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

Ring owners are returning their cameras

msn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 314 posts

Re: Ring owners are returning their cameras

#111

Post by classic959 »

colordrops wrote: post #46
asdff wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can also stream Reolink video to a Frigate box (free software) and access that from wherever.

No cloud involved if you run your own VPN.

Or even better, _just a little_ cloud involved if you expose through Cloudflare tunnel for just you and whoever else needs to access it.

Re: Ring owners are returning their cameras

#112

Post by ulrikrasmussen »

gspr wrote: post #13
ulrikrasmussen wrote: post #9

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…

Yes, it's the same in Denmark. And I unfortunately expect that the law will eventually be relaxed to allow it because it helps law enforcement. We have very little media coverage about the illegality of private people pointing cameras at public spaces, and the most frequent mentions of this is when the police use footage from such cameras to solve a crime. A couple of years ago there was a very high profile kidnapping of a young woman where the footage from a car sentry cam helped the police solve it. They eventually saved the woman and caught the guy who turned out to be a murderer and serial rapist.

Now the cat is out of the bag and it has become an untenable position to be against this type of surveillance. And don't get me wrong, I want rapists and murderers to be caught, but I am at the same time also worried about the effect that this will have down the line, in particular when live AI analysis of footage becomes cheap enough that it gets integrated into these cameras so the cameras can report (what they deem to be) suspicious activity automatically.

Re: Ring owners are returning their cameras

#113

Post by navigate8310 »

Ekaros wrote: post #8
Mistletoe wrote: post #3

“You had to live – did live, from habit that became instinct – in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every moment scrutinized.” – George Orwell, 1984

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.

Not to forget WiFi positioning by fingerprinting your silhouette.

Re: Ring owners are returning their cameras

#116

Post by mingus88 »

Sharlin wrote: post #107
vachina wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> like I'm being watched. Working as intended? It’s a wireless CCTV.

Being recorded while on public property is not illegal in many jurisdictions, but it's certainly iffy and should not be normalized. Any cameras should be directed so that they're exclusively aimed at your own property.

Counterpoint: everyone needs to own their own video streams

I hate it, but you are being recorded everywhere you go. Your plates and your face get scanned every single day, all day long. This is normalized. Privacy is dead.

You will never get access to any of that data when you need it. It is not there to help you. You need to keep your own evidence of the world around you; you never know when you will need it.

Re: Ring owners are returning their cameras

#117

Post by SwtCyber »

roysting wrote: post #66
asdff wrote: post #4

Funny how a single superbowl ad from Ring themselves was able to do in one weekend what a thousand and one anti Ring bloggers were unable to do for the past 10 years straight. This commercial and the response will probably be studied in marketing classes.

Am I missing something? I thought it was not the ad itself, but rather the combination with the reporting on that Guthrie abduction, which claimed that although there was no subscription to the recording service, the video data was still recovered, i.e., recorded and sent to Google servers. Regardless of how you see it, although the ad was a kind of manipulative reframing of surveillance infrastructure by using pets…

The bigger issue is whether users feel they have clear, informed control over what's collected and who can access it

Re: Ring owners are returning their cameras

#118

Post by SwtCyber »

ulrikrasmussen wrote: post #9

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 do think clearer norms would help

Re: Ring owners are returning their cameras

#119

Post by serial_dev »

sjducb wrote: post #74
asdff wrote: post #4

Funny how a single superbowl ad from Ring themselves was able to do in one weekend what a thousand and one anti Ring bloggers were unable to do for the past 10 years straight. This commercial and the response will probably be studied in marketing classes.

What did the ad say? I didn’t watch the Superbowl.

There was an ad, how the Ring cameras can organize a "search party" for your "puppies", basically turning the whole neighborhood into a surveillance operation. Even though they wrapped the whole big brother feature into "sad little girl lost their cute puppy", it was too obvious.

Ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OheUzrXsKrY

With that said, I'm not sure it will have any long term effect on them... sure some people return their stuff, make a post about it, but it's like (insert people with certain political affiliation) cancelling (insert big brand) by burning their stuff. It makes a splash in social, but I'm not sure it really significantly changes user behavior.

Re: Ring owners are returning their cameras

#120

Post by gus_massa »

herbst wrote: post #33
Zealotux wrote: post #30

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

The add is super cute, except for 1 second https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OheUzrXsKrY&t=15s (probably from 14.5 to 15.5, the one home part is fine for me, but the neighborhood is scary). That second is out of an evil sci-fi film.
Post reply on HN