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

111–120 of 283 posts

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#111

Post by ada1981 »

anarchodev wrote: post #95
fpgaminer wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who tends to fall on the side of privacy more often than not, I'm actually not sure how I feel about facial recog+home security cameras. I'm completely against any fully automated system where the police can have access to the camera's data. But on the other hand, what if the system was implemented completely locally, and all with the owner's control and permission? So your Ring app pops up and says "Hey,…

Consider that nobody breaks into your home/vehicles because it's fun. They do it out of desperation. I'm not alleging any ignorance on your part, it's just not the sort of thing we think about often. The penalties for these crimes are already extremely severe. So I fall on the side of, I'd rather change the system proximally to help those who resort to this sort of petty crime for cash so they don't need it, rather t…

Teenagers for sure break into cars and houses because it’s fun.

In the 1990s, it was a regular pastime of my friend group.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#112

Post by ehsankia »

SirYandi wrote: post #52
ActorNightly wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or just have a min password length requirement that is at least a 5 word sentence. Easier to remember, and more secure.

Although password security makes no difference to how these devices were hacked, by password leaks.

Have forced 2fa through e-mail for new device/ip location more than X miles away. Users rarely login from a new device, or randomly login from a different country. Tagging those as suspicious and making the user get a code from their email is simple and goes a long way in increasing security with minimal annoyance.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#113

Post by sjg007 »

mikepurvis wrote: post #84
fpgaminer wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who tends to fall on the side of privacy more often than not, I'm actually not sure how I feel about facial recog+home security cameras. I'm completely against any fully automated system where the police can have access to the camera's data. But on the other hand, what if the system was implemented completely locally, and all with the owner's control and permission? So your Ring app pops up and says "Hey,…

I'm a four season bike commuter, and have been wearing a helmet cam for the past year or so— it's just breathtaking the amount of small violations I catch on camera: I don't even go looking for them or dwell at hotspots, and I pick up probably 5-10 instances per week of things like cars turning right on red without fully stopping, going through stop signs without fully stopping, not fully yielding to pedestrians in c…

This could be a startup. There are already local neighborhood watches where people sync up their cameras and added some AI to tag and identify cars. I think part of it was done to track porch pirates.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#114

Post by angry-sw-dev »

baroffoos wrote: post #98
jmuguy wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats it. And as messed up as it is maybe people will finally wake up to using better passwords. I'm really tired of local news covering this stuff and barely mentioning or not mentioning at all how the "hackers" are getting into the accounts.

Like they woke up after the first decade of facebook "hacks". Or more likely they will continue on as normal until we stop using passwords as the only source of authentication.

Something you know. Something you have.

The typical two factor is a password (know) and SMS to a cellphone or code to an email (have).

...though that creates a vulnerability when the cell number can be ported, or the same password is used to access email... better to use authenticator apps or a physical "key".

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#115

Post by anarchodev »

susijdjdjxa wrote: post #105
anarchodev wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider that nobody breaks into your home/vehicles because it's fun. They do it out of desperation. I'm not alleging any ignorance on your part, it's just not the sort of thing we think about often. The penalties for these crimes are already extremely severe. So I fall on the side of, I'd rather change the system proximally to help those who resort to this sort of petty crime for cash so they don't need it, rather t…

If someone robbed your home and you recognized them, would you report them to the police?

Absolutely not. I don't want police anywhere near my community.

EDIT: Yeah I don't call the cops. Go ahead and downvote I guess, or feel free to try another hypothetical you came up with in your head for this discussion.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#116

Post by znhll »

anarchodev wrote: post #95
fpgaminer wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who tends to fall on the side of privacy more often than not, I'm actually not sure how I feel about facial recog+home security cameras. I'm completely against any fully automated system where the police can have access to the camera's data. But on the other hand, what if the system was implemented completely locally, and all with the owner's control and permission? So your Ring app pops up and says "Hey,…

Consider that nobody breaks into your home/vehicles because it's fun. They do it out of desperation. I'm not alleging any ignorance on your part, it's just not the sort of thing we think about often. The penalties for these crimes are already extremely severe. So I fall on the side of, I'd rather change the system proximally to help those who resort to this sort of petty crime for cash so they don't need it, rather t…

While I agree with your points, I'd also point you to the bait Amazon package experiment by Mark Rober (find it on YT) that pretty much caught people that by any objective standards were just a-holes who did it just because it was an easy crime to get away with, and got some sort of thrill out of it.

But yeah, I'm totally for addressing the underlying societal causes of crime (the reasons otherwise decent people are driven by desperation to commit them), rather than just addressing the "symptoms"... enforcement and punishment is reactive and IMO does little to actually deter further/future crime.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#117

Post by djrogers »

tw1010 wrote: post #87
soylentcola wrote: post #55

Completely beside the point, but how is a Discord live stream a "podcast"? Have media folks just started calling any streaming audio a "podcast" now?

The alternative is "radio" which is even weirder

What’s wrong with calling it a livestream? It’s accurate and already in common use.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#118

Post by g4k »

pgoggijr wrote: post #45
michaeloder wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is Ring allowing brute forcing? Individual cameras should be set to only allow logins at least a few seconds apart increasing up to several minutes and perhaps blocking IP addresses with excessive volume. If they're brute forcing Ring's servers an application firewall would catch and block this.

I don't think that the above comment means brute-forcing in the "try a million different passwords in a short time-period" sense, it's referring to finding a list of known password and email combinations and trying just those. I would expect that a few attempts wouldn't trip any brute-force alarms.

Especially if you use a few thousand proxies.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#119

Post by anarchodev »

baddox wrote: post #108
anarchodev wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider that nobody breaks into your home/vehicles because it's fun. They do it out of desperation. I'm not alleging any ignorance on your part, it's just not the sort of thing we think about often. The penalties for these crimes are already extremely severe. So I fall on the side of, I'd rather change the system proximally to help those who resort to this sort of petty crime for cash so they don't need it, rather t…

The fact that some people commit crimes out of desperation isn’t a very good argument for removing disincentives to commit crimes. You don’t lock your door at night because you think someone might break in for fun and you want to deprive them of that fun. You lock your door to protect your family and your belongings. The question of moral culpability might be relevant when discussing legal punishments, rehabilitation…

Sure, I'm not telling anyone not to lock their car doors. You don't have to make it as easy as possible for someone to steal your belongings in order to understand that some measures will do more harm than good. There are solutions which aren't part of either extreme.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#120

Post by PascLeRasc »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #35
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?

Do you look like any "petty thieves and junkies"? Are you sure? It's your word against Amazon's.
Post reply on HN