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

A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 283 posts

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#21

Post by throwaway_tech »

hannasanarion wrote: post #18
throwaway_tech wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Ring cameras are basically being used as a gigantic police-partnered dragnet: Isn't that sort of like saying humans are basically used as a gigantic police-partnered dragnet...seeing as our entire criminal system is primarily driven by eye witnesses of crimes? Only what we know is eye-witnesses often have conflicting testimony, some will refuse to assist police officers (out of concern for their own safety or they j…

A police camera watching a gas station is not the same as a police camera watching your front door.

Neither cameras watching gas stations nor cameras watching your front door are "police cameras".

They are privately owned cameras, but feel free to expand on what makes these cameras different in your opinion.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#23

Post by Someone1234 »

jaywalk wrote: post #16

I think "hacks" is a pretty strong word here. They're basically just brute forcing accounts with email and password combos that have been leaked from other sources.

It is the same headline as the "Did Disney+ get hacked?" stuff the other day. 10m+ credentials were available almost immediately because people re-use username/password combos across every site.

That's why I am pro-password managers. Even if they're imperfect, password re-use remains a major active threat (contrast that with a lot of theoreticals against password managers).

Around ten of my accounts' information has been leaked (inc. big ones like Adobe). But I don't re-use credentials so aside from an uptake in spam, it has had no impact. Typically these were services I haven't used in years.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#24

Post by Someone1234 »

boatswain wrote: post #22

> The software churns through previously compromised email addresses and passwords to break into Ring cameras at scale. Given the sensitive nature of cameras in homes, I think Ring should require 2FA.

I agree. Even "bad" 2FA (e.g. SMS) is better than nothing in this case. However, I suspect some would complain about needing to give a telephone number to use their new camera.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#25

Post by ActorNightly »

kick wrote: post #2

It's obviously bad to hack into a citizen's systems without consent, but there's some kind of value that might be created here. Ring cameras are basically being used as a gigantic police-partnered dragnet: Amazon’s Ring Planned Neighborhood “Watch Lists” Built on Facial Recognition https://theintercept.com/2019/11/26/amazon-ring-home-securit... If this provides a disincentivize to an average user buying Ring cameras,…

This is a very hyperbolic take. Police do not have access to the cameras, only the server stored footage, which is both optional to share and optional to even participate in.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#26

Post by Johnny555 »

glenda wrote: post #7
throwawaysea wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree that it is a 'dragnet'. That seems like an emotionally-colored take. It is camera owners voluntarily sharing footage with police when they request it. Citizens are allowed to lawfully film in many locations (their own homes, public spaces, etc.) and citizens are allowed to voluntarily exchange information they own with entities of their choosing.

From what I’ve seen sharing these videos publicly also provides a potential thief with your location and information about the placement of your cameras, which is not a smart move if security is your main motive.

What information is disclosed that the thief can't discover himself by driving or walking by your house?

It seems unlikely that a thief needs to see a published list of camera locations to find my house, unless for some reason he's looking specifically for houses that are protected by Ring cameras. My ring doorbell cam is readily visible from the street, so there's no secrets about placement.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#28

Post by reaperducer »

ActorNightly wrote: post #25
kick wrote: post #2

It's obviously bad to hack into a citizen's systems without consent, but there's some kind of value that might be created here. Ring cameras are basically being used as a gigantic police-partnered dragnet: Amazon’s Ring Planned Neighborhood “Watch Lists” Built on Facial Recognition https://theintercept.com/2019/11/26/amazon-ring-home-securit... If this provides a disincentivize to an average user buying Ring cameras,…

This is a very hyperbolic take. Police do not have access to the cameras, only the server stored footage, which is both optional to share and optional to even participate in.

Until all video starts streaming to the server in a software update. For the safety of your children.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#29

Post by ActorNightly »

hannasanarion wrote: post #18
throwaway_tech wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Ring cameras are basically being used as a gigantic police-partnered dragnet: Isn't that sort of like saying humans are basically used as a gigantic police-partnered dragnet...seeing as our entire criminal system is primarily driven by eye witnesses of crimes? Only what we know is eye-witnesses often have conflicting testimony, some will refuse to assist police officers (out of concern for their own safety or they j…

A police camera watching a gas station is not the same as a police camera watching your front door.

They are not the same, and the latter does not happen with Ring cameras. Read all the articles more carefully. The issue is with the app and cloud stored footage, both of which are optional.
Post reply on HN