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

311–320 of 331 posts

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

#311

Post by Schiendelman »

Johnny555 wrote: post #197

This should be a wakeup call for users of all cloud connected cameras that once they send their video to the cloud provider, they have no real control over how it's used. Ring does support end to end encryption (which disables most of the cloud features), but users are still at the mercy of Ring to trust that it really is e2e encrypted and not the "fake" end to end encryption that some marketers have used to mean "We…

Not ALL cloud connected cameras. Be careful saying things like that, there are large differences in the trust levels between them. For instance, if you're using homekit, I believe Apple doesn't even have the keys to the e2ee encryption, regardless of your "icloud advanced security" mode.

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

#312

Post by fragmede »

Schiendelman wrote: post #311
Johnny555 wrote: post #197

This should be a wakeup call for users of all cloud connected cameras that once they send their video to the cloud provider, they have no real control over how it's used. Ring does support end to end encryption (which disables most of the cloud features), but users are still at the mercy of Ring to trust that it really is e2e encrypted and not the "fake" end to end encryption that some marketers have used to mean "We…

Not ALL cloud connected cameras. Be careful saying things like that, there are large differences in the trust levels between them. For instance, if you're using homekit, I believe Apple doesn't even have the keys to the e2ee encryption, regardless of your "icloud advanced security" mode.

*In the US. They had to disable that feature on the UK because the laws say they can't do that there.

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

#313

Post by Schiendelman »

akimbostrawman wrote: post #183
devStorms wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Home data is always E2EE https://support.apple.com/en-us/102651

Can you point me to the source code i can run on the device? Otherwise it's just another pinky promise for a blackbox by a company that can change at any time even for individual user.

So basically, you have no evidence that there's an issue but you won't assume anyone isn't lying?

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

#314

Post by Schiendelman »

noduerme wrote: post #111
dewey wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you value your time, just get the Apple TV.

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

#315

Post by Schiendelman »

macki0 wrote: post #68
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.

iCloud data can be end to end encrypted ( https://support.apple.com/en-gb/108756 )

iCloud Home video data is ALWAYS e2ee, even without using that setting.

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

#316

Post by Schiendelman »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #16
murillians wrote: post #8

Meaning they’ll wait until about June and then quietly roll it out

Yep. Anyone got alternatives? I love the convenience of a video doorbell but I really really would like to not help the police or ICE or anyone else for that matter unless I decide it's a good idea.

Apple's solution is e2ee and they don't have the keys. They publish privacy whitepapers about this.

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

#317

Post by Schiendelman »

fragmede wrote: post #312
Schiendelman wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not ALL cloud connected cameras. Be careful saying things like that, there are large differences in the trust levels between them. For instance, if you're using homekit, I believe Apple doesn't even have the keys to the e2ee encryption, regardless of your "icloud advanced security" mode.

*In the US. They had to disable that feature on the UK because the laws say they can't do that there.

Since writing this comment, I learned that the homekit secure video feature is e2ee by default regardless of that feature. You can't even turn it off. Apple doesn't have the keys.

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

#318

Post by aarbor989 »

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?

Eufy C120 is $35 and you can put an SD card in it for continuous recording and no cloud subscription required. Can watch the camera and playback any time using the app, no cost.

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

#320

Post by pseudohadamard »

idle_zealot wrote: post #87
dabinat wrote: post #85

> Following a comprehensive review, we determined the planned Flock Safety integration would require significantly more time and resources than anticipated. That doesn’t sound like “we’re cancelling this because our customers let us know loud and clear that they were ethically against this”. If the only thing keeping them from doing this is time and money, what guarantee do we have that they won’t do it again if time…

You seem to be taking the company's words at face value and assuming good faith. I would caution against doing that.

In particular, they can publicly walk back their position now and then quietly reintroduce it later when the fuss has died down.
Post reply on HN