• danhab99@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      8 months ago

      They’re saying they’re not gonna just hand it over. Ring is still gonna have to answer subpoenas.

      • Monkey With A Shell@lemmy.socdojo.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        They could look to argue those, but I’d suspect they just say ‘get a warrant’ now rather than allowing for the 3rd party records requests, which by all accounts warrants are pretty rubber stamp. From my non-lawyer recollection there’s never been a mandate to get a warrant for records in possession of a 3rd party outside of things protected by other laws like banking or HIPPA. So a provider can hand out lists of all your convos, locations, etc if they want. Some do without question, and after a long record of complying with police requests I have a hard time believing Amazon will suddenly change their tune without force. Path of least resistance and all that.

    • TheFriar@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      I fucking hate these doorbell cameras. In my building, my neighbor across the hall has one,so EVERY SINGLE TIME I come and go from my apt im being recorded. And there’s another on the floor below me. So they know where I go in my building. It’s fucked up. I literally have zero privacy on when I’m coming and going from my apartment.

      • TheFeatureCreature@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        It’s a long shot, but you could have a chat with the building manager and/or landlord and voice these concerns. I don’t know if they’ll do anything, but you never know.

  • AdmiralShat@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Not even just a technical security standpoint, why would you put a live camera up when someone else legally owns the feed?

    I’ve had discussions and people claim it’s no different because other systems can be hacked and you have a phone with a camera that can be remotely accessed, etc.

    But those things are illegal, the people using Ring are knowingly putting up a camera where someone else owns the footage. They aren’t hacking, they aren’t stealing. In fact, they’re letting you borrow the footage anytime you check the camera yourself.

    • Crashumbc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      8 months ago

      Because people have been trained since the eighties to ignore EULAs and just click “ok”.

      Most people, have no idea they don’t own the video their door bell takes…

      Hell I’m fairly tech savvy and I didn’t know. (Don’t have a camera).

    • monkeyman512@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      8 months ago

      Most likely cost of entry and ease of use. Those are the things most people are going to be concerned with.

    • Monkey With A Shell@lemmy.socdojo.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      In a way the sketchy off brand seems like a better idea in that case, at least there’s not some monolithic entity holding millions of feeds to ask for access to

      • WolfdadCigarette@threads.net@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        I still remember watching unsecured cameras through a site I’d feel uncomfortable posting. All five minutes of it was eye opening. As an aside, more external security cameras are connected to the internet than I had originally thought.

        • Monkey With A Shell@lemmy.socdojo.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Oh I’m sure browsing through something like shodan.io would give a bunch of open feeds. Some are intentional, a lot are mistakes, bringing their presence to light is a net good though in alerting both the public and potentially the owner to fix their gear.

          • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            8 months ago

            …indeed.

            That’s a flip flop and a bed. The 360 controls work. Wish I could contact the owner, assuming they’re not running a social experiment.

      • Paradox@lemdro.id
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        But you don’t have to go sketchy off brand. You can get Ubiquiti if you want a really good system, or eufy or reolink if you don’t want to muck about with the sysadmin stuff Ubiquiti requires

        • Monkey With A Shell@lemmy.socdojo.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          Yeah, plenty of options out there. I have a couple cheap Chinese type that aren’t plugged in on any regular basis. Neat thing is that the accounts are basically by serial number if I recall from back when I set it up, so with them off my trusted net and the data fed put through a VPN to home base they’re functionally ghost cams without a location attached.

          Plus they can record to local SD, so if the server goes offline in the future they can work like a dashcam at least.

  • PlasmaDistortion@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    8 months ago

    I guarantee you that this is more of a cost cutting measure rather than Amazon being altruistic. They just laid off tons of people, and this is within that same train of thought.

  • guyrocket@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    8 months ago

    I was very aware of this “sharing” of footage when I bought my camera system and intentionally did not buy ring and other brands because I want to own that video. I went so far as to not connect my system to the internet which gives me less options (i.e. see it on my phone anytime) but sometimes privacy comes with a price.

        • null@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          8 months ago

          Yup, a simple Wireguard setup would work fine.

          I also like Tailscale, but unless you’re running it with Headscale, then technically they hold the keys.

    • Monkey With A Shell@lemmy.socdojo.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Are they still accessable from the local net, preferably with some auth even without the internet feed? That sounds like a pretty ideal thing to me. Recording and motion ssense starting…

      Really what I want is a simple cam that can dump a circular buffer to the NAS via a NFS/smb share and local net live view. Seems simple but yet rare.

  • Match!!@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    it’ll no longer WHAT

    (just kidding, I was aware of this and am happy about the change, thanks for posting)

  • white_shotgun@aussie.zoneB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    8 months ago

    Try it with google and see what happens. Aint no way of retrieving that shit once deleted… Source me and my dead neighbor

      • white_shotgun@aussie.zoneB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        8 months ago

        The detectives tried getting footage from google after my neighbor was shot on his ride on mower. One of my cameras faces directly at their paddock they were in when shot. No cigar… At the time i had let my subscription lapse and only had a 3 hour limit to view events before they were deleted. After 3 hours it’s all gone bye bye

  • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    How were cops able to access the video once they were given access. Isn’t that stuff E2EE? Is there a backdoor, or is it not always encrypted?