Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ring LLC home security company ransomed by ALPHV ransomware

web.archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 124 posts

Re: Ring LLC home security company ransomed by ALPHV ransomware

#81

Post by sofixa »

yonixw wrote: post #69
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can translate this to any kind of regulation. Want cars not to explode when slightly rear-ended? Why are they so expensive now? Where did the car businesses go? Let's create car security companies! Why so expensive still? ...

I think your example just fortified his comment. I can't make a car company. I can make a webcam on doors company. And you might say it is about raw materials. But I can buy enough materials for one car and one webcam door. I can't put the car on the road (as much as it make sense) only because of the sheer amount of cost required to pass regulations. So while regulation is something we want as costumers. I think we'…

>So while regulation is something we want as costumers. I think we'd prefer to not have it become a obstacle in the software sector to the point it exist elsewhere.

Alternatively looked in the metaphor, cars are dangerous things - for the passengers and civilians nearby. We as a society don't want any random vehicle to be on the road due to the risks involved. A webcam door doesn't have this type of risk associated, so it's fine to DIY and whatever. However there are still risks, like PII leaks, so these they need to be mitigated too.

> That is why I think the GDPR is great since it applies to companies with 250+ employs.

No it doesn't? It applies to any company that holds EU citizens' PII.

Re: Ring LLC home security company ransomed by ALPHV ransomware

#82

Post by ashwagary »

harvey9 wrote: post #33
cbeach wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter used to be controlled by the blue tribe. Now it’s been bought by a (perceived) member of the red tribe. It’s a simple as that. People feel the need to signal their tribal affiliation and attack those from other tribes. Been part of human behaviour since humans began.

Non partisan reasons to dislike Twitter as a tool of communication were posted before you made this comment. Anyway, your experience of any social media depends on how you curate it. For example I only follow professional photographers on Instagram so that's the only kind of content I see there.

>Anyway, your experience of any social media depends on how you curate it.

That's not entirely true anymore. Many users of Twitter have recently mentioned the alarming number of violent videos being added to their "For You" suggestions. These users are largely self-siloed into the industry they operate in and self-describe as people that dont follow "fight video" accounts or people that consume that content.

It seems either the suggestion algo has been broken, is being gamed by users, or the platform owners are choosing to feed users toxic content that they didnt request for some reason.

Re: Ring LLC home security company ransomed by ALPHV ransomware

#83

Post by mtlmtlmtlmtl »

op00to wrote: post #76
mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote: post #52

Is this the same Ring that was giving away video to the police with no warrant? Seems more like a home insecurity company to me. And why is it an LLC?

The same reason everyone uses LLC. To limit the liability of their endeavor.

Thanks for the non-answer. I know what an LLC is.

But I would pretty inclined to distrust a "security" company that has "Limited Liability" in their name when they store a lot private data serverside. Doesn't exactly inspire confidence in their commitment to actual security and not merely convenient insecurity which seems to be their actual product.

Hence the question.

Re: Ring LLC home security company ransomed by ALPHV ransomware

#84

Post by sofixa »

ra120271 wrote: post #54

My personal trust of devices like this is low - and since it is capturing public side recordings (outside my front door) I'm less worried about the vidoes. I just prefer to treat them as untrusted devices and put them on my guest network isolated from the rest of my network.

> since it is capturing public side recordings (outside my front door) I'm less worried about the vidoes

Differences between countries are funny. For instance, in France Rings don't fly because you're filming a public place, and by default people have an expectation of privacy and the right not to be filmed. If you want to film a public place (like put a camera that covers the street), there's a specific process to follow that includes getting a permission from the privacy authority, putting up warnings, and having processes (who has access to the videos, when, why, etc.).

Re: Ring LLC home security company ransomed by ALPHV ransomware

#85

Post by tyingq »

mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote: post #83
op00to wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same reason everyone uses LLC. To limit the liability of their endeavor.

Thanks for the non-answer. I know what an LLC is. But I would pretty inclined to distrust a "security" company that has "Limited Liability" in their name when they store a lot private data serverside. Doesn't exactly inspire confidence in their commitment to actual security and not merely convenient insecurity which seems to be their actual product. Hence the question.

Not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying it would be better if they were a c-corp, or a sole proprietorship, or something else?

Re: Ring LLC home security company ransomed by ALPHV ransomware

#86

Post by mtlmtlmtlmtl »

bsenftner wrote: post #70
mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote: post #52

Is this the same Ring that was giving away video to the police with no warrant? Seems more like a home insecurity company to me. And why is it an LLC?

They're weakly hiding their Amazon parent.

Hah, didn't realise they were owned by Amazon.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that a company with such a terrible ethical track record is a part of the fractal of dark patters that is Amazon.

Re: Ring LLC home security company ransomed by ALPHV ransomware

#87

Post by BLKNSLVR »

StevigeHoning wrote: post #7
sourcecodeplz wrote: post #2

This should be interesting. Also, thanks for not making me visit twitter. Edit: because twitter doesn't load on this particular device I use for HN. Basically the browser is too old. There is no "hate" ... ffs

[flagged]

Because it very quickly became difficult to read a narrative without losing ones way into... I don't even know, unrelated pointlessness that has no right to exist.

It's a gateway to somewhere I've never had any desire to visit: other people's drama.

Re: Ring LLC home security company ransomed by ALPHV ransomware

#88

Post by jimnotgym »

Ring sounds like such a neat idea. I'm in bed and I heard a noise at the front door...I open the app...start live view...black screen

Really? Is it that hard?

The extension ringer is a great idea too. Place it wherever you will hear it...ding-dong...there was someone at your door about 20-30 seconds ago.

Seriously! A doorbell with a camera, the camera won't connect, the bell won't ring

Re: Ring LLC home security company ransomed by ALPHV ransomware

#89

Post by abirch »

thombat wrote: post #56
yellowsir wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well, i guess laws against murder, makes murder no report them self...

The analogy is closer to being: the state will prosecute the murder victim's family for failing to properly protect them AND won't be able to locate or punish the true murderer. So in this situation, what's the family going to do? Mourn in private and not report the crime, maybe try for vigilante justice if they think they've identified the murderer.

And not let the community know there is a threat out there.

Re: Ring LLC home security company ransomed by ALPHV ransomware

#90

Post by v3x3366 »

mnd999 wrote: post #68
josephg wrote: post #12

I've said it before and I'll say it again: - Companies should suffer massive fines / damages / criminal charges when they leak the personal data of millions of customers. - I think EULAs are a ridiculous run-around the law. They should be non-enforceable. Its far from perfect, but case law is pretty clear that people and companies are liable for damages due to foreseeable harm that they cause. (Except EULAs dodge thi…

I kinda agree with you but it’s a tough one because what you’re describing is fining the victims of a crime. We don’t fine homeowners who fit cheap locks and get burgled do we. Pragmatically, it might be the right thing to do, but it feels wrong. Would you consider a due diligence to security threshold? That would certainly make it easier the well resourced to weasel out of fines, but when a small startup comes up ag…

> We don’t fine homeowners who fit cheap locks and get burgled do we

This isn't an appropriate comparison. I'm not a lawyer but I would imagine this would fall under negligence. Businesses are liable for improperly securing dangerous materials in the physical world.

Post reply on HN