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

Amazon’s Ring to partner with Flock

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 531 posts

Re: Amazon’s Ring to partner with Flock

#261

Post by AlexandrB »

red-iron-pine wrote: post #170
olex wrote: post #38

And this is why my setup will be using Reolink cameras integrated locally via HomeAssistant and Frigate. Detection runs locally on cameras and/or in Frigate, HA manages events and UI, and the only way to access any of it remotely is via VPN, no "cloud" anything. If the authorities come knocking with a warrant, or frankly, even a nicely-worded sensible request, sure, have at it. But ain't nobody accessing the footage…

dude thinks reolink is more secure -- awful lot of 9.9 CVSS vulns for them

Who cares? If you're doing local-only cameras they're not internet accessible. Who's going to try to hack those vulns? The mailman?

Re: Amazon’s Ring to partner with Flock

#262

Post by pavel_lishin »

Aurornis wrote: post #134
shrubble wrote: post #43

When you take this info and combine it with the ability of Wifi7 routers to "see" where people are in their house, you realize that the recent demo of Anduril's helmet that gives an information display that the soldier/cop wearing it can use to "see who is in the house" or "see around corners" etc. is not sci-fi but instead, something they can do today.

> When you take this info and combine it with the ability of Wifi7 routers to "see" where people are in their house, WiFi routers can’t tell you where people are in the house. The routers don’t even know their own location within the house. All of those papers you see on the topic have extensive additional information being put into their models. The routers don’t magically know the layout of your house. At most, a W…

Couldn't someone standing outside figure out where interior routers are by triangulation, simply by walking around the house?

Re: Amazon’s Ring to partner with Flock

#263

Post by Noaidi »

xysix wrote: post #254
femiagbabiaka wrote: post #138

This is the logical conclusion to the state of irrational fear that Americans perpetually live in, that causes them to feel they need 24/7 surveillance of their homes, no matter the consequences.

It’s about control, not fear. Nobody is consenting to it out of fear.

I disagree. Fear is the tool authoritarians use to control people. First they make you fear the other, then they make you fear their force.

When your fear the other the consent is internal.

Re: Amazon’s Ring to partner with Flock

#264

Post by mathgeek »

nedrylandJP wrote: post #209
mothballed wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could easily find it for most people. It is generally public record, in my county it's available online, unless the individual built the home themselves (mine isn't on file because I opted out of building codes and planning, but commercial home builders can't do that here). But let's be real, police constantly barge in to the wrong address, looking for people that have been gone for years, accomplishing not much…

(fyi, hare-brained... like a hare)

Depends on how far you go back with the language. https://grammarphobia.com/blog/2013/10/harebrained-hairbrain...

Re: Amazon’s Ring to partner with Flock

#265

Post by Noaidi »

prayerie wrote: post #219

Having tried to do this already to no avail, does anyone know if as an owner of one of these Ring devices if it's possible to take it offline and handle everything locally? I'm usually against these types of "smart" devices, but only bought it because my house got burgled as a student (whilst I was asleep!), so I got pretty shaken up and got the cheapest thing I could find. Currently, I do have it connected to a loca…

Why not just get rid of it? Your anxiety is triggered from the past, not the present. We have lived without these devices in perfect safety and security for a long time. Simplify and be free!

Re: Amazon’s Ring to partner with Flock

#266

Post by pavel_lishin »

xysix wrote: post #254
femiagbabiaka wrote: post #138

This is the logical conclusion to the state of irrational fear that Americans perpetually live in, that causes them to feel they need 24/7 surveillance of their homes, no matter the consequences.

It’s about control, not fear. Nobody is consenting to it out of fear.

Do you mean about the folks with Ring cameras needing to feel control over their environment, and feeling like giving access to the Police/Flock/ICE will help gain that sort of control?

Re: Amazon’s Ring to partner with Flock

#267

Post by AlexandrB »

xbar wrote: post #211

With the stroke of a key, 100 million customer-installed cameras become part of the surveillance state.

This was always the end game for Ring. I think people were saying this since before the Amazon acquisition. The acquisition itself always struck me as Amazon attempting to reduce "shrinkage" - brick and mortar stores have their "loss prevention" team and Amazon has Ring.

The bottom line with technology is that you either host and control it yourself or you're at the whims of the vendor's business strategy.

Re: Amazon’s Ring to partner with Flock

#268

Post by bpt3 »

pyth0 wrote: post #238
bpt3 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to make this explicit, you are incorrect. There are plenty of instances where you would be correct, such as the origin of police forces in the American South (which were initially slave patrols), but that doesn't mean you are correct in all instances. I'm not sure what joy you derive from spreading misinformation, but you should probably reconsider it.

You didn't refute anything in the comment, other than saying one part of it was correct. This comment would be more useful if you actually made an argument.

A cursory internet search would back up my statement. Feel free to do that if you're interested. I note that you aren't asking the parent poster for any citations for their claim, which I would say is quite extraordinary.

And to be clear, my "argument" is that the parent poster is objectively incorrect, which is accurate. I decided not to posit on why the parent poster made an objectively incorrect statement, though I am curious.

Re: Amazon’s Ring to partner with Flock

#270

Post by bpt3 »

pear01 wrote: post #241
bpt3 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to make this explicit, you are incorrect. There are plenty of instances where you would be correct, such as the origin of police forces in the American South (which were initially slave patrols), but that doesn't mean you are correct in all instances. I'm not sure what joy you derive from spreading misinformation, but you should probably reconsider it.

Funny to accuse someone of "spreading misinformation" while agreeing there are instances where they are correct, then asserting there are some instances where they are incorrect while giving no concrete examples yourself. So saying something that is correct but not for all cases (which ones would those be) is now "spreading misinformation"? I'm not sure what joy you derive from dismissing statements you already ackno…

> Funny to accuse someone of "spreading misinformation" while agreeing there are instances where they are correct, then asserting there are some instances where they are incorrect while giving no concrete examples yourself.

It's not funny, it's accurate.

Spending seconds looking into the history of policing worldwide, or in the US, would back up my claim.

Had the parent poster bothered to post evidence backing up their comment, I probably would have made the effort to post citations refuting it.

> So saying something that is correct but not for all cases (which ones would those be) is now "spreading misinformation"?

When you say that something is correct in all cases, yes.

> I'm not sure what joy you derive from dismissing statements you already acknowledge have an element of veracity with some blanket label of "misinformation", but you should probably reconsider it.

Nice try, but there is no "element of veracity" to an absolute statement that is objectively false.

Post reply on HN