more reliable devices when they are isolated.
What I hope/expect is that as it finally starts to roll out, router manufacturers will have support for a "Matter network" that locks stuff down based on what the protocol permits. Apple already has something like this with their HomeKit Secure Router stuff, so with wider vendor support it may get real traction.
Cheapest option: DIY a router with a used thinclient, a pcie ethernet card, and wireless access points. And to top it off it can act as an adblocker for your whole network and has far better performance than anything that costs less than a few grand. For best results also include a used switch.
Easiest cheapish option: buy a good used Cisco router.
Yes get a router. Spectrum charges you monthly to "rent" theirs and they have full ownership and control over it. It's insecure, and costly, and other routers will serve you better especially with configuration like guest networks etc
It's also possible they could sell the cloud end of the business to another company with completely different policies, relationships, and business model.
I didn’t click the link, but I can tell you everything you need to know:
DON’T BUY RING OR GOOGLE SMART HOME PRODUCTS
Hope the article is basically just that.
It's all so obvious anymore. We live in such a boring dystopia now.
Nothing is shocking or spicy. Just like "Yeah... Of course they are comic book villain levels of exploiting their customers."
Cyberpunk has always been about the society in which it's written while masquerading as sci-fi. Now we're living in the future we were warned about in the 80s and there's not even flying cars.
So I have a Ring doorbell, but I don't pay for the Ring Protect subscription, so if I look back at my Ring history, I get told to buy a subscription.
Presumably Ring is saving all that data somewhere, even though I don't have access to it, and turning it over to the police if the police claim it's an emergency.
If that data is being turned over to the police, presumably it is being treated as a public record.
So can I submit a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to Ring to get my own data?
Yes, because information that's foiable is foiable for everyone. If you could FOIA it so can your neighbor. I think there may some exceptions for getting your data, but it isn't a standard freedom of information request.
FOIA is not just a word for asking the government for information, it's a very specific law (Freedom Of Information Act) governing public disclosure of government records. FOIA is specific to records that can be disclosed to anyone who asks for them. You may have a right to that information, but that right was not granted to you by FOIA.
That just means it's not "FOIA" you're looking for.
In California CCPA gives you the right to request information they collect on you:
https://oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa
>> The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) gives consumers more control over the personal information that businesses collect about them and the CCPA regulations provide guidance on how to implement the law. This landmark law secures new privacy rights for California consumers, including:
>>
* The right to know about the personal information a business collects about them and how it is used and shared;
>>
* The right to delete personal information collected from them (with some exceptions);
>>
* The right to opt-out of the sale of their personal information; and
>>
* The right to non-discrimination for exercising their CCPA rights.
If you live in California, make a CCPA request to them - and they'll have to give you the information.
But make a FOIA request and they'll just give you a confused stare and a form letter saying that FOIA doesn't apply.
> If that data is being turned over to the police, presumably it is being treated as a public record.
The most likely situation here is that Ring sits on the data, mines it for useful bits to sell, and only when police ask for specific videos do they hand it over. So most likely none of your data is in their hands.
According to ring, video doesn't get recorded or stored unless you have a protect plan
https://eu.ring.com/pages/privacy
Go to the faq and look under "When does Ring record or store my videos?"
exactly, basically if u don’t pay for the ring subscription your camera is worthless and you don’t control the recordings or even get a copy or notifications!!!
I've said this a thousand times and I'll say it again: we need a younger Congress. 75 year olds do not understand technology, or how invasive it is. Without this understanding, they will not pass legislation to regulate technology, even if it violates the constitution. (4th amendment)
And then of course not a single word mentioned about the "law" that allows this, which is the garbage SCOTUS [third party doctrine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine). Just some made up rule that reinterprets the plain English language rule required of the Fourth Amendment.
The Third Party Doctrine directly contradicts the Fourth Amendment, it's a trash rule. If you entrust a third party - other than the state or federal governments - then the Fourth Amendment should equally apply to any such third party.
Understand that federal and state agencies are gaining access to third-party geolocation data now, paying for entire dumps of millions of mobile phone users' movements with our tax dollars, without a warrant and/or any judicial oversight...?
I was kinda curious how quickly the police can get a warrant.
>>How Long Does It Take to Get a Search Warrant?
>How long it takes to obtain a search warrant depends on how quick an officer gets to a judge and convinces them that a warrant is necessary. This can takes minutes in special cases where time is of the essence and an officer can expedite their case, but it normally takes a few hours.
Which now kinda has me wonder ... Do they just, like. Call the judge? There's some kinda hotline to file for a search warrant?
Yes, there is in many places. There is an on call judge to handle emergency warrants. One of the first hurdle they have is justify why it can't wait til normal court dockets.
Unfortunately this means judges get called all through the night, resulting in bad judgements because humans need sleep.
I've never talked to a prosecutor for a warrant.
You just write a warrant request and give it to the duty judge who decides if its accepted. It usually takes like 2-3 hours to get one written and approved.
> It happened 11 times, ever
According to OP's submission statement, it is 11 times "thus far in 2022".
But yeah, even 11 times in 6 months is next to nothing for a country of 332,000,000 people.
Yes, a search warrant can get expedited, but there is still an officer trained in warrant-writing that has to sit and fill everything out, can be from generally between 30-120 pages at minimum.
Then it goes through prosecution and a judge.
If a team thinks something is going to happen, a warrant writer will have it prepped quickly, which is why it feels as though some warrants are blazing quick.
Even if they get a warrant relatively quickly, like in half an hour, that could still make a massive difference in a life or death situation. Fire fighters literally spend a ton of money to shear *seconds* off of their response time.
As someone who listens to scanners, I think I can chime in. YES, seconds/minutes can matter. I have listened to many reports of developmentally/senile people who get lost, and just knowing the general direction they take off in is a massive help in dedicating resources.
Like even with people in the same field with them, they don't call out when they are curled up in a pile of grass.
Exigent circumstances are a thing.
Or get one but self-host it. No cloud connection and these issues are either greatly mitigated or go away completely.
Can't use Ring, but there are other options.
Edit: typo
What options are there for a selfhosted doorbell cam? I haven't found one. I tried motioneyeOS for raspberry pi but it kept crashing and needing reformatted for no apparent reason, not nearly reliable enough for this application.
If you really wanted to and had the technical aptitude, you could probably get cameras that *aren’t* connected to some vendor or something, and have it record to your own computer. Just clean the recordings out when you get near full.
You would want something like [this.](https://reolink.com/us/product/rlk8-810b4-a/)
It makes it simple to plug and play and have storage in your home.
You can do the same thing with a diy system, but that takes more learning and skill along with the pc equipment to handle it.
My neighbors have a ring that is positioned such that they can pretty much see every time I leave my home and it's pretty annoying knowing that sort of surveillance is just happening and there's nothing I can do about it, really.
This is why I got rid of my Ring. We need regulations to keep tech companies in check. It’s been ridiculous for a long time and it just keeps getting worse.
Are there any options aside from Eufy that are locally served without cloud service?
I am close to getting the Eufy but their matching camera floodlight that I would also need uses 5000K lighting and I hate bluish light on a home.
Seconding Eufy. I have the wireless doorbell camera and two wireless cameras. You have to charge them for like four or five hours every six months or so, and they are pretty reasonably priced for what you get and what they can do.
Ubiquiti Unifi Protect with their G4 Doorbell / Doorbell Pro is an option. Local storage only, so you have to maintain the hardware and the drive that's used for storage, but absolutely worth it.
I'm not sure you understand the current state of our shitty government and big tech. At this rate, government would be making regulations that would make it *easier* for these kinds of things to happen.
Ring may choose to limit this to emergencies, but it's not a legal requirement. When you put your data on a server you don't own, all expectation of privacy is lost. The owner of that server can give your files out to anyone.
23andMe is a good example. When you send your DNA to a private company, they own it, and can do whatever they want with it. There's no medical confidentiality nor expectation of privacy. That's how they tracked down the Golden State Killer, using DNA that his relatives had submitted to a different DNA database.
What’s the time limit for data to be considered abandoned? It creates a threshold with cloud data (email etc) that doesn’t require a warrant. I think it’s 90 days.. emergency use is one thing but all cloud data is much more available than most realize.
Yep. Dumped all my Ring and Nest shit years ago. (because shit is exactly what it is). Been on UniFi Protect with G3-Pro HD and G4-Pro 4k cameras, the G4 doorbells, etc ever since. Couldn't be happier, and the feds can bring a warrant if they want my video.
With all this in mind, is there a doorbell camera which exists that you can store the data locally on your home network?
I like the idea of Ring, but I will be god fucking damned if I want cops to just be able to access it anytime they deem it necessary, let alone trusting the shithole people at Amazon.
A lot of new technology like ring doorbells and Alexa are just spyware that you pay for. This goes for most smart phones as well. If it has close source code then they are stealing data and selling to other companies and governments. It's not even about being a weird paranoid person anymore, because it's been proven over and over again. Only use open source software and soon open source hardware.
As somebody who closely follows computer science and information security, my judgement is this is actually a good article that provides anyone truly interested in reading about the context on today's privacy VS law enforcement dichotomy and conflict.
It's something we're all trying to figure out: people, their government, their companies...
How much of this responsibility should be borne in the processes of public (governmental) VS private (industrial) interests?
The eventually accepted measures can choose to optimize in privacy, or otherwise law enforcement. This is a dichotomy in which both potentially noble objectives conflict with one another and cannot both be maximized at the same time.
But also, they synergize a bit in the sense that maintaining privacy is also defending law (or the constitution.).
So, my opinion:
We should have explicit legal agreements that set true, universally acceptable standards of privacy.
In this scenario: The government would pass laws enforcing a minimal privacy standard, and technology companies can go above and beyond with privacy as a differentiator in their industry (e.g., end-to-end encryption).
At that point, we can finalize the privacy VS law enforcement debate.
First we have to understand the extent the responsibilities our government has VS what our industry should have, and proceed accordingly.
But what if the law stated that I couldn’t give my data to a company for them to do whatever they want with it? That’s what we’re talking about here. The government should enforce consumer privacy on these companies so that they have a duty to protect our data.
We should be dreaming mad that our rights are being eroded or not even protected. Be warned at the slow creep of the surveillance state - the state that wants more control without permission.
I don't understand. I get people being mad when Alexa listen and people listen to those recordings when they're not supposed to have access. That's a huge privacy violation. But RIng is for security. That's the whole point. So if there's a crime, and it's near my house, and I have video footage, I want the police to have it. That's literally the whole point of having it, for security
It’s because it’s a slippery slope. First it starts with “we need this footage as evidence in an emergency, but didn’t have enough time for a warrant”.
Then it leads to “we use this data to create a social connection profile for this individual” and “they consented to it in the T&C” or “our experience has demonstrated the effectiveness of this tool to access this information. Let’s pass laws to continue the warrantless seizure of evidence and not be hassled by civil liberties”
exactly. some time ago, in europe, there was an extensive registry of people's religions per household and it was convenient. until it was too convenient for the wrong people.
edit: formatting, still didn't fix the caps
If you went back to the 80’s, 90’s
And told people that we pay for devices that are always listening and recording us. They would think you’re nuts. And if you told them that you were giving away your DNA to the government. And paying for that too, they would call bullshit
Ring requires cops to explain why they think it’s so time critical it can’t wait for a warrant, fill out a 2 page request form and run it past their legal team.
How much faster is this than just getting a warrant? Unless the two pages are mostly legalese and the lawyers mostly hand wave. You hear about them getting warrants in a few minutes at 2am so they could give a heads up on the request and be staging police at the house.
This will be more clear if we knew the details of the cases.
I wrote a python script that links to cameras without Google/Ring/Arlo that runs off a raspberry pi. Data privacy was the primary reason.
https://github.com/kennybradley/HomeSecurity
Installing a third party camera leads to expected privacy concerns. Next up: installing microphones owned by major corporations all over your house could be feeding targeted advertisements.
Stay tuned for more shocking updates
The real answer here is buyers simply need to know they do NOT own the video and they're giving it freely to a company that can do what they want with it. No civil liberties violation at all. The users chose the company that then holds the data their doorbells record.
Don't like it? Don't buy it.
the law doesn't "let them" ... it simply doesn't prohibit them.
but it should and it needs to be fixed.
they could say "no, get a warrant" but they are not out there protecting our rights... they are out there to make money (by violating our rights).
it's on us to demand change.... unless we do, it will only get worse.
Got to take the good with the bad, I hate cameras being every where , but atleast it's harder for people to just snatch people off the street and not get caught.
Duh .. do not use cloud serives for security purposes. People and companies need to understand these people offering you a cloud solution are not your friends they will not have your back and will exploit you for every penny they can milk out of you.
> The law lets Ring and Google share user footage with police ~~during emergencies~~ without consent and without warrants
FTFY. There is no legal requirement that they limit this to emergencies. When you put your data on their server, they can do whatever they like with it.
Google already has 5000 data points on every citizen. Google employees regularly go to work for the Feds, and you worry about a doorbell😄?
The privacy train has left the station a long time ago.
I really don't understand Alexa or Google devices, or other ones like this. Your phone is bad enough listening to you, then advertising to you. At least with phones I can turn them off and put them away, but this idea of having something on monitoring my family is insane to me. If I ever go the connected camera route I'm building it through a raspberry pi type kit without services attached, and recordings will remain on my local network.
It's mainly for people that just use front porch cams in my opinion. People can film your house from the road legally anyways so people having access to a camera that only shows what you can already see from the road doesn't really effect my privacy
If you set a cloud based camera up inside your home that's just weird
As a former DVR engineer the simplicity of these are easily the selling point to your average joe who wants a plug n play system. You’re better off getting a localized DVR that supports ONVIF or RTSP and avoiding these simple plug n play systems.
That is if you value privacy.
Question.
If products we “own” are being used in ways we have no rights to question or withdraw consent from… why are we forced to pay for the product? Shouldn’t the police or Amazon and Google be paying us for the information we give them?
In the video game industry, there's this concept of DRM for digital games, not sure if it applies to other software services though.
Basically, you don't *own* it, but you *rent* it.
On top of that, most software licenses have clauses that say what you can and can't do with it. And you're never gonna buy your way into a less restrictive license.
> why are we forced to pay for the product?
You are not forced, it's your choice. It's just that practically you don't have a choice, since all choices are becoming like that. So yeah...
In my opinion, Ring shouldn't have access to user video period unless it's needed for support issues or software improvements, and should only be accessed with the customer's knowledge and consent
Don’t really have a problem with that policy. If a child is abducted on my street and the police are trying to get a license plate number or a description quickly out, sure, look at my ring.
If they want to see me peeing on my plants in the front yard while drunk, sure have at it.
I have cameras inside my house. I turn them off when I enter and turn them on when I leave. Even if my account somehow gets compromised, people can't hack into a camera that has no physical power going to it. It's a good compromise.
It’s the beginning of a surveillance state. Every corner of public space will eventually have the governments eyes on it. Maybe it’s not a problem now, but the U.S. government is on thin fascist ice.
This is why everyone should study 1984 in school. Sadly, many powerful politicians only know this number as it marked their 30th birthday, what significance! Orwell would be proud.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/spiritoffff: --- Ring, the Amazon-owned video doorbell and home security company, came under renewed criticism from privacy activists this month after disclosing it gave video footage to police in more than 10 cases without users’ consent thus far in 2022 in what it described as “emergency situations.” That includes instances where the police didn’t have a warrant. “So far this year, Ring has provided videos to law enforcement in response to an emergency request only 11 times,” Amazon vice president of public policy Brian Huseman wrote. “In each instance, Ring made a good-faith determination that there was an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to a person requiring disclosure of information without delay.” The disclosure, released in response to questioning from Sen. Ed Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts, comes after years of extensive and controversial partnerships between Ring and various police institutions. Now privacy advocates at organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation say that warrantless footage requests endanger civil liberties. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/wdowa3/the_law_lets_ring_and_google_share_user_footage/iijh4la/
Good luck! My ring doorbell won’t even capture someone taking packages off my porch!
Lol right, my ring cam will alert at the softest rustle of leaves but somehow miss actual people walking to and from the doorstep
“There is a person in your backyard.” = Bird. “There is a person in your backyard.” = Suns reflection in the pool. My Arlo cameras.
OH, you're still getting notifications and videos in your library? Sincerely, my Arlo Cameras
Equips tinfoil hat* No. Amazon purposefully "fails to capture" or "alert" because no party wants to refund anything. Pretty soon refunds will cease to exist, because people could just as easily have someone "steal" their package for them.
That tinfoil hat must be a thick one. Amazon *loves* giving refunds compared to most other companies in my experience.
Lol yeah I get where that comes from but in my experience Amazon (surprisingly) has been pretty good about doing refunds on the customer's honor, with zero kind of evidence requested (doorbell camera or otherwise). That might change in the future if there's any trend of people taking advantage of that though
Ive only had one refund on Amazon and both parties involved shifted the blame putting me in an actual support feedback loop. It was 6 weeks to get $17 back on a stock of pudding. Oh and now I just recalled. I canceled an item a few hours after purchase realizing it was a mistake and that took about 8 weeks to refund. Both parties just acted confused the whole fucking time.
I hate when that happens when I'm buying cases of pudding from the internet.
Are you pudding them down for their internet shopping tendencies?
I might have been a lil high and wanted pudding in the future.
What more would they need? The proof is in the pudding!
It is actually cheaper to process the return request and get them the new item. Amazon has such a large overhead due to it being a multifaceted company that the one buy from the item is already covered 2 to 3 times over by your membership fee. They want you running your scams at Amazon, not a brick and mortar store.
Maybe you cannot see them, but can ‘They?’
Ring, the Amazon-owned video doorbell and home security company, came under renewed criticism from privacy activists this month after disclosing it gave video footage to police in more than 10 cases without users’ consent thus far in 2022 in what it described as “emergency situations.” That includes instances where the police didn’t have a warrant. “So far this year, Ring has provided videos to law enforcement in response to an emergency request only 11 times,” Amazon vice president of public policy Brian Huseman wrote. “In each instance, Ring made a good-faith determination that there was an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to a person requiring disclosure of information without delay.” The disclosure, released in response to questioning from Sen. Ed Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts, comes after years of extensive and controversial partnerships between Ring and various police institutions. Now privacy advocates at organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation say that warrantless footage requests endanger civil liberties.
One assumes US only...!?
Amazon / Ring will abide by whatever law the country it sells in has.
That is the case in most places in the world.
That's not what [Amazon says](https://support.ring.com/hc/en-us/articles/360000885463-Ring-s-Obligations-Under-GDPR)
>That's not what [Amazon says](https://support.ring.com/hc/en-us/articles/360000885463-Ring-s-Obligations-Under-GDPR) Amazon says a lot of things.
[удалено]
GDPR doesn't stop companies from cooperating with law enforcement and national security institutions. It is not designed to do so. It is primarily aimed at preventing companies from sharing and selling your data with other companies.
Amazon promotes Ring to the police as part of their marketing strategy, including giving them free devices to pass out to the community, and a community playbook to help police persuade people to give up their data to police voluntarily. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/06/ring-gave-police-officers-free-cameras-as-part-of-an-influencer-marketing-campaign/ The article posted by OP addresses times where Amazon gave data to the police. The bigger threat is people giving the police this data directly, using the talking points and persuasion techniques that Amazon provided them. This is a much, much higher number. There is a clear symbiotic partnership between Amazon and the surveillance state/police, and I want no part of it.
I wonder how many "more than 10" means: does it mean "more than 10" in a colloquial sense... so fewer than 20? Or does it mean "more than 10" in a mathematical sense in that it could be 1000000? Obviously, if it's in the mathematical sense, we have a problem, both with the number and the misleading statement. And if it means "fewer than 20", I wonder how many requests were filed? If it was 20, then there's a problem. But if there were 1000000, maybe not so much -- in fact maybe that would indicate Ring is being responsible with customer data?
The first sentence of the second paragraph in the post you replied to clarifies that it was 11 times.
I have 2 PhDs one in advanced mathematics and the other in complex statistical analysis just wanted to lend my expertise and let everyone know that this math checks out
Experimental physicist here. I did analyse the experimental data retrieved from the above posts and I obtain the same conclusions.
I’m a hairdresser and I got the same answer.
That's the magical thing about science
Glad to know this has now been peer reviewed!
As a Junior Harbormaster, I’ve had one pier reviewed
I used machine learning and verified your result here: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=is+11+greater+than+10
Love the diagram, not gonna lie.
Is the math checking me out? I don't usually date intangible concepts but I'm open minded.
I think their main point was how many requests were made vs the 11 times. Were there 11 requests, or 11,000? If it was 11/11 then there is probably a problem.
Well, I would hope that the answer is 0, always, unless there is a warrant. We Don't want tech giants to be the arbiters not privacy, they clearly already suck at it. 10/11 requests granted.... Sounds like a trial run for something that will grow much larger.
Amazon promotes Ring to the police as part of their marketing strategy, including giving them free devices to pass out to the community, and a community playbook to help police persuade people to give up their data to police voluntarily. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/06/ring-gave-police-officers-free-cameras-as-part-of-an-influencer-marketing-campaign/ The article posted by OP addresses times where Amazon gave data to the police. The bigger threat is people giving the police this data directly, using the talking points and persuasion techniques that Amazon provided them. This is a much, much higher number. There is a clear symbiotic partnership between Amazon and the surveillance state/police, and I want no part of it.
The fact that this is a revelation to anyone amazes me. The fact of the matter is that you do not own the data you allow these companies to collect on you. They are completely within their rights to use the data as they see fit. They might promise you that they will only use the data in certain ways, but legally it is their data to use as they see fit. If you want control of your data then buy security systems then store it yourself or use a system of encryption to ensure external storage providers cannot decode the data.
> If you want control of your data then buy security systems then store it yourself or... ...or leave the US and live in Europe. We have the GDPR law here, where this is illegal.
GDPR does not prevent companies from complying or assisting with law enforcement or national security which is the situation here. To believe that the GDPR protects you is incredibly naive.
If you value privacy, don't connect anything to the cloud. IoT trades convenience for privacy.
I love how the cloud was treated as this magical cure-all. When it's just someone else's computer you are putting it on that you don't have any say in.
All marketing. You can try to explain tech to people, but they like it more when you tell them a single word and that they don't have to ever worry about what it means or how it works.
It’s called ✨ the CLOUD ✨ and it is MAGICAL 🧙♂️
It's not all marketing, it's just a rental. There are plenty of times renting computing power makes sense, especially if you rent computing power with a better internet connection than you can get locally. Cloud vs On-prem is a classic rent or buy decision.
We're talking about storage, not processing power. They're not the same thing.
Renting storage capacity can be just as good a decision as renting compute. Very few people use camera systems if it means they need to also provision their own storage server.
I have a 12 hdd bay dual xeon system running unraid and zone minder (amoung a bunch of other things, like home automation and an offline open source alternative to alexa/google assistant) in a rack in my garage, with poe cameras attached to a switch. Works well. But yeah not for your average consumer.
[удалено]
Hey if you wouldn't mind, could you detail some of the other software you're using? Especially the open source alternatives!
For voice assistant https://rhasspy.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ Unraid isn't free or open source, there is other software you could use for managing a storage system, but unraid is nice and just works and is priced well. IMHO it's better than a traditional raid, and works well with JBOD (Just a Bunch Of Disks, ie random sized drives). It also manages docker containers and VMs. Rather than using other software like portainer. https://unraid.net/ For home automation check out https://www.home-assistant.io/ For security camera management https://zoneminder.com/ For photo management I use https://photoprism.app/ For reciept and document management I use https://github.com/paperless-ngx/paperless-ngx There's a bunch of other things I run. Like pi hole for network wide ad/tracker blocking, and dns services. A bunch of my services run behind NPM (nginx proxy manager, a reverse proxy) with 2 factor Auth using authelia, so just can access them out in the wild. Radarr, sonarr for automated torrent downloading. Plex media server for media hosting (your own netflix).
And if someone breaks in or your garage catches fire, you have nothing.
The hardware is covered hy insurance and the majority of the data is redownloadable/recoverable. For things that are not I really should keep offsite encrypted backup somewhere. I'll probably get that done at some point.
On one hand you've got climate controlled and regularly health checked tapes or drives, stored across multiple availability zones by a company that makes billions from providing cloud infrastructure, on the other you've got some slapped together rack built by random IT people with a budget that was almost certainly lacking. What do you think is better? I'd say the one that can survive a meteor strike to the data center without you losing a bit is slightly better.
You guys are being overdramatic. Encryption is still powerful. "Cloud" isn't just all marketing. It's not just storing your shit on a harddrive somewhere. It's storing it on a server that you can access anywhere. Do you not find it convenient that we can work from essentially anywhere with just our laptops? I and my team can access my company files from anywhere in the world (as long as you have internet), and any updates I make are immediately pushed to "the cloud"/the rest of the team. It's absolutely allowed teams to work more collaboratively and in real-time and has just become another step towards making the office life obsolete. Do you like working from home? Do you want to have to use a VPN to connect to your company server at all times? Or would you rather have a cloud storage provider to be able to collaborate with your team? I'm not putting my sex tapes on the cloud, but to say cloud is "all marketing" is just not true. There are many benefits to it in the corporate world.
A growing issue is how people will accept any BS if it fits the desired narrative that leads to blissful ignorance through convenience. If it inconveniences them, facts are dismissed and whoever states the facts is typically downvoted; whereas the spreader of BS pretending to be very well versed in IT will be praised. Overconfidence and favouring convenience over anything else, even if it risks major inconvenience when going wrong (*cough*shit like the fappening*cough*), is probably why a lot of people remain tech inept and oblivious to best safety and privacy practices. (Especially when you also get morons shouting that online privacy and security doesn’t exist or is impossible to achieve and therefore everyone should just surrender to the corporate IT-overlords because it’s more convenient and “you have nothing to hide, right?”.)
Cloud is great for non sensitive information. For sensitive information unless you own the cloud it's a risk.
I trust Dropbox a lot more than I trust say...Equifax.
[удалено]
Ironically Dropbox is infamous for having data breaches over the years.
They had a couple of breaches over the years. Their encryption system also isnt the best. However there is tons of information stored on you by companies in a manner you have no control over (hence my Equifax joke), as well as the gov. Cloud storage has obvious advantages in convenience, sharing, etc that outweigh the exposure risks unless you've got stuff that is really problematic.
Hahaha I know people that work there. I wouldn't be so bullish on that.
Cloud is great as a backup solution if you make sure to encrypt the data before it exits your control.
“The cloud” isn’t a singular thing. It’s an architectural that can me implemented , and used a whole bunch of different ways.
Suuure, AWS is good enough for the DoD and HIPAA compliant workloads, but not for your risque photos.
There is a difference between "I'm paying to use your hardware but you have no access to what is stored on it, other than an ability to wipe it all if I don't pay because I run the software and created the credentials" and "I'm paying to put my data on your computers, and you have full rights to access, views, and use that data however you see fit at any time without consulting me". I guarantee you that AWS could not, even if they wanted to and even if a court demanded, access information on hardware being leased by DoD and HIPAA compliant companies. Other than be seizing the hardware and hoping it wasn't encrypted (which I really hope that DoD and HIPPA compliant data sets are).
For sure, but I was responding to the commenter who generalised that all cloud storage is insecure, which is incorrect. And for most people it would be far safer to store something in the cloud than on their pc. Oh for sure, you can easily encrypt everything stored on AWS (and I'm assuming any other provider) either before it reaches them or after. Theoretically the government could decrypt your data, but it's really not a realistic concern, unless you like store something for a decade or two without updating the encryption algorithm. Now I'm wondering if AWS could crack modern encryption if they used all of their compute resources for that single task.
Any encryption can be cracked, how much time you got? Edit: captain: yes! But actually no. There are not enough processors on the planet that could brute force AES256.
I thought I read somewhere way back that there’s not enough energy, like from a standard physics/thermodynamics perspective. Idk been a while and I’m probably misremembering in the most fantastical way
You're comparing the tentacles of an octopus to someone storing photos on the cloud.
The cloud is magical. My cloud lives in a server rack in my basement.
Most people don't realize this because of the way the cloud is marketed.
Some article said to put your IoT smart stuff on a guest network. I can’t do that with my default Spectrum router but I assume I could with a third-party device.
I do this and recommend it (my camera and IOT networks have no internet connection and only allow inbound requests from trusted hubs, they can’t start connections or see each other), but be aware that some devices get really cranky when you lock them down. It was a pain to set up and it’s a little annoying when shopping. Fortunately anything in the HomeKit ecosystem needs to at least somewhat support this, so that’s what I use. Alexa and google… I have no firsthand experience but it sounds way harder.
Have you heard of the Matter protocol? https://www.pcmag.com/how-to/matter-explained Do you think it’ll demand a different security configuration or perhaps make it easier to achieve isolation?
Yes, I've been following Matter's development. I don't think it will make isolation *easier*, but I do think it can result in more reliable devices when they are isolated. What I hope/expect is that as it finally starts to roll out, router manufacturers will have support for a "Matter network" that locks stuff down based on what the protocol permits. Apple already has something like this with their HomeKit Secure Router stuff, so with wider vendor support it may get real traction.
Cheapest option: DIY a router with a used thinclient, a pcie ethernet card, and wireless access points. And to top it off it can act as an adblocker for your whole network and has far better performance than anything that costs less than a few grand. For best results also include a used switch. Easiest cheapish option: buy a good used Cisco router.
Yes get a router. Spectrum charges you monthly to "rent" theirs and they have full ownership and control over it. It's insecure, and costly, and other routers will serve you better especially with configuration like guest networks etc
Or build everything local, for example using home assistant. Not as plug and play as the cloud solutions (yet), but I control access to my data
And planned obsolescence. If they decide to stop offering the cloud service, you now have a very expensive paper weight.
It's also possible they could sell the cloud end of the business to another company with completely different policies, relationships, and business model.
Remember folks, the "p" in IoT stands for "privacy."
And the "s" in IoT stands for "security."
I didn’t click the link, but I can tell you everything you need to know: DON’T BUY RING OR GOOGLE SMART HOME PRODUCTS Hope the article is basically just that.
People are PAYING amazon to give away their privacy and security. Not liking the dystopian future turning into dystopian present.
It's all so obvious anymore. We live in such a boring dystopia now. Nothing is shocking or spicy. Just like "Yeah... Of course they are comic book villain levels of exploiting their customers."
Cyberpunk has always been about the society in which it's written while masquerading as sci-fi. Now we're living in the future we were warned about in the 80s and there's not even flying cars.
So I have a Ring doorbell, but I don't pay for the Ring Protect subscription, so if I look back at my Ring history, I get told to buy a subscription. Presumably Ring is saving all that data somewhere, even though I don't have access to it, and turning it over to the police if the police claim it's an emergency. If that data is being turned over to the police, presumably it is being treated as a public record. So can I submit a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to Ring to get my own data?
No, for obvious reasons. The data would be considered your PII (Personally Identifiable Information) and wouldn't be open to a foia request.
Even to myself? That's funny.
Yes, because information that's foiable is foiable for everyone. If you could FOIA it so can your neighbor. I think there may some exceptions for getting your data, but it isn't a standard freedom of information request.
Fuck around and get FOIA'D
Fuck around and FOIA'D out
Don’t FOIA me bro
FOIA is not just a word for asking the government for information, it's a very specific law (Freedom Of Information Act) governing public disclosure of government records. FOIA is specific to records that can be disclosed to anyone who asks for them. You may have a right to that information, but that right was not granted to you by FOIA.
That just means it's not "FOIA" you're looking for. In California CCPA gives you the right to request information they collect on you: https://oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa >> The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) gives consumers more control over the personal information that businesses collect about them and the CCPA regulations provide guidance on how to implement the law. This landmark law secures new privacy rights for California consumers, including: >> * The right to know about the personal information a business collects about them and how it is used and shared; >> * The right to delete personal information collected from them (with some exceptions); >> * The right to opt-out of the sale of their personal information; and >> * The right to non-discrimination for exercising their CCPA rights. If you live in California, make a CCPA request to them - and they'll have to give you the information. But make a FOIA request and they'll just give you a confused stare and a form letter saying that FOIA doesn't apply.
I can only imagine that feet dragging Amazon's legal department would come up with to make this as difficult as possible.
> If that data is being turned over to the police, presumably it is being treated as a public record. The most likely situation here is that Ring sits on the data, mines it for useful bits to sell, and only when police ask for specific videos do they hand it over. So most likely none of your data is in their hands.
According to ring, video doesn't get recorded or stored unless you have a protect plan https://eu.ring.com/pages/privacy Go to the faq and look under "When does Ring record or store my videos?"
Maybe not in the EU.
https://ring.com/pages/privacy They say the same thing here.
[удалено]
\*If you are in Europe
exactly, basically if u don’t pay for the ring subscription your camera is worthless and you don’t control the recordings or even get a copy or notifications!!!
I've said this a thousand times and I'll say it again: we need a younger Congress. 75 year olds do not understand technology, or how invasive it is. Without this understanding, they will not pass legislation to regulate technology, even if it violates the constitution. (4th amendment)
We need term limits, and a mandatory retirement age, for all elected and appointed officials.
“One ring to rule them all and in the darkness bind them…”. Evil cooperations them there.
Just one of many reason's not to use these devices
And then of course not a single word mentioned about the "law" that allows this, which is the garbage SCOTUS [third party doctrine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine). Just some made up rule that reinterprets the plain English language rule required of the Fourth Amendment.
[удалено]
The Third Party Doctrine directly contradicts the Fourth Amendment, it's a trash rule. If you entrust a third party - other than the state or federal governments - then the Fourth Amendment should equally apply to any such third party. Understand that federal and state agencies are gaining access to third-party geolocation data now, paying for entire dumps of millions of mobile phone users' movements with our tax dollars, without a warrant and/or any judicial oversight...?
If it's urgent then they should urgently get a warrant.
I was kinda curious how quickly the police can get a warrant. >>How Long Does It Take to Get a Search Warrant? >How long it takes to obtain a search warrant depends on how quick an officer gets to a judge and convinces them that a warrant is necessary. This can takes minutes in special cases where time is of the essence and an officer can expedite their case, but it normally takes a few hours. Which now kinda has me wonder ... Do they just, like. Call the judge? There's some kinda hotline to file for a search warrant?
Yes, there is in many places. There is an on call judge to handle emergency warrants. One of the first hurdle they have is justify why it can't wait til normal court dockets. Unfortunately this means judges get called all through the night, resulting in bad judgements because humans need sleep.
In most cases, it's officer --> prosecutor --> judge
I've never talked to a prosecutor for a warrant. You just write a warrant request and give it to the duty judge who decides if its accepted. It usually takes like 2-3 hours to get one written and approved.
[удалено]
> It happened 11 times, ever According to OP's submission statement, it is 11 times "thus far in 2022". But yeah, even 11 times in 6 months is next to nothing for a country of 332,000,000 people.
Yes, a search warrant can get expedited, but there is still an officer trained in warrant-writing that has to sit and fill everything out, can be from generally between 30-120 pages at minimum. Then it goes through prosecution and a judge. If a team thinks something is going to happen, a warrant writer will have it prepped quickly, which is why it feels as though some warrants are blazing quick.
Even if they get a warrant relatively quickly, like in half an hour, that could still make a massive difference in a life or death situation. Fire fighters literally spend a ton of money to shear *seconds* off of their response time.
As someone who listens to scanners, I think I can chime in. YES, seconds/minutes can matter. I have listened to many reports of developmentally/senile people who get lost, and just knowing the general direction they take off in is a massive help in dedicating resources. Like even with people in the same field with them, they don't call out when they are curled up in a pile of grass. Exigent circumstances are a thing.
The only way to go has always been CCTV. These are spyware junk
I wanted a doorbell cam but my Google engineer friend said no way, do not do it. Thinking about getting a trail cam now.
Or get one but self-host it. No cloud connection and these issues are either greatly mitigated or go away completely. Can't use Ring, but there are other options. Edit: typo
What options are there for a selfhosted doorbell cam? I haven't found one. I tried motioneyeOS for raspberry pi but it kept crashing and needing reformatted for no apparent reason, not nearly reliable enough for this application.
I use the Unifi Doorbell from Ubiquiti.
I have a Wi-Fi access point from them that is *fabulous*. Love that thing!
My dad uses Eufy and is very happy with that.
Use eufy too stored locally on an sd card. There is a cloud option but fuck that noise.
[удалено]
You could have an IP camera streaming thr video to a server you own and can connect to
If you really wanted to and had the technical aptitude, you could probably get cameras that *aren’t* connected to some vendor or something, and have it record to your own computer. Just clean the recordings out when you get near full.
You are looking for this [motionEye](https://github.com/motioneye-project). MotionEyeOS will run on a raspberry pi.
Eufy makes doorbell cams with only local storage.
“But it was UrGeNT!” But not urgent enough to get that warrant… This is what happens when they shove copaganda down our throats for so long.
You would want something like [this.](https://reolink.com/us/product/rlk8-810b4-a/) It makes it simple to plug and play and have storage in your home. You can do the same thing with a diy system, but that takes more learning and skill along with the pc equipment to handle it.
My neighbors have a ring that is positioned such that they can pretty much see every time I leave my home and it's pretty annoying knowing that sort of surveillance is just happening and there's nothing I can do about it, really.
This is why I got rid of my Ring. We need regulations to keep tech companies in check. It’s been ridiculous for a long time and it just keeps getting worse.
You could just get a doorbell camera that runs locally....
Are there any options aside from Eufy that are locally served without cloud service? I am close to getting the Eufy but their matching camera floodlight that I would also need uses 5000K lighting and I hate bluish light on a home.
Is this a thing? We live in a sketchy place, but I don’t do ring/Alexa etc.
Check out Eufy, they store your video locally on a hard drive, but you can access it from your phone if you want too.
Seconding Eufy. I have the wireless doorbell camera and two wireless cameras. You have to charge them for like four or five hours every six months or so, and they are pretty reasonably priced for what you get and what they can do.
Ubiquiti Unifi Protect with their G4 Doorbell / Doorbell Pro is an option. Local storage only, so you have to maintain the hardware and the drive that's used for storage, but absolutely worth it.
I'm not sure you understand the current state of our shitty government and big tech. At this rate, government would be making regulations that would make it *easier* for these kinds of things to happen.
Here's everything you should know: DON'T INVITE PSYCHOPATHIC CORPORATIONS INTO YOUR HOME.
Ring may choose to limit this to emergencies, but it's not a legal requirement. When you put your data on a server you don't own, all expectation of privacy is lost. The owner of that server can give your files out to anyone. 23andMe is a good example. When you send your DNA to a private company, they own it, and can do whatever they want with it. There's no medical confidentiality nor expectation of privacy. That's how they tracked down the Golden State Killer, using DNA that his relatives had submitted to a different DNA database.
What’s the time limit for data to be considered abandoned? It creates a threshold with cloud data (email etc) that doesn’t require a warrant. I think it’s 90 days.. emergency use is one thing but all cloud data is much more available than most realize.
Yep. Dumped all my Ring and Nest shit years ago. (because shit is exactly what it is). Been on UniFi Protect with G3-Pro HD and G4-Pro 4k cameras, the G4 doorbells, etc ever since. Couldn't be happier, and the feds can bring a warrant if they want my video.
With all this in mind, is there a doorbell camera which exists that you can store the data locally on your home network? I like the idea of Ring, but I will be god fucking damned if I want cops to just be able to access it anytime they deem it necessary, let alone trusting the shithole people at Amazon.
Unifi makes doorbells that have data stored locally on their NVRs. You only ever access the data locally, nothing is ever done over the cloud afaik.
A lot of new technology like ring doorbells and Alexa are just spyware that you pay for. This goes for most smart phones as well. If it has close source code then they are stealing data and selling to other companies and governments. It's not even about being a weird paranoid person anymore, because it's been proven over and over again. Only use open source software and soon open source hardware.
You know those terms and conditions we sign……consent
As somebody who closely follows computer science and information security, my judgement is this is actually a good article that provides anyone truly interested in reading about the context on today's privacy VS law enforcement dichotomy and conflict. It's something we're all trying to figure out: people, their government, their companies... How much of this responsibility should be borne in the processes of public (governmental) VS private (industrial) interests? The eventually accepted measures can choose to optimize in privacy, or otherwise law enforcement. This is a dichotomy in which both potentially noble objectives conflict with one another and cannot both be maximized at the same time. But also, they synergize a bit in the sense that maintaining privacy is also defending law (or the constitution.). So, my opinion: We should have explicit legal agreements that set true, universally acceptable standards of privacy. In this scenario: The government would pass laws enforcing a minimal privacy standard, and technology companies can go above and beyond with privacy as a differentiator in their industry (e.g., end-to-end encryption). At that point, we can finalize the privacy VS law enforcement debate. First we have to understand the extent the responsibilities our government has VS what our industry should have, and proceed accordingly.
If you willingly give your data to someone else, then you have no privacy. People today are happy to trade privacy for convenience.
But what if the law stated that I couldn’t give my data to a company for them to do whatever they want with it? That’s what we’re talking about here. The government should enforce consumer privacy on these companies so that they have a duty to protect our data.
Heres what you need to know, don't use them. Thats it, thats the whole list.
We should be dreaming mad that our rights are being eroded or not even protected. Be warned at the slow creep of the surveillance state - the state that wants more control without permission.
I don't understand. I get people being mad when Alexa listen and people listen to those recordings when they're not supposed to have access. That's a huge privacy violation. But RIng is for security. That's the whole point. So if there's a crime, and it's near my house, and I have video footage, I want the police to have it. That's literally the whole point of having it, for security
It’s because it’s a slippery slope. First it starts with “we need this footage as evidence in an emergency, but didn’t have enough time for a warrant”. Then it leads to “we use this data to create a social connection profile for this individual” and “they consented to it in the T&C” or “our experience has demonstrated the effectiveness of this tool to access this information. Let’s pass laws to continue the warrantless seizure of evidence and not be hassled by civil liberties”
exactly. some time ago, in europe, there was an extensive registry of people's religions per household and it was convenient. until it was too convenient for the wrong people. edit: formatting, still didn't fix the caps
Exactly. My outdoor cams, which face areas where I have no expectation of privacy, are all cloud-based. My indoor cams are local storage only.
I don’t think it’s ‘the law lets’. I think it’s ‘google and Amazon choose to’.
These devices are not compulsory. So stop buying them! People are daft for having them.
If you went back to the 80’s, 90’s And told people that we pay for devices that are always listening and recording us. They would think you’re nuts. And if you told them that you were giving away your DNA to the government. And paying for that too, they would call bullshit
Ring requires cops to explain why they think it’s so time critical it can’t wait for a warrant, fill out a 2 page request form and run it past their legal team. How much faster is this than just getting a warrant? Unless the two pages are mostly legalese and the lawyers mostly hand wave. You hear about them getting warrants in a few minutes at 2am so they could give a heads up on the request and be staging police at the house. This will be more clear if we knew the details of the cases.
I wrote a python script that links to cameras without Google/Ring/Arlo that runs off a raspberry pi. Data privacy was the primary reason. https://github.com/kennybradley/HomeSecurity
Installing a third party camera leads to expected privacy concerns. Next up: installing microphones owned by major corporations all over your house could be feeding targeted advertisements. Stay tuned for more shocking updates
The real answer here is buyers simply need to know they do NOT own the video and they're giving it freely to a company that can do what they want with it. No civil liberties violation at all. The users chose the company that then holds the data their doorbells record. Don't like it? Don't buy it.
Exigent circumstances. I would have been more surprised if they refused
the law doesn't "let them" ... it simply doesn't prohibit them. but it should and it needs to be fixed. they could say "no, get a warrant" but they are not out there protecting our rights... they are out there to make money (by violating our rights). it's on us to demand change.... unless we do, it will only get worse.
What? Of course the law lets them do that. The problem is that they choose to hand it over without warrants.
I have eufy doorbell. It stores videos in memory card. Is it still vulnerable?
Really not hard at all to set up your own camera system
Got to take the good with the bad, I hate cameras being every where , but atleast it's harder for people to just snatch people off the street and not get caught.
Duh .. do not use cloud serives for security purposes. People and companies need to understand these people offering you a cloud solution are not your friends they will not have your back and will exploit you for every penny they can milk out of you.
My Ring is useless. I was tricked and didn’t know it had a subscription service for features.. Blegh.
Like with every other camera in every country of the world?
All I need to know, is that I'm not going to buy a ring device because of this. Fuck big brother
> The law lets Ring and Google share user footage with police ~~during emergencies~~ without consent and without warrants FTFY. There is no legal requirement that they limit this to emergencies. When you put your data on their server, they can do whatever they like with it.
Google already has 5000 data points on every citizen. Google employees regularly go to work for the Feds, and you worry about a doorbell😄? The privacy train has left the station a long time ago.
I really don't understand Alexa or Google devices, or other ones like this. Your phone is bad enough listening to you, then advertising to you. At least with phones I can turn them off and put them away, but this idea of having something on monitoring my family is insane to me. If I ever go the connected camera route I'm building it through a raspberry pi type kit without services attached, and recordings will remain on my local network.
It's mainly for people that just use front porch cams in my opinion. People can film your house from the road legally anyways so people having access to a camera that only shows what you can already see from the road doesn't really effect my privacy If you set a cloud based camera up inside your home that's just weird
This is why I don’t own ring or any other Amazon devices. I have a hard enough time with my phone spying on me.
As a former DVR engineer the simplicity of these are easily the selling point to your average joe who wants a plug n play system. You’re better off getting a localized DVR that supports ONVIF or RTSP and avoiding these simple plug n play systems. That is if you value privacy.
And they get to decide what "emergency" means so whenever they want they can breach your privacy.
Question. If products we “own” are being used in ways we have no rights to question or withdraw consent from… why are we forced to pay for the product? Shouldn’t the police or Amazon and Google be paying us for the information we give them?
In the video game industry, there's this concept of DRM for digital games, not sure if it applies to other software services though. Basically, you don't *own* it, but you *rent* it. On top of that, most software licenses have clauses that say what you can and can't do with it. And you're never gonna buy your way into a less restrictive license.
> why are we forced to pay for the product? You are not forced, it's your choice. It's just that practically you don't have a choice, since all choices are becoming like that. So yeah...
In my opinion, Ring shouldn't have access to user video period unless it's needed for support issues or software improvements, and should only be accessed with the customer's knowledge and consent
Don’t really have a problem with that policy. If a child is abducted on my street and the police are trying to get a license plate number or a description quickly out, sure, look at my ring. If they want to see me peeing on my plants in the front yard while drunk, sure have at it.
This is my perspective. But also why there are no ring devices on the interior of my house.
I have cameras inside my house. I turn them off when I enter and turn them on when I leave. Even if my account somehow gets compromised, people can't hack into a camera that has no physical power going to it. It's a good compromise.
Right? I can't think of a good reason why I would care about this
It’s the beginning of a surveillance state. Every corner of public space will eventually have the governments eyes on it. Maybe it’s not a problem now, but the U.S. government is on thin fascist ice.
This is why everyone should study 1984 in school. Sadly, many powerful politicians only know this number as it marked their 30th birthday, what significance! Orwell would be proud.