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

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#131

Post by CobrastanJorji » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 10:52 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #121

mikepurvis wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

This is not how the law works in a number of states.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#132

Post by catalogia » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 10:53 PM UTC

huebomont wrote: post #90

catalogia wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As it is, it's a huge amount of effort to slice out these clips, upload them somewhere, figure out the plates involved, and then go through my police department's clunky incident reporting system. On the handful of times I've bothered to do it (like when I was almost creamed by someone running a red light), the response has been either nothing or "thanks but we just don't have time for that", or in one case an indi…

So... you're saying they're probably bad at their jobs? Got it.

Well, yes? That shouldn't be surprising, it's not an unusual phenomena, but it seems I've offended somebody enough to have them downvote every comment I've made in the past day (which is hilarious.)

When you do something that somebody else should be doing but isn't, it's common for that somebody else to response in a less than gracious way. It's not limited to police, but it's particularly common with police.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#133

Post by astura » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 10:53 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #121

mikepurvis wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

But speed cameras and red light cameras exist and write legally binding citations...?

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#134

Post by ryanhuff » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 10:53 PM UTC

sjg007 wrote: post #113

mikepurvis wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Doesn't Ring already have such a feature for users?

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#135

Post by fpgaminer » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 10:53 PM UTC

trevyn wrote: post #64

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,…

How do you know the request is connected to violation of a law you agree with?

You raise an excellent point. It's certainly possible for the notification to specify what crime is being investigated. I'd say that's an important addition, for the reasons you've alluded to.

And interestingly enough I've seen things just like that. The "police" at my old college would occasionally send out emails if they were looking for a suspect. The emails would always include a brief description of the alleged crime.

Perhaps they included that as a means to motivate people into reporting. I wonder if they'd have second thoughts about it if they knew some witnesses would explicitly not report anything if it was related to a crime they didn't agree with (for example, marijuana use).

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#136

Post by allannienhuis » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 10:54 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #121

mikepurvis wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

Red light and speeding cameras are used in a lot of places. I think the idea is that the regulations are modified to allow this specific type of citation to the vehicle owner, or that they 'force' the owner to prove they weren't driving to avoid the ticket.

They're pretty controversial, but it's nothing new.

I suspect that the bigger issue might be that this type of footage supplied by citizens might not be considered verifiable (it's pretty easy to doctor videos/images these days). Video and images coming from devices that the police/government have vetted would be considered more likely to be authentic. Of course we know a bad actor (or a vendor working on commission!!) could still probably tamper with these...

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#137

Post by anarchodev » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 10:57 PM UTC

fpgaminer wrote: post #123

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…

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 neighborho…

For sure, I understand where you're coming from. There are certainly instances of this type of crime that aren't defensible under any pretext rooted in economic oppression. I don't have all the answers, just my perspective.

Consider that once you invite the cops into your neighborhood though, they operate on their own biases, regardless of whether or not they think it's worth it to track down whoever stole the stereo out of your sedan. Car prowl is only the pretense for them to show up, and once they do their presence will be detrimental for the "addict" population. So you're maybe not punishing who you think you are.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#138

Post by megablast » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 10:57 PM UTC

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…

> 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 crosswalks, changing lanes in roundabouts/intersections, etc etc.

You must be kidding, I live in a major city and see around 10 of these every single day. Peak hour seems to be a lot worse.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#139

Post by fpgaminer » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 10:57 PM UTC

xkcd-sucks wrote: post #97

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,…

Would you be interested in a marketplace where video you record could be made available (indexed by time and location) for purchase by interested parties? The goal here is to make video surveillance data equally accessible to police as to the general public for e.g. court defense, police brutality proof, insurance claims etc.

I'm happy to share footage from my cameras with neighbors who need it for anything like the reasons you've listed. I don't see why a for-profit marketplace would be needed for any of that?

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#140

Post by mullingitover » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 10:59 PM UTC

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…

> The penalties for these crimes are already extremely severe.

Exactly, so why not help people make better choices by letting them know that they're much more likely to be caught?

Also, to put things in perspective, grand theft-type crimes were historically (and currently, in some fundamentalist regimes) punished by hanging, amputation of ears or hands, or flogging. The punishments today are tender loving care by comparison.