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

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#221

Post by kortilla » Fri, Dec 13, 2019, 6:27 AM UTC

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…

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

No. There are certain things in your example like rolling stops and lane changes in intersections that are completely safe when there are no other vehicles or pedestrians near the intersection. The existence of the yield sign and its use prove the former.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#222

Post by kortilla » Fri, Dec 13, 2019, 6:29 AM UTC

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.

As long as you are okay with fining cyclists for riding on sidewalks, failing to come to a complete stop at stop signs, failing to signal turn direction, failing to yield, etc as well. Same with pedestrians for jaywalking. You can’t be intolerant of vehicle mistakes and allow for others if you actually care about safety.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#223

Post by soperj » Fri, Dec 13, 2019, 6:30 AM UTC

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…

>reporting people for the sake of reporting people is a little unsympathetic.

He's reporting people that almost hit him. They're driving a 2 ton piece of metal. You can instantly change someones life with their recklessness. They absolutely deserve a ticket at the very least.

There's a girl down the street from me that got plowed by a car in a crosswalk as she was going to school. She's 11. She's basically a vegetable at this point. I honestly don't know why her parents didn't take her off life support when they had the chance. She got hit by a 20 year old who was texting and driving. She sent ten texts in the minutes before hitting the girl. If she'd been reported by someone earlier for texting and driving and had her license suspended, she wouldn't have destroyed a family that day.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#224

Post by kortilla » Fri, Dec 13, 2019, 6:34 AM UTC

mikepurvis wrote: post #192

fencepost wrote: post #190

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. Hm. What's your stance on mandatory visible license plates for all bicycles on the street so people with dash cams can clip video and report bicyclists who improperly use lanes or who blow through stop or yield signs? Or wh…

Opposed, but not on principle. It's been studied and tried in many places [1] and just doesn't make any sense pragmatically. It doesn't make people safer and erects yet another barrier to cycling at a time when we need to be making it _more_ attractive and accessible. And the people who propose such schemes are usually not doing so in good faith. It's not because they actually want to make cyclists safer, they're typ…

Right, and cyclists don’t want vehicle drivers cited in good faith. If so, there would be no reason to even argue against an automated citation system for bikers causing danger for pedestrians.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#225

Post by georgeplusplus » Fri, Dec 13, 2019, 6:34 AM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #213

krick wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I don't think that's anything like obstruction of justice under US law. If you were right, then so too would be recognizing a face from a wanted poster and not calling the police. It isn't even obstruction of justice if they explicitly ask you something and you refuse to respond: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/what-do-when-encounter... So I don't see how not responding to a question they didn't ask could be il…

It absolutely is obstruction of justice if there’s reasonable suspicion and they have a subpoena or warrant and you refuse to hand over said evidence.

If they come to your house and Willy nilly ask you for your cameras data because they believe that it spotted a crime then you can say no for sure, but then they’ll just come back with a court order to force compliance since there’s good reason to at least inspect the camera footage and I can tell you from experience I don’t know any judge that wouldnt sign a subpoena for that.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#226

Post by soperj » Fri, Dec 13, 2019, 6:37 AM UTC

mikepurvis wrote: post #215

rconti wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is part of why the "share the road" and "all have a role to play" narratives are so offensive to people who cycle and walk. The people choosing these active transportation options are already overwhelmingly the ones picking up the slack and preventing driver inattention and carelessness from becoming serious crashes. We don't get a choice in this— we do it because the alternative is being killed in the street, a…

I honestly don't know how you're so level headed about all of this. Thanks for being the better person.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#227

Post by lopmotr » Fri, Dec 13, 2019, 6:40 AM UTC

anongraddebt wrote: post #209

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,…

There is an argument that is sometimes made in this debate, and it concerns the gradual nature of the change to our privacy rights (or just privacy). It is an old argument. It took a number of years for me to convince myself that it was right. But it is a correct argument. In a round about way, the argument ends up concluding that we are, in fact, on some version of a slippery slope. We can see that slope quite clear…

I think it's a particularly American idea to want to cripple the police. They don't trust their government or their police, and perhaps rightly so, I don't know. Where I'm from, I would be happy if the police could use cameras everywhere to catch all the horrible petty crimes. People get their lifetime collections of things trashed and stolen during burglaries. It's quite upsetting for the victims. The police usually can't do anything because there's no-body to talk to. If their computer could tell them who somebody is by their face, then we'd all be safer and happier. There are also actual murders that go unsolved because there's again no-one to talk to.

If the police themselves are corrupt and abuse their power, that's a problem, but it's a separate problem that not every country faces. If I was an American, I'd want to have proper accountability for the police first. They should be held to a higher standard than ordinary people, not a lower standard, like it seems they are.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#228

Post by Thorrez » Fri, Dec 13, 2019, 7:09 AM UTC

georgeplusplus wrote: post #225

wpietri wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's anything like obstruction of justice under US law. If you were right, then so too would be recognizing a face from a wanted poster and not calling the police. It isn't even obstruction of justice if they explicitly ask you something and you refuse to respond: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/what-do-when-encounter... So I don't see how not responding to a question they didn't ask could be il…

It absolutely is obstruction of justice if there’s reasonable suspicion and they have a subpoena or warrant and you refuse to hand over said evidence. If they come to your house and Willy nilly ask you for your cameras data because they believe that it spotted a crime then you can say no for sure, but then they’ll just come back with a court order to force compliance since there’s good reason to at least inspect the…

You have to give police information just because you suspect they might have a warrant? I would have thought you could wait until you're actually presented with the warrant.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#229

Post by erikpukinskis » Fri, Dec 13, 2019, 7:16 AM UTC

throwaway2048 wrote: post #10

throwawaysea wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree that it is a 'dragnet'. That seems like an emotionally-colored take. It is camera owners voluntarily sharing footage with police when they request it. Citizens are allowed to lawfully film in many locations (their own homes, public spaces, etc.) and citizens are allowed to voluntarily exchange information they own with entities of their choosing.

Consider if a police force was near omniscient, and could view everything happening in a city publicly, at all times 24/7. Don't you think that changes the nature of things, even if technically legal?

Omniscient police would be a qualitatively new development, for sure.

But as surveillance increases, so does stealth. You’d have to include that in your model.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#230

Post by stallmanite » Fri, Dec 13, 2019, 7:20 AM UTC

34679 wrote: post #159

Luckily, if you click on the link to the original article near the beginning of this article, there's a video clip from a local news outlet that offers a sure-fire way to avoid being hacked, from tech security "expert" Michelle Bordoff: "Wired cannot be hacked." "Someone has to be in your home, hardwired to your modem to see anything on your network." Someone should let the world's governments and financial instituti…

If she hadn’t mentioned the word modem I’d be on board. An old fashioned analog camera wired directly to a VHS recorder would be a bitch to hack remotely right?