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

411–420 of 531 posts

Re: Amazon’s Ring to partner with Flock

#411

Post by deelowe »

dmix wrote: post #407
jamestimmins wrote: post #399

By this point, we should assume that all companies with sensitive data that could theoretically help solve crime will be accessed by the government as a rule. That's just being a realistic technology user in 2025.

The only real solution is strong privacy laws around gov usage and strong courts willing to enforce it. Expecting consumer choice or regulations to prevent that data from ever existing is mostly a fools errand IMO, there's just too much of it and it's everywhere.

> The only real solution is strong privacy laws around gov usage and strong courts willing to enforce it.

I don't think this is a solution, personally.

Re: Amazon’s Ring to partner with Flock

#412

Post by nik282000 »

Liftyee wrote: post #403
rogerrogerr wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fear ISPs have made a commercial host-it-yourself product near impossible. Imagine selling a product, getting no ongoing revenue, and then being on the hook - forever - to support average people trying to connect to something inside their home network from their phone. Nightmare material. If anyone is having trouble understanding the support load, start by traveling to your local assisted living home and explaining…

I think something like Tailscale's technology could resolve this and many other self hosting access cases. Already, I don't open any ports - just use Tailscale to connect to my PC at home. If this was integrated into the "camera app", it could be seamless - only authentication required. Since the traffic goes directly point to point, the cost of hosting this service isn't too large either.

Tailscale solves the access/NAT issue and keeps your services off of your WAN, but it relies on a 3rd party to let you use your own equipment. I understand why it is useful and a necessary service but I'll never touch it.

Re: Amazon’s Ring to partner with Flock

#413

Post by hamdingers »

yannyu wrote: post #377
klodolph wrote: post #371

All this hand-wringing about surveillance powers is not keeping up with how quickly our ability to surveil people is expanding. The fourth amendment seems kind of like a wet fart in a timeline where private companies can surveil the public and then simply choose to share their data with law enforcement. I had to buy a surveillance camera recently, but I made sure mine doesn’t connect to the internet in any way.

How does your total solution work? Today, there's a lot of convenience with Nest. Is there an equivalent experience that doesn't involve exposing your data to megacorps?

PoE cameras, frigate, home assistant.

Re: Amazon’s Ring to partner with Flock

#415

Post by nik282000 »

add-sub-mul-div wrote: post #401

Orwell didn't foresee that people would voluntarily pay for their own surveillance, out of fandom for a company that charges $15/month for "free" shipping. That they also actually do give away for free if you can wait a few extra days rather than treating every purchase as an impulse buy. Reality has become more stupid than even visionaries could have predicted.

He never mentioned if the screens in every house had a monthly fee or if you could pay more to skip adds. We could still be right on track to war with East Asia.

Re: Amazon’s Ring to partner with Flock

#416

Post by anigbrowl »

dmix wrote: post #407
jamestimmins wrote: post #399

By this point, we should assume that all companies with sensitive data that could theoretically help solve crime will be accessed by the government as a rule. That's just being a realistic technology user in 2025.

The only real solution is strong privacy laws around gov usage and strong courts willing to enforce it. Expecting consumer choice or regulations to prevent that data from ever existing is mostly a fools errand IMO, there's just too much of it and it's everywhere.

Based on what? There's no constitutional right to privacy, while courts have consistently expanded the scope of government powers and immunities and consistently hollowed out the Bill of Rights. It's gonna require a new legal paradigm.

Re: Amazon’s Ring to partner with Flock

#417

Post by bdangubic »

dmix wrote: post #407
jamestimmins wrote: post #399

By this point, we should assume that all companies with sensitive data that could theoretically help solve crime will be accessed by the government as a rule. That's just being a realistic technology user in 2025.

The only real solution is strong privacy laws around gov usage and strong courts willing to enforce it. Expecting consumer choice or regulations to prevent that data from ever existing is mostly a fools errand IMO, there's just too much of it and it's everywhere.

any solution that has “law” in it is 100% not a solution

Re: Amazon’s Ring to partner with Flock

#420

Post by anigbrowl »

gilfoy wrote: post #379

I commented on a similar post earlier, but my entire neighborhood, hundreds of houses, came with them preinstalled. Can’t even leave my house without being surveilled. Some people have the setting on where it starts announcing stuff any time it sees a person, which it does all the way to the sidewalk. So you go on a walk and get yelled at through a super shitty speaker several times. And it’s about as dystopian as yo…

Some people have the setting on where it starts announcing stuff any time it sees a person, which it does all the way to the sidewalk. So you go on a walk and get yelled at through a super shitty speaker several times.

What sort of stuff does it say?

Post reply on HN