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

71–80 of 283 posts

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#71

Post by throwaway_tech »

hannasanarion wrote: post #32
throwaway_tech wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Police can get footage from Nest cameras, indoor and outdoor, without owner permission by applying directly to Amazon

So that brings us full circle to police are able to get footage from your CCTVs without your permission too by applying for a warrant directly to the court.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#72

Post by throwaway393955 »

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.

Ring gives police scripts on how to manipulate/convince people to hand over their data. If they don't hand it over, police can get it anyway. They don't need a warrant -- Amazon will just give them the data upon request, even if the owner has refused.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/08/police-can-get-y...

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#73

Post by throwaway393955 »

ActorNightly wrote: post #43
__jal wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a red-herring. Nobody cares about physical access to essentially disposable cameras. The stored footage is the whole game.

Yes, and stored footage is completely optional with Ring cameras.

It's almost impossible to download Ring footage to a local storage medium. They are engineered to force you into their Cloud ecosystem.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#76

Post by throwaway393955 »

heavyset_go wrote: post #58
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.

> It is camera owners voluntarily sharing footage with police when they request it. Police can request that you share the footage you have, or police can get a warrant and obtain the footage directly from Ring. The difference between a camera whose footage you control and Ring is that Ring provides a nice interface to let police know that potential video evidence that you captured exists . A camera system that you ro…

They don't need a warrant. They only need to make a friendly administrative subpoena to Amazon, which will happily fork over the data without challenging the order, even if the owner has refused.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/08/police-can-get-y...

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#77

Post by heavyset_go »

throwaway393955 wrote: post #76
heavyset_go wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is camera owners voluntarily sharing footage with police when they request it. Police can request that you share the footage you have, or police can get a warrant and obtain the footage directly from Ring. The difference between a camera whose footage you control and Ring is that Ring provides a nice interface to let police know that potential video evidence that you captured exists . A camera system that you ro…

They don't need a warrant. They only need to make a friendly administrative subpoena to Amazon, which will happily fork over the data without challenging the order, even if the owner has refused. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/08/police-can-get-y...

This is a good point, as well. Part of Ring's business model is integration with law enforcement. The incentives in place certainly don't align with user privacy.

Thanks for the link.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#78

Post by throwaway393955 »

throwaway_tech wrote: post #62
heavyset_go wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ring lets law enforcement know that potential video evidence exists, and with that knowledge, they can go to a judge and get a warrant for it. Law enforcement can do this without ever letting the user who recorded the video know. For that reason, it's essentially a police camera. The police can ask nicely for the video footage, and if you don't cooperate, they can easily get a warrant to obtain the potential evidence…

>The police can ask nicely for the video footage, and if you don't cooperate, they can easily get a warrant to obtain the potential evidence from Ring. Or they could get the warrant to obtain the video directly from you....they just have 1 more option when a 3rd party vendor is involved that has a copy. It doesn't matter if it is Ring or CCTV, so I'm not sure the practical difference that you would classify 1 as a po…

They don't need a warrant necessarily, just a subpoena. And with Ring, you never would get a chance to challenge it, because you're not the recipient.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#79

Post by hannasanarion »

throwaway_tech wrote: post #71
hannasanarion wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Police can get footage from Nest cameras, indoor and outdoor, without owner permission by applying directly to Amazon So that brings us full circle to police are able to get footage from your CCTVs without your permission too by applying for a warrant directly to the court.

You have your own CCTV tapes, and you know when they are being seized because the warrant is delivered to you, not the manufacturer of your camera.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#80

Post by velp »

throwaway_tech wrote: post #71
hannasanarion wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Police can get footage from Nest cameras, indoor and outdoor, without owner permission by applying directly to Amazon So that brings us full circle to police are able to get footage from your CCTVs without your permission too by applying for a warrant directly to the court.

Applying for a warrant through a legal process is absolutely not the same as requesting data from a tech company (especially because Amazon has incentive to cooperate with police in order to continue to sell these cameras)
Post reply on HN