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

121–130 of 283 posts

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#121

Post by pc86 »

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…

> in one case an indication that they would be unable to charge the person unless I also had a face shot of who it was in the driver's seat.

Because it's the truth. A driver receives a citation, not a vehicle. And a vehicle owner is under no legal obligation to say who was driving a given car at a given time. So based on those two facts alone, I don't see how you think the police can just drop citations in the mail based on a screenshot or a video clip.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#122

Post by themagician »

remotecool wrote: post #106
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,…

I have no problem with this. I have ring cameras all around my property and so do most of my neighbors and it's already caught multiple people attempting breaking and stealing packages. They get hacked because of poor password choices. You are fighting against a changing tide and the benefits of the cameras vastly outweigh the privacy concerns.

It’s not even a changing tide. Security has always been more important than privacy to the average person.

In the 90s monitored home security was a HUGE business. Thousands for an install and thousands more per year to have someone sit around and watch for unusual activity and report it to the police. ADT and Brinks are all that’s really left, but I remember dozens of companies competing in this space growing up.

Now you can get the same essential service, better in many ways, for $99 and a small monthly fee.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#123

Post by fpgaminer »

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…

You make a good point, and I elided any discussion of the prison system (in the U.S., at least) to make my comment brief. I agree with you that we should be working on the root causes of crime too, and personally I'd rather see a more reformation based prison system in the U.S. than our current punishment/deterrent based system.

Thing is, I'm not sure they all do it out of desperation. One incidence in the neighborhood was most certainly an addict, for which I agree with your point in helping them. But a more salient example is a group of professional thieves that stole a local plumber's truck and tools.

If you're down on your luck and for whatever reason have to resort to looting houses and cars, I can see your point. But if someone has made it their _job_ to steal my neighbor's livelihood? My sympathy runs out.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#124

Post by jacobsenscott »

Tempest1981 wrote: post #47
reaperducer wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

True, but camera=deterrent?

Certainly not a ring doorbell camera. Mine is so slow to respond to motion it won't capture a pic unless you walk up to it and stand in one spot for a few seconds. 99% of my motion events are just an empty street. You can fast walk up to a ring doorbell camera and knock it off the wall, or just cover it with a piece of tape, before it has a chance to capture a picture. I would bet this is true of most consumer level "security" cameras.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#125

Post by mv4 »

bobongo wrote: post #100
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,…

I wonder whether Nest cams are being used in a similar fashion.

Yes they are.

FTA:"The NulledCast is a podcast livestreamed to Discord. It's a show in which hackers take over people's Ring and Nest smarthome cameras and use their speakers to talk to and harass their unsuspecting owners."

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#126

Post by ploxiln »

znhll wrote: post #116
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…

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…

The people caught on video stealing the glitter bomb were in on the "experiment" - what was shown in the video was mostly or entirely staged. (find the apology from Mark Rober on YT :)

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#127

Post by Enginerrrd »

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…

Actual evidence consistently shows that mild penalties with a high probability of enforcement are most effective at maximizing compliance. If you're going to turn up the dial on the enforcement probability, you absolutely should turn down the dial on the punishment, else you encourage a situation with perverse incentives and an undue burden on society greater than the one you are trying to solve.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#128

Post by jojobas »

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…

Crime can make more money than being a landscaper or bricklayer. Why sweat in the heat all day when you can break into one house a week?

The penalty is harsh but chances to get caught are somewhat low.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#129

Post by baddox »

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?

Am I mistaken, or is it not an accident that “podcast” rhymes with “broadcast”? I thought the whole metaphor behind the name was that these were essentially radio broadcasts except you listened to them on your iPod: podcasts. The fact that they weren’t generally live is simply due to the fact that electronic hardware and wireless internet weren’t up to the task at the time.

Now, calling live audio streams “podcasts” seems perfectly understandable and arguably even more faithful to the original idea because of the ubiquity of streaming media.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#130

Post by laumars »

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…

Reporting someone for minor traffic offences if they caused an accident is the right thing to do but reporting people for the sake of reporting people is a little unsympathetic. I've lost count of the number of times I've misjudged a situation because kids were screaming in the back of the car, I'm stressed about something at work and had the briefest laps in concentration; or even times when I just have a complete brainfart despite being fully focused on the drive. We also have senses that are entirely fallible -- for example it's very easy to miss-see something because your brain fills in gaps of information with "fake" information based on what you expect to see (there was a great blog post from an ex-fighter pilot on this topic).

There needs to be some flexibility in society that allows for human error in instances where there is literally no personal, physical, monetary, etc damage. The kind of police state where all footage is processed for any minor traffic offences is such a dangerous road (if you pardon the pun) to take because it leaves people with no margin for genuine human error.

Think of it like senior developers having a bad day and making school boy errors; or mistyping your username (something that should be muscle memory); or that guy who accidentally hits "reply to all" -- we've all made stupid mistakes. If those mistakes haven't caused harm then I don't see why need to be reported.

Post reply on HN