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

141–150 of 283 posts

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#141

Post by fpgaminer »

ploxiln wrote: post #126
znhll wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :)

That's not my memory of the situation, and a quick Google confirms: only a few of the thefts were fake, and Mark Rober didn't know they were fake. The intention was for all the thefts to be legit, it's just that he paid some friends to help him get the package stolen (by putting it in front of their houses), and those friends apparently cheated him.

Unfortunately after those one or two fake sections were caught everyone assumed everything was fake, and the internet took up that gossip like wild fire, tainting the whole video. Bit of a shame, and apparently that lie persists.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#142

Post by chmod775 »

astura wrote: post #133
pc86 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...?

In Germany speed cameras capture the face of the driver too, because it is a requirement to issue a citation.

After a few days you get a letter in the mail with the photo they took of you and information about the fine to be paid.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#143

Post by allannienhuis »

anarchodev wrote: post #119
baddox wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A friend of mine had his car broken into something like 4 or 5 times in 6 months in an underground gated parking area at his apartment. Each time they would break the side window to get inside the car. They would do this with half a dozen cars at a time.

It wasn't a particularly bad part of town, but the entrance to the parking area wasn't in a high traffic area and there was some green space nearby making it pretty easy for people to sneak into the parking area.

He eventually just stopped leaving anything at all in his car, rolling down the windows, and leaving it unlocked. As soon as he did that, the thieves would simply move onto the next vehicle without damaging his. Once most people started leaving their windows rolled down, the thieves stopped visiting to move onto more rewarding victims...

So sometimes the solution is to not lock your car doors. :(

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#144

Post by fpgaminer »

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…

Couldn't agree more as a former bicyclist and now often a pedestrian. It's amazing the number of times I've almost been hit in my short 1 mile walk to the local coffee shop. Apparently getting to work 2 seconds faster is more important than a pedestrian's life in many people's minds.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#145

Post by znhll »

ploxiln wrote: post #126
znhll wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :)

Huh... hadn't hear of that... from what I understand after a quick search: 2 of the reactions/shots were not genuine thefts, but this was not exactly intentionally faked by Mark Rober, but by the people who he enlisted to help bait the porch pirates. Mark offered a reward if the people he enlisted as porch baiters were able to return the stolen boxes, and they took it upon themselves to make sure the "thieves" would "return" the packages somehow.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#146

Post by remotecool »

themagician wrote: post #122
remotecool wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It sounds like we agree.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#147

Post by majormajor »

laumars wrote: post #130
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…

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 b…

The gap between these mistakes causing harm and not causing harm is basically just luck.

The less careful we are even when the mistake doesn't cause harm, the more frequently we'll make the mistake. Some feedback that made people be more careful, and pay more attention, would be good.

And at a larger level: if we can't be bothered to be that careful (or simply can't at all), and want to be allowed to not be that careful, then maybe we should make more societal changes to stop depending on humans driving 3000+lb machines. All this is great data for less driving but because it's mostly invisible, it can't be used to rebut the "but I want my own car and I want to drive it myself" folks.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#148

Post by megablast »

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…

What a stupid law. Some states are ridiculous.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#149

Post by koolba »

allannienhuis wrote: post #136
pc86 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 considere…

> 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.

Ah the old, "Guilty till you prove you're innocent by ratting out someone else".

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#150

Post by freeone3000 »

fpgaminer wrote: post #139
xkcd-sucks wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

1) to encourage mass surveillance of citizens by citizens 2) to allow people with money and power easier access to discredit their rivals 3) in order for a founder and a small team to be millionaires from profiting on the above
Post reply on HN