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

171–180 of 283 posts

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#171

Post by mdorazio »

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,…

I understand your position, but have a few issues with it.

1) Why do you need a camera facing outside from your door to deter or help solve burglaries? Burglars generally steal things inside houses (assuming we're not talking about porch pirates, which is a separate issue). A ring-style camera pointed at your neighbors constantly isn't needed - put a camera inside your home if you're concerned about burglars.

2) If you start using ring-style cameras en masse to solve crimes, the criminals are just going to adapt to the expectation that there's a front door camera and commit crimes in ways that circumvent that single point (ex. go in the back door or side window, wear a mask, use a fake license plate, etc. I don't really see this solving any underlying problems - it's more of a temporary solution that escalates the surveillance state model to another level via an arms race.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#172

Post by Baeocystin »

jacobsenscott wrote: post #124
Tempest1981 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Oddly enough, they used to be faster. I have a Gen-1 ring, and for the first two years I had it, it would dutifully record folks walking up the path to my front door. Nowadays, unless it's the UPS guy waiting for a signature, it's 30 seconds of empty street, just like you said. It's enough of a change to genuinely decrease the utility of the camera.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#173

Post by megous »

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…

Just sue the car, and take it.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#174

Post by throwaway1912 »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #167
laumars wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I’d be all for that if we could sort out gun control first.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#175

Post by tantalor »

gatherhunterer wrote: post #94
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?

They call themselves NulledCast. If they operate as and refer to themselves as a podcast, what are “media folks” supposed to call it?

"I identify as a podcast."

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#178

Post by jolmg »

mdorazio wrote: post #171
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 understand your position, but have a few issues with it. 1) Why do you need a camera facing outside from your door to deter or help solve burglaries? Burglars generally steal things inside houses (assuming we're not talking about porch pirates, which is a separate issue). A ring-style camera pointed at your neighbors constantly isn't needed - put a camera inside your home if you're concerned about burglars. 2) If y…

I'm not in favor or against it, but I think you misunderstood the point of the post you replied to.

> Why do you need a camera facing outside from your door to deter or help solve burglaries? Burglars generally steal things inside houses

If the police tells you they're looking for a suspect and that if you could help by supplying some of your footage of the outside, I think it's probably not burglars trying to steal from you. They could be any kind of suspect that the police at least have good reason to believe passed through the front of your home. Maybe they committed a crime at a neighbor's home. Maybe they're driving from far away, and the police heard that they might have passed through your street.

> If you start using ring-style cameras en masse to solve crimes, the criminals are just going to adapt to the expectation that there's a front door camera and commit crimes in ways that circumvent that single point

They'd also need to circumvent the points of maybe a few other homes nearby that cover the whole of the house the criminal is trying to get into.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#179

Post by laumars »

roywiggins wrote: post #151
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…

From the point of view of the bicyclist, it can be a close shave with actually dying, even if they're physically unharmed.

I've been a cyclist for around 30 years and have been a victim of plenty of accidents in that time. So I don't make my comments without regard for cyclists.

However my cycling experience is limited to UK roads. It might be the case that roads in the US are, in general, more dangerous for cyclists -- I'm not suggesting that is true but I'd be interested to know if that was the case.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#180

Post by rconti »

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…

Actually, the vast majority of traffic collisions require 2 parties to not be paying attention, but only one of whom has to actually make a mistake; I wouldn't consider the 2nd person failing to avoid the accident as a matter of luck.
Post reply on HN