A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live • Hacker News Board

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#201

Post by brokenmachine » Fri, Dec 13, 2019, 3:12 AM UTC

fencepost wrote: post #190

mikepurvis wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a four season bike commuter, and have been wearing a helmet cam for the past year or so— it's just breathtaking the amount of small violations I catch on camera: I don't even go looking for them or dwell at hotspots, and I pick up probably 5-10 instances per week of things like cars turning right on red without fully stopping, going through stop signs without fully stopping, not fully yielding to pedestrians in c…

As it is, it's a huge amount of effort to slice out these clips, upload them somewhere, figure out the plates involved, and then go through my police department's clunky incident reporting system. Hm. What's your stance on mandatory visible license plates for all bicycles on the street so people with dash cams can clip video and report bicyclists who improperly use lanes or who blow through stop or yield signs? Or wh…

I ride and I think that's not a terrible idea.

I hate seeing all those idiotic cyclists doing dumb stuff giving cyclists a bad name and giving drivers an excuse to be even more aggro and aggressive.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#202

Post by UncleEntity » Fri, Dec 13, 2019, 3:17 AM UTC

allannienhuis wrote: post #136

pc86 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in one case an indication that they would be unable to charge the person unless I also had a face shot of who it was in the driver's seat. Because it's the truth. A driver receives a citation, not a vehicle. And a vehicle owner is under no legal obligation to say who was driving a given car at a given time. So based on those two facts alone, I don't see how you think the police can just drop citations in the mail b…

Red light and speeding cameras are used in a lot of places. I think the idea is that the regulations are modified to allow this specific type of citation to the vehicle owner, or that they 'force' the owner to prove they weren't driving to avoid the ticket. They're pretty controversial, but it's nothing new. I suspect that the bigger issue might be that this type of footage supplied by citizens might not be considere…

> Red light and speeding cameras are used in a lot of places. I think the idea is that the regulations are modified to allow this specific type of citation to the vehicle owner, or that they 'force' the owner to prove they weren't driving to avoid the ticket.

My neighbor('s wife) got one of those red light tickets and they mailed the picture to him (as registered owner) asking him to identify the driver so they could send them a ticket. I told him to just ignore it since it obviously wasn't him in the picture and he wasn't required to do the police work to track down the driver for them.

On a side note...I was talking to a buddy about this and we were theorizing that they couldn't even compel him to give the name of the driver due to spousal privilege, dunno?

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#203

Post by heavyset_go » Fri, Dec 13, 2019, 3:32 AM UTC

throwawaysea wrote: post #194

throwaway393955 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't need a warrant. They only need to make a friendly administrative subpoena to Amazon, which will happily fork over the data without challenging the order, even if the owner has refused. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/08/police-can-get-y...

This is a false story that relies on an incorrect statement from someone in the Fresno police department. Your own article contains this update: > UPDATE 5:55pm ET: After we published our story, a representative from Ring responded to our request for comment to deny all allegations in the Government Technology report. > "The reports that police can obtain any video from a Ring doorbell within 60 days is false," a spo…

> "Ring will not release customer information in response to government demands without a valid and binding legal demand properly served on us."

Ring's own statement reflects what the OP stated: that Ring will turn over evidence when given a subpoena.

Ring also released a contradictory claim to what the police said Ring made available to them. Either the police are lying about a process they seem to know well and have used many times before, or Ring is lying in their statement to Ars.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#204

Post by heavyset_go » Fri, Dec 13, 2019, 3:44 AM UTC

throwaway_tech wrote: post #71

hannasanarion wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Police can get footage from Nest cameras, indoor and outdoor, without owner permission by applying directly to Amazon, and users can't opt out of Amazon's "Rekognition" tool that is always on and alerts police when a face on their wanted list is recognized on a camera.

>Police can get footage from Nest cameras, indoor and outdoor, without owner permission by applying directly to Amazon So that brings us full circle to police are able to get footage from your CCTVs without your permission too by applying for a warrant directly to the court.

They aren't going to get a warrant if they don't know your CCTV system exists, whereas Ring provides law enforcement with a map of their surveillance network. You won't know when your Ring footage is seized by law enforcement, but you'd sure know if you were served a warrant.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#205

Post by throwawaysea » Fri, Dec 13, 2019, 4:01 AM UTC

heavyset_go wrote: post #203

throwawaysea wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a false story that relies on an incorrect statement from someone in the Fresno police department. Your own article contains this update: > UPDATE 5:55pm ET: After we published our story, a representative from Ring responded to our request for comment to deny all allegations in the Government Technology report. > "The reports that police can obtain any video from a Ring doorbell within 60 days is false," a spo…

> "Ring will not release customer information in response to government demands without a valid and binding legal demand properly served on us." Ring's own statement reflects what the OP stated: that Ring will turn over evidence when given a subpoena. Ring also released a contradictory claim to what the police said Ring made available to them. Either the police are lying about a process they seem to know well and hav…

I am primarily commenting on the "they don't need a warrant" bit, and the editorialized label of a "friendly administrative subpoena". A subpoena and warrant have a high legal bar, and the difference is who they are directed to. The way OP's comment is worded, it makes it seem like some significantly lesser bar than a warrant is being exercised. A subpoena still requires a court order, like a warrant! See https://legalbeagle.com/8676593-subpoena-vs-warrant.html.

Furthermore: Clearly, the Fresno police department person who spoke may not have understood the requirements for access or may not be aware of what prior actions (such as a subpoena) precipitated a release of video.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#206

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Dec 13, 2019, 4:06 AM UTC

throwaway_tech wrote: post #102

hannasanarion wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think that their cooperation must be required before they will cooperate? Police are major Amazon customers as well, what's to keep them from handing over data to preserve their good-will?

>Why do you think that their cooperation must be required before they will cooperate? Because they have written Law Enforcement Guidelines that are pretty clear and otherwise as a lawyer I know they don't just turn over customer data and information without a written order (and even then, they may object and fight it in court). Why do you believe they are just turning over consumer data/info/video without any court o…

[deleted]

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#207

Post by cwalv » Fri, Dec 13, 2019, 4:17 AM UTC

jacobsenscott wrote: post #124

Tempest1981 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but camera=deterrent?

Certainly not a ring doorbell camera. Mine is so slow to respond to motion it won't capture a pic unless you walk up to it and stand in one spot for a few seconds. 99% of my motion events are just an empty street. You can fast walk up to a ring doorbell camera and knock it off the wall, or just cover it with a piece of tape, before it has a chance to capture a picture. I would bet this is true of most consumer level…

This is funny because it's true. The wired "pro" version works a lot better (it does reliably capture video from just before the motion was detected until the end of the event), but you can still just knock the camera off the wall since it takes a couple minutes to upload the footage to the mothership (even with a solid wifi connection and 1 gig symmetric fiber connection beyond that)

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#208

Post by brianberns » Fri, Dec 13, 2019, 4:17 AM UTC

surround wrote: post #176

mrcu5 wrote: post #17

The title makes it sound like there is a security issue with the cameras, but the "hacks" are from password leaks.

The cameras should be hard wired or at least hosted locally. Allowing open connection to the internet is a serious security issue.

I agree, but isn’t the remote access “feature” a big part of the marketing for these devices? E.g. check on your pet when you’re at work.

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#209

Post by anongraddebt » Fri, Dec 13, 2019, 4:30 AM UTC

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,…

There is an argument that is sometimes made in this debate, and it concerns the gradual nature of the change to our privacy rights (or just privacy). It is an old argument. It took a number of years for me to convince myself that it was right. But it is a correct argument.

In a round about way, the argument ends up concluding that we are, in fact, on some version of a slippery slope. We can see that slope quite clearly in what you write:

"So many petty crimes (e.g. home burglaries, car breakins, etc) go unsolved because the police just don't have the tools and resources to go after all those crimes."

Even just ten years ago, a number of the ideas being batted around now about privacy would have seemed alien. I understand that attitudes can change, but do we have the right attitudes now? Are they good attitudes? The attitude that sees nothing wrong with seriously contemplating whether it's a net good to have the police sitting in a tiny camera outside your front door? Go back a couple decades and we would have been appalled at the notion.

Sometimes I surprise myself with how much ground I've given up already (even if just on a personal level).

Re: A podcast that hacks Ring camera owners live

#210

Post by iudqnolq » Fri, Dec 13, 2019, 4:38 AM UTC

laumars wrote: post #130

mikepurvis wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a four season bike commuter, and have been wearing a helmet cam for the past year or so— it's just breathtaking the amount of small violations I catch on camera: I don't even go looking for them or dwell at hotspots, and I pick up probably 5-10 instances per week of things like cars turning right on red without fully stopping, going through stop signs without fully stopping, not fully yielding to pedestrians in c…

Reporting someone for minor traffic offences if they caused an accident is the right thing to do but reporting people for the sake of reporting people is a little unsympathetic. I've lost count of the number of times I've misjudged a situation because kids were screaming in the back of the car, I'm stressed about something at work and had the briefest laps in concentration; or even times when I just have a complete b…

If it's really a special case that sounds like something to tell the traffic judge to me.