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

161–170 of 283 posts

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#161

Post by krick »

fpgaminer wrote: post #51
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,…

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,…

> So your Ring app pops up and says "Hey, your local police department is looking for a suspect and your camera spotted them. Would you like to share the footage?".

This doesn't sound ok at all. I won't delve into a thousand reasons why I don't like the idea, but let's just start with that answering "no" to that question can be easily treated as the obstruction of justice. So, to cut it short, if I'm not volunteering to lend my video feed to local police department by installing some additional plug-in that would download people faces from their DB and scanning the street for them, it shouldn't even attempt to by default.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#162

Post by laumars »

majormajor wrote: post #147
laumars wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 car…

Obviously I agree that bad drivers deserve little sympathy. But not all human errors are down to bad drivers nor a lack of care.

> 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.

That only works if mistake are concious. My point is mistakes can be unintended like rowdy kids causing a distraction at the wrong time.

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

I agree. But also the gap between a good driver driving well and a good driver making an honest mistake because of a badly timed distraction is also just bad luck.

It's happened to me before -- I've ran a red light at temporary traffic lights after my 2nd child was born (so I was tired thus required sharper focus) and my 1st child was so excited about having a baby sister that he kept making a scene. For a fraction of a second I lost focus and that fraction of a second happened to be when I was approaching road works. I was lucky that it was a Sunday evening and driving along a quiet village road so there wasn't any other vehicles. But I still had ran a red light despite my best efforts of driving safely.

> And at a larger level: if we can't be bothered to be that careful...

It's not about people not making the effort to drive safely; it's about human error. If it were that easy to drive then we'd already have infallible autonomous cars but we don't because driving isn't actually all that easy. This is also why I'm fully in favour of all these new smart safety features that autonomy has introduced; they help reduce the impact of the worst instances of human error.

Just to recap: I have little sympathy for bad or negligent drivers. I just want to remind people that it's easy to demonise others but sometimes actions are genuine flukes of bad luck.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#163

Post by Jamwinner »

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…

How do I report all the dangerous cyclists I see on my commute every day? If someone filmed you, would you be innocent? Draw then line when harm is done, or you are the person doing actual harm. Shame on you.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#164

Post by randallsquared »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #158
Enginerrrd wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Actual evidence consistently shows that mild penalties with a high probability of enforcement are most effective at maximizing compliance. I find it hard to believe that mild penalties are more effective deterent than high penalties and high enforcement. That said, the punishment should still fit the crime

High penalties can incentivize to commit further crimes, at least. An extreme example might be capital punishment for robbery, which I'd expect (but haven't seen statistics, or don't remember) would increase the rate of murder committed during robberies.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#165

Post by tyingq »

fpgaminer wrote: post #51
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,…

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,…

Nextdoor ended up with issues around this sort of thing. Like people posting images of neighborhood people that didn't "look like" they belonged there.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#166

Post by mdorazio »

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…

I'd support this if my in-car dashcam can do the same for cyclists such as yourself. Driving in Portland I see at least that many moving violations by cyclists on a regular basis as well.

And that's the problem with proposals like these - everyone is in favor of them until they realize that they might be on the receiving end as well. If you support a position like this, make sure you support it for everyone, not just the people you don't like.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#167

Post by Wowfunhappy »

laumars wrote: post #162
majormajor wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 car…

Obviously I agree that bad drivers deserve little sympathy. But not all human errors are down to bad drivers nor a lack of care. > 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. That only works if mistake are concious. My point is mistakes can be unintended like rowdy k…

Okay, so you make an error, you get a fine for it.

It's not as though I'm arguing anyone who runs a red light should go to jail. Heck, maybe our fines are too high, or should take income into account—I think all of those things would be healthy conversations.

But cars are deadly vehicles, and mistakes—regardless of the circumstance—should have consequences before someone gets killed. As frequently as possible.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#168

Post by heavyset_go »

fpgaminer wrote: post #51
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,…

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,…

> So your Ring app pops up and says "Hey, your local police department is looking for a suspect and your camera spotted them. Would you like to share the footage?"

This is enough information for the police to get a warrant or subpoena for your footage. Ring's business model involves integration with law enforcement, and as long as you keep them in the loop, that means the existence of your video evidence will be passed on to police. With that knowledge, law enforcement doesn't need your permission to get access to your videos, they just need to get a warrant or subpoena for them.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#169

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#170

Post by livueta »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #158
Enginerrrd wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Actual evidence consistently shows that mild penalties with a high probability of enforcement are most effective at maximizing compliance. I find it hard to believe that mild penalties are more effective deterent than high penalties and high enforcement. That said, the punishment should still fit the crime

Maybe because high penalties + high enforcement == rebellion?

A traffic-related anecdote: the geograplically-isolated suburb I live in had a metric fuckton of speed traps about twenty years ago - like, an absurd quantity. You had cops staking out basically everywhere and giving massive tickets for the slightest infractions. Did this actually make people stop speeding? No way. It got enough people pissed enough that the entire municipal government was voted out on a program of ending the absurd overenforcement of traffic laws.

Now, it also didn't help that there was a widespread perception that the city government was using this to line its coffers, but I think the major takeaway is that citizens will only put up with so much if infractions that nobody really sees as serious are consistently, harshly punished. Eventually, you're going to get a backlash.

Of course, this calculus would probably be different if what was being punished wasn't crimes largely committed by a politically active upper middle class, but I think the example is instructive for many cases.

I guess prohibition also kinda falls into this category, so I should refine my original statement to "in cases of high enforcement/high penalties where most people don't see the big deal, those regimes will not last long via an accelerative mechanism."

Post reply on HN