Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nest Cam status lights can no longer be turned off for privacy

androidpolice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 51 posts

Re: Nest Cam status lights can no longer be turned off for privacy

#21

Post by wlesieutre »

rubbingalcohol wrote: post #6

How about don't put Google surveillance cameras in your home? You don't "own" anything Google or Microsoft sells you. You are licensing their tech and you are their bitch when they decide to pull the rug out from under you. People tolerate such abusive, anti-consumer behavior and invasion of privacy all in the name of convenience. In any relationship people have an ethical responsibility to not enable abusive behavio…

I talked to someone yesterday who didn't trust Amazon enough to use an Alexa device after the recent audio recording publicity.

Imagine their surprise when I let them know who owns their Ring doorbells and security cameras.

Re: Nest Cam status lights can no longer be turned off for privacy

#22

Post by esotericn »

post_break wrote: post #18

I'm pissed because the whole point of an outdoor camera is to not advertise when someone is watching. If they don't back pedal on this I'm switching to ubiquity and running my own NVR so I don't have to worry about someone in california deciding to change how a product I own works.

PoE cams and a solution like Zoneminder is like <$50 per camera to set up, assuming you have a home server, which I'd think most hackers would anyway.

Re: Nest Cam status lights can no longer be turned off for privacy

#23

Post by asdf21 »

nickthegreek wrote: post #13
ssully wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a mix of people who like using their camera's to spy on family/guests/neighbors, and people who just genuinely do not know the camera works better as a deterrent then as evidence.

If this was an exterior camera, I would agree. But if someone is already in my home, I feel like them seeing the camera light isn't going to make them turn around and leave but it could lead to them destroying my camera and then I would lose evidence of their next moves. Maybe the camera should contain a switch allowing me to choose which mode the LED should work in (on when being viewed, always off, or always on).

We have roommates who leave messes in the kitchen and blame others, have overnights guests more frequently than its allowed, etc.

Don't even get me started on the uses for kids.

Re: Nest Cam status lights can no longer be turned off for privacy

#24

Post by asdf21 »

pwinnski wrote: post #2

The privacy of whom? Google seems to favoring the privacy of those who might be recorded by the camera. The owners of the cameras object. I'm not entirely sure why: do they expect privacy while recording others?

You really aren't using your imagination if you can't figure out potential uses for a hidden nanny cam.

What if I want to see:

* If my cleaning person is stealing?

* If my cleaning person is using the right chemicals on my stove?

* If the nanny is shaking the baby?

* If my husband is having an affair?

* If my teenager is doing drugs?

* Which sibling actually started it / threw the first punch?

Those are just off the top of my head, I'm not even being creative.

Re: Nest Cam status lights can no longer be turned off for privacy

#25

Post by mymacbook »

Having a status light ON for an outside camera seems smart for both sides – pro-privacy & communicating the property is under surveillance. What sounds frustrating is that when your network / wifi connection goes down the status light flashes amber – there was never a way to turn this feature off even if you had the status light off (previously). If you're a potential thief and you see am amber flashing light on a Drop/Nest cam, you know you're not being recorded. That's the bummer with cloud-only camera recording, there is no redundancy. I wish there was an option to "hide" error states in the status light and just keep it on as if nothing is wrong.

Of course the discussion so far has been limited to whether you should have a choice when your camera is inside the home and used for things like a nursery/baby cam? Should you have a choice "hiding" a camera to record anyone who breaks in?

I don't have good blanket answers, however I think it's illegal in Germany to record someone without consent, even if it's an intruder in your own home. Right now it seems the decision has been made for Google camera owners.

Re: Nest Cam status lights can no longer be turned off for privacy

#26

Post by leecarraher »

my concern is that people become conditioned to look for these lights, and draw the conclusion that light off = camera off. This is a bad precedent, as multiple built-in laptop webcam attacks to disable the led recording lights can attest to. If you need privacy, don't be in front of a camera or microphone. don't trust a clearly software controllable status light.

Re: Nest Cam status lights can no longer be turned off for privacy

#27

Post by dokument »

esotericn wrote: post #19
rubbingalcohol wrote: post #6

How about don't put Google surveillance cameras in your home? You don't "own" anything Google or Microsoft sells you. You are licensing their tech and you are their bitch when they decide to pull the rug out from under you. People tolerate such abusive, anti-consumer behavior and invasion of privacy all in the name of convenience. In any relationship people have an ethical responsibility to not enable abusive behavio…

Indeed. Basically, by buying this stuff, you're saving on having an actual engineer come out and install standard PoE cameras or similar. (A techie would do it themselves of course, most won't.) The downside is that Google owns you. Oops.

"The downside is that Google owns you."

I think it is more of a question of who/what the actual product is.

Re: Nest Cam status lights can no longer be turned off for privacy

#28

Post by JumpCrisscross »

asdf21 wrote: post #24
pwinnski wrote: post #2

The privacy of whom? Google seems to favoring the privacy of those who might be recorded by the camera. The owners of the cameras object. I'm not entirely sure why: do they expect privacy while recording others?

You really aren't using your imagination if you can't figure out potential uses for a hidden nanny cam. What if I want to see: * If my cleaning person is stealing? * If my cleaning person is using the right chemicals on my stove? * If the nanny is shaking the baby? * If my husband is having an affair? * If my teenager is doing drugs? * Which sibling actually started it / threw the first punch? Those are just off the…

> What if I want to see: If my cleaning person is stealing?*

Use your camera. The status light doesn’t disable its ability to record and transmit video. You want to record these people without their knowledge. That is just wrong.

More fundamentally, change the people you interact with or your relationships with them.

Re: Nest Cam status lights can no longer be turned off for privacy

#29

Post by jlarocco »

asdf21 wrote: post #24
pwinnski wrote: post #2

The privacy of whom? Google seems to favoring the privacy of those who might be recorded by the camera. The owners of the cameras object. I'm not entirely sure why: do they expect privacy while recording others?

You really aren't using your imagination if you can't figure out potential uses for a hidden nanny cam. What if I want to see: * If my cleaning person is stealing? * If my cleaning person is using the right chemicals on my stove? * If the nanny is shaking the baby? * If my husband is having an affair? * If my teenager is doing drugs? * Which sibling actually started it / threw the first punch? Those are just off the…

Unless you're hiring, marrying, and raising the dumbest people around, they're probably smart enough to not perform those activities in front of a video camera in any case.

Security cameras don't usually have indicator lights, so the safe assumption is always that the camera is recording.

Re: Nest Cam status lights can no longer be turned off for privacy

#30

Post by notafraudster »

kawfey wrote: post #20
throebd wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cameras are expensive, it is advertising your house is full of goodies.

No cameras must mean no goodies, then?

This doesn't follow. A camera is sufficient to demonstrate there exists value inside the house (value being subjective both the owner and the beholder in this case), but not necessary.
Post reply on HN