Live data from Hacker News

Ring owners are returning their cameras

msn.com

41–50 of 314 posts

Re: Ring owners are returning their cameras

#41
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is this comment coming from? Why Europe? Are those cameras not used in other places? Are they specifically made for Europe? Are there sources? Or is this just a fantasy story?

The usual anti-Europe narrative that is starting to be so common over here.

In this case, an anti-Europe and anti-China combo.

Re: Ring owners are returning their cameras

#43

Good. But people should not have pointed cameras into public spaces and live streamed everything to the cloud to begin with. Walking past a house with a camera doorbell makes me really uncomfortable, like I'm being watched.

The world is going to be filled with millions of cameras using AI to analyze the video in real time.

Doesn't have to be. Here in the Netherlands it's actually illegal to (permanently) film public space, and people can and will point that out to any offenders.

Re: Ring owners are returning their cameras

#44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once something illegal is culturally accepted it’s very difficult to remove, it requires a cultural shift. It’s against the law to post cctv onto things like Facebook in the U.K. but people donor all the time. Early on the law could have banned cloud cameras but it’s too late now, far too many people like to answer front their phones. So glad I no ln get deliver pizzas.

>>It’s against the law to post cctv onto things like Facebook in the U.K. I live in the UK and first time I'm hearing about this - it's definitely illegal to record your neighbours or members of the public without permission, but AFAIK if you are recording videos of your own driveway you can post those anywhere you like since there is no privacy issue there. Have you got any more info about this? Edit: let me clarify…

I thought the law said it’s illegal to post footage of people without their consent if it’s publicly accessible. Which means videos of some random on your driveway or some random in a public place are treated the same, but this depends on where they’re posted. This doesn’t address the fact that this seems to be generally flouted!

Would love to hear more from a lawyer on this!

Re: Ring owners are returning their cameras

#45
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ad https://youtu.be/OheUzrXsKrY?si=oHH1hBRIYjNNgPZT

Thanks. This is actually kinda cute. After all the shit Amazon and the company did I am surprised this should be the thing that gets people worried

If it wasn't for the ICE situation there probably wouldn't even be any backlash. It is getting people to finally open their eyes a little bit and see how this post patriot act world we've built for ourselves actually operates.

Re: Ring owners are returning their cameras

#46
post #12

Good. But people should not have pointed cameras into public spaces and live streamed everything to the cloud to begin with. Walking past a house with a camera doorbell makes me really uncomfortable, like I'm being watched.

I have a local one (reolink). Prompted by neighbors getting robbed unfortunately. Will this prevent crime? Maybe some but probably not all. But it would let me know if I have to file a stolen package claim or should wait on the package for a few more days. Plus it has been doubling as a trail camera for the local fauna I had no idea came by so frequently. It faces private property only as it is set up.

Not sure why you are downvoted. Reolinks work without internet and can stream locally using rtsp. I have a doorbell cam from them and it works fine. If you block it from the internet you only get video and basic doorbell functionality though, which is fine.

Re: Ring owners are returning their cameras

#47
post #13

Good. But people should not have pointed cameras into public spaces and live streamed everything to the cloud to begin with. Walking past a house with a camera doorbell makes me really uncomfortable, like I'm being watched.

Here in Norway, and I assume in much of Europe, it's actually illegal. But that hasn't stopped anyone. The (little) discussion there's been on the topic has mostly centered around car sentry cams, which is very similar in nature. Sadly, the only state authority that seems to care is so underfunded that they can barely cover a fraction of these cases. And there's (rightfully) very little appetite for them to go after…

> and I assume in much of Europe

No. In Poland it's legal to record everything, only when you publish the recordings you need the recorded people to agree.

The core issue is that "nothing to hide nothing to fear" argument is correct as long as the government is trustworthy. Not only that, but mass-surveilance greatly improves life because it allows much better crowd management. Case in point - speed cameras. Would you support the removal of all speed cameras in Norway?

Re: Ring owners are returning their cameras

#48

Stallman was right.

It's easy to be right when you live outside the boundaries of reality.

E.g. he won't (didn't?) own a mobile phone, but is okay with borrowing someone else's. He won't use Wi-Fi where he has to log in but would happily borrow someone else's.

It's not being right; it's shifting responsibility in exchange for his own personal convenience.

Re: Ring owners are returning their cameras

#49
post #10
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, the time before infrared cameras... Makes one think that now we can have cameras that can see as well in what appears darkness for humans.

to get some feeling of it one can watch footage from Ukraine where drones with IR hunt soldiers at night. At the beginning of war, when soldiers didn't yet started to take it into account, there would even be whole groups walking like they would be at night feeling invisible, and that would be the last seconds before the explosion lights up the screen. These days there is more experience with it, and for example to g…

There's been some clips of Russian soldiers walking wearing either a space blanket or a sleepingbag to try and avoid IR. Unfortunately for them in those cases they were dealing with visual spectrum drones...

Re: Ring owners are returning their cameras

#50
post #13

Good. But people should not have pointed cameras into public spaces and live streamed everything to the cloud to begin with. Walking past a house with a camera doorbell makes me really uncomfortable, like I'm being watched.

Here in Norway, and I assume in much of Europe, it's actually illegal. But that hasn't stopped anyone. The (little) discussion there's been on the topic has mostly centered around car sentry cams, which is very similar in nature. Sadly, the only state authority that seems to care is so underfunded that they can barely cover a fraction of these cases. And there's (rightfully) very little appetite for them to go after…

It's a mess in Europe. It's different everywhere.

In the Netherlands you can record, but only share it with the cops and otherwise you need some clear exception (e.g. dashcam images with minor accidents to your insurer). In all other cases you can either not store them, at least not publicly and all cloud falls under public, or have to inform everyone about their presence on the images, or blurr every identifiable mark (e.g. faces, number plates, names etc). Pretty sure all cloud door cams violate that. So the cops sometimes ask for people's doorcam images, and they are allowed to do that, but likely the people providing them will have recorded it illegally due to it being stored on some cloud account.

This question has already been answered by security footage videos and as long as they are overwritten withing a certain time, stored non publicly and only shared with allowed officials, it's ok.

There are exceptions, but very limited, like clear public good (e.g. whistleblowers).

Post reply on HN