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

Ring cancels its partnership with Flock Safety after surveillance backlash

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 331 posts

Re: Ring cancels its partnership with Flock Safety after surveillance backlash

#111

Post by noduerme »

dewey wrote: post #89
zamadatix wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I got an Apple TV I never expected the main value I'd get out of it was being a smart home hub. I do wish the automations were a bit more programmable. Other than that it has been perfect, everything even failed over to my other Apple TV when rearranging the living room without having to think about setting either up as hubs.

Also it's the perfect Tailscale exit node that's always online in your home (They have a tvOS app)

I bought a windows minipc a couple months ago for this purpose, and it's basically useless if I'm on the road more than a week, because every windows update causes a reboot and a logout. I know, I should run Linux on it.

Re: Ring cancels its partnership with Flock Safety after surveillance backlash

#112

Post by Cerium »

noduerme wrote: post #108
dakolli wrote: post #95

Doesn't matter, I've come to the conclusion I'll never buy into one these networks. There's a reason "security" cameras were always on "closed circuit", there's no need give these companies money.

I've had a couple Ring cams for years. I hate the network, hate having to pay for the cloud storage, I've just been too lazy to research self-hosted alternatives. Is there solution you'd recommend that's relatively polished and easy to use?

It is not really cheap, nor best "value for the dollar", but I am extremely satisfied with UniFi [0]. Nearly instant setup, decent mobile apps, web interface, basically just works as you need.

[0] https://ui.com/

Edit, update link.

Re: Ring cancels its partnership with Flock Safety after surveillance backlash

#113

Post by riversflow »

stalfosknight wrote: post #102
chmod775 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're saying that because saying what they actually mean would paint flock in a negative light, which they likely want to avoid for various reasons.

So they'd rather lie in their press release.

Yes? Not like we can prove one way or the other.

Re: Ring cancels its partnership with Flock Safety after surveillance backlash

#114

Post by noduerme »

nozzlegear wrote: post #106
righthand wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple totally sells your data, they just anonymize it first. Why do you think they shifted towards services? They also can give the Feds access to your iCloud data through a NSL. Just like Prism.

McDonald's can give my data to the feds through an NSL, yet I still buy their fries every now and then despite the risk.

The good news is they can't catch you if you're already dead from a heart attack.

Re: Ring cancels its partnership with Flock Safety after surveillance backlash

#115

Post by kelipso »

stalfosknight wrote: post #102
chmod775 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're saying that because saying what they actually mean would paint flock in a negative light, which they likely want to avoid for various reasons.

So they'd rather lie in their press release.

Huh so weird, companies never do that.

Re: Ring cancels its partnership with Flock Safety after surveillance backlash

#116

Post by noduerme »

SrslyJosh wrote: post #36
rwc wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Early audience response suggested the message struggled to land. According to an iSpot survey of 500 viewers, the ad’s likeability score placed it in the bottom 3% compared with Super Bowl ads over the past five years. Its top-two-box purchase intent scored 24% below Super Bowl norms and 19% below ads in its category that aired over the last 90 days. Viewers most commonly described their reaction as “WTF,” signaling…

I think that the ideas of AI boosters and other tech maximalists will pretty much always "struggle to land" with normal people. (See also: the ring ad.)

I think what mostly came across was "welcome to the next crypto bubble".

Re: Ring cancels its partnership with Flock Safety after surveillance backlash

#117

Post by ryandrake »

stalfosknight wrote: post #102
chmod775 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're saying that because saying what they actually mean would paint flock in a negative light, which they likely want to avoid for various reasons.

So they'd rather lie in their press release.

You really think someone would do that? Just write a press release and tell lies?

Re: Ring cancels its partnership with Flock Safety after surveillance backlash

#118

Post by ryandrake »

idle_zealot wrote: post #86
s0a wrote: post #83

Frigate NVR + Amcrest cameras. 100% local, private, on-device AI object recognition and classification. Can use a Google Coral USB TPU to speed that up. Runs on hardware as modest as a Raspberry Pi.

Great. Now package that as a plug-and-play product so more than 1000 nerds will use it instead of participating in the largest dragnet in history ;)

I've found Reolink to be pretty much plug and play. Totally local. The NVR itself has PoE ports so all you have to be able to do is run a long ethernet cable.

Re: Ring cancels its partnership with Flock Safety after surveillance backlash

#119

Post by noduerme »

dylan604 wrote: post #35
dgxyz wrote: post #6

This is a temporary rollback while there’s a choice to speak against it. Cloud connected doorbells must die as well as dragnet surveillance.

> Cloud connected doorbells must die as well as dragnet surveillance. I'd disagree and restate that cloud services willing to make these kinds of deals must die, painfully, in a fire after being stung by a million killer bees, after receiving a million paper cuts and having lemon juice poured all over them. It is possible for a company to charge a monthly fee to provide a service and only that service without attempt…

How hard would it be to sell a solution that makes it easy for a consumer to set up on-site recording? Ship a small box loaded with Tailscale and some software that connects to cameras over a LAN, and runs a webserver that allows user logins through a web interface. Nothing needs to go into the cloud. Yes, then you sell it once to a customer and that's it. No subscription or planned obsolescence. Fine, so factor that into the price. Make your money and go on to do other good things.

Re: Ring cancels its partnership with Flock Safety after surveillance backlash

#120

Post by ryandrake »

SrslyJosh wrote: post #36
rwc wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Early audience response suggested the message struggled to land. According to an iSpot survey of 500 viewers, the ad’s likeability score placed it in the bottom 3% compared with Super Bowl ads over the past five years. Its top-two-box purchase intent scored 24% below Super Bowl norms and 19% below ads in its category that aired over the last 90 days. Viewers most commonly described their reaction as “WTF,” signaling…

I think that the ideas of AI boosters and other tech maximalists will pretty much always "struggle to land" with normal people. (See also: the ring ad.)

I don't think "normal people" especially run-of-the-mill office workers, like the idea of AI or want it to succeed. Not that it's going to stop Silicon Valley from ramming it down everyone's throats.
Post reply on HN