A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live • Hacker News Board

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#31

Post by reaperducer » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 8:54 PM UTC

_ea1k wrote: post #20

hannasanarion wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No, but my camera watching what happens outside of my house is also not the same as a police camera. I didn't have such a camera at my old house, but if I did, there were several happenings that would have been reported to police.

there were several happenings that would have been reported to police.

Reported. Not prevented.

The companies that make money off of law enforcement have conditioned people to believe cameras=prevention and camera=safety, which is false.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#32

Post by hannasanarion » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 8:55 PM UTC

throwaway_tech wrote: post #21

hannasanarion wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Police can get footage from Nest cameras, indoor and outdoor, without owner permission by applying directly to Amazon, and users can't opt out of Amazon's "Rekognition" tool that is always on and alerts police when a face on their wanted list is recognized on a camera.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#33

Post by reaperducer » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 8:55 PM UTC

throwaway_tech wrote: post #21

hannasanarion wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Some cities have enough police cameras that they certainly are police cameras watching the gas station.

The last time I checked, Chicago PD was bragging at having over 30,000 cameras. And that was a number of years ago.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#34

Post by ActorNightly » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 8:56 PM UTC

reaperducer wrote: post #28

ActorNightly wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

At which point the company gets massive federal lawsuit violating multiple laws, and gets shut down quick.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#35

Post by dzhiurgis » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 8:57 PM UTC

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,…

How is helping petty thieves and junkies is helping the nation?

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#36

Post by matthewmacleod » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 8:57 PM UTC

_ea1k wrote: post #20

hannasanarion wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No, but my camera watching what happens outside of my house is also not the same as a police camera. I didn't have such a camera at my old house, but if I did, there were several happenings that would have been reported to police.

I think the general issue though is that devices like this exist in kind of a grey area of ownership. Yeah, it's "your" camera or "my" camera, but in reality they're wholly dependent on services provided by Amazon or Google or whatever other large data collator. And while there are pretty obvious reasons for that to be the case, it also opens up a rather large dragnet-style video surveillance system that looks juicy as heck to certain groups, and we have to rely on "large company not known for amazing defence of privacy" to prevent this.

I mean, I have a couple of Nest cameras at home. They're useful, but even relatively recently Google forced an update that disabled some features. And despite the hardware being totally capable of it, there's no way for me to connect to it and get a video stream. I have to rely on a shitfest of an app and fork over money for any usable history. At that point… is it really "your" camera?

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#37

Post by ActorNightly » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 8:57 PM UTC

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.

Or just have a min password length requirement that is at least a 5 word sentence.

Easier to remember, and more secure.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#38

Post by OnlineGladiator » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 8:58 PM UTC

Johnny555 wrote: post #26

glenda wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Knowing where the cameras are lets the thief know where the blind spots are. The thief wouldn't be able to see a hidden camera just by walking by (or at least it's much less likely).

I don't think most Ring cameras are meant to be hidden though, since it's primarily sold as a doorbell.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#39

Post by hannasanarion » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 8:59 PM UTC

ActorNightly wrote: post #29

hannasanarion wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Optional" features that literally everybody is going to get because what is the point of a security camera if you can't record or view remotely.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#40

Post by bronson » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 8:59 PM UTC

mrcu5 wrote: post #17

The title makes it sound like there is a security issue with the cameras, but the "hacks" are from password leaks.

That's still a security issue with the camera. Maybe passwords are insufficient for their role.

Edit, further discussion (from 15 mins ago): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21776250