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

261–270 of 283 posts

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#261

Post by wpietri »

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…

It sounds like you're discussing a hypothetical case very different than what you're replying to.

fpgaminer was talking about something where facial recognition is done locally, giving the camera owner the option to contact the police. The cops would not even know you had a camera unless you told them (or unless they saw it).

You seem to be imagining all sorts of other things, including a warrant. Which, yes, if you ignore it is obstruction. But I don't think that was part of what fpgaminer was describing.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#262

Post by wpietri »

xmprt wrote: post #218
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's a blurred line though. If the police know that the perpetrator was in line of sight of your camera and they knew you had the footage, then not giving it to them is a lot closer to obstruction of justice than the example you gave. I'm no lawyer but I'm sure a competent one would be able to argue either side.

Only if they ask for it in a way where you're legally compelled to give to them. Otherwise, no. Cops want things all the time, like searching without a warrant. But not doing what they want isn't obstruction.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#263

Post by mikepurvis »

kortilla wrote: post #221
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…

> 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.

Executing a safe lane change requires doing a shoulder check, matching speed with another lane, etc— the reason it's prohibited in and near intersections is because those are exactly where you need to be paying the most attention to crosswalks, opposing traffic, conflict points, etc.

It may well be that it's fine if you're very, very confident there "are no other vehicles or pedestrians" nearby. But what is that literally every driver says who strikes a person walking? That they "came out of nowhere". It turns out enough drivers are bad at judging these things that it makes sense to just blanket ban them.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#264

Post by Enginerrrd »

randallsquared wrote: post #164
s1artibartfast wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Yes! A good example is three-strikes laws, where a misdemeanor can get you a life sentence, so some criminals are highly incentivized to aggressively fight an additional arrest, with very little marginal incentive not to commit murder to do so.

From a 2015 study[1]: "Three-strikes laws were associated with a 33% increase in the risk of fatal assaults on LEOs."

[1]https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/22/4/274

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#265

Post by kortilla »

mikepurvis wrote: post #254
laumars wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say both points are complimentary rather than contradictory. Yes, cars do require more responsibility, however they are not exclusively responsible for road safety. For example cyclists have caused serious harm and even kills pedestrians before. Also pedestrians and cyclists have caused serious accidents to motorists when causing car drivers to react suddenly, to swerve or break harshly which has resulted in thos…

There's definitely some , but discussing this requires tact or you quickly find yourself making "all lives matter"-type arguments that can look like they're trying set the two sides up as equally dangerous or equally responsible. Or worse, an argument that ends up boiling down to "as a motorist, I will only ever drive more slowly and carefully once I no longer see any cyclist or pedestrian break another law, ever." I…

> "all lives matter"-type arguments that can look like they're trying set the two sides up as equally dangerous or equally responsible

And the failure of the “black lives matter” campaign should be evidence of how little general support you build by starting out needlessly dividing.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#266

Post by take_a_breath »

throwaway_tech wrote: post #246
take_a_breath wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

==seeing as our entire criminal system is primarily driven by eye witnesses of crimes?== Do you have a source for this? In my yearlong experience on a Federal Grand Jury, the vast majority of evidence we deliberated on was "hard". By that I mean video evidence, financial transactions, text messages, emails, cell phones tower pings for location, etc. Eye witness testimony helps solidify a case, but you typically need…

>By that I mean video evidence, financial transactions, text messages, emails, cell phones tower pings for location Yes, you are right, the majority of criminal convictions at trial are based on physical evidence (of course 9 out of 10 cased do not go to trial). But none of that evidence comes in without a witness that can introduce it. So perhaps not an eyewitness to the crime itself, but a mandatory witness to intr…

For almost all of the evidence introduced in the Federal Grand Jury cases I heard, the witness was a law enforcement officer. They were typically the case lead from a federal agency (Postal Inspectors, FBI, DEA, Secret Service, DHS, IRS, ATF, HUD, FDA, etc). They explain the documents that were collected through warrants and provide expert analysis.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#267

Post by labawi »

mdorazio wrote: post #217
kaikai wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any time someone brings out the “bicyclists break laws, too” argument I’m surprised to hear what people think the laws actually are. I’ve heard people complain about bicyclists taking the full lane, using the turn lane to turn left instead of crossing at a crosswalk, moving to the front of the line at stoplights, etc as broken laws. Turns out, they’re not. Just because something might slightly inconvenience you as a…

In any random week I see the following at a minimum: failure to stop at stop signs, running red lights completely, riding on the sidewalk, riding against traffic, failure to yield to pedestrians, failure to signal a turn, failure to use lights and/or reflectors after dark, illegal parking, speeding (yes, really - speed limits here are often 20 and cyclists with electric motors are often going 25+). Bicyclists should…

You have a point on many things, but I wouldn't agree with same rules for all. I think a lot of privilege mentality comes from cities and rules made for cars which don't transfer well to bicycles. Same maneuvers on bicycles vs. cars and bigger vehicles can be a world of difference in terms of safety.

On a bicycle, I can see and hear much better, ride slower and generally stop faster. I can change directions and swerve to avoid obstacles (faster than braking), scoot to the side and generally require much less space. I can jump off a bicycle and move it away (vs. cars getting in gridlock, blocking ambulances..).

Even if I get into a traffic accident, the consequences the consequences to others are likely to be much smaller (though fatalities do remain as an unlikely possibility).

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#268

Post by soulofmischief »

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…

Information and physical evidence are two different things. The government can use your password if they can find it written down somewhere, they just can't compel you to offer it up.

But in cases where the government has metadata, logs, or other verifiable info about what is on the account, media, etc., recent precedent has established that they can hold you without charges for any amount of time, in the cases of some individuals, several years, in order to attempt to compel you to give up your password.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#269

Post by tripzilch »

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?".

Yes it would be absolutely super if apps asked permission before sending your private data to a third party.

But we all know that because presumably there exist sufficient software engineers that do not consider the ramifications of their work (like AT ALL), this just isn't the way commercial software is going currently.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#270

Post by tripzilch »

krick wrote: post #161
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,…

> 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'm really more interested in the reasons why you don't like the idea, though (cause the other reason sounds kind of US specific to me).
Post reply on HN