Amazon’s Ring to partner with Flock • Hacker News Board

Re: Amazon’s Ring to partner with Flock

#501

Post by WarOnPrivacy » Sat, Oct 18, 2025, 4:39 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #460

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's no constitutional right to privacy, Being secure in my person, house, papers, and effects is my privacy in action.

How is that working out for you? It can't stop your data being sold or grant you any kind of privacy when you appear in public (eg being filmed continuously when you leave your home).

> How is that working out for you?

Same as everyone else, not great. We've very few politicians that support the 4th Amendment in a meaningful way. Which I suppose is a reflection of voters harboring a fierce disinterest in the 4th.

And, in my estimation, all of that flows from generations of news orgs who rarely notice the 4th Amendment, nevertheless treasure it on behalf of the public.

Re: Amazon’s Ring to partner with Flock

#502

Post by charcircuit » Sat, Oct 18, 2025, 4:49 PM UTC

gilfoy wrote: post #480

charcircuit wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>they also have thousands of employees that can access your data at any time for any reason. They have 0 employees who can do that.

> In 2023, the FTC ordered the company to pay $5.8 million over claims that employees and contractors had unrestricted access to customers’ videos for years. It’s right in the article

Firstly, I doubt that this behavior was not against policy, meaning that employees were not able to do so, but did so anyways. Secondly, the article didn't include they were ordered to create a "comprehensive privacy and data security program" which would lockdown such access further.

Re: Amazon’s Ring to partner with Flock

#503

Post by WarOnPrivacy » Sat, Oct 18, 2025, 4:53 PM UTC

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #501

anigbrowl wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that working out for you? It can't stop your data being sold or grant you any kind of privacy when you appear in public (eg being filmed continuously when you leave your home).

> How is that working out for you? Same as everyone else, not great. We've very few politicians that support the 4th Amendment in a meaningful way. Which I suppose is a reflection of voters harboring a fierce disinterest in the 4th. And, in my estimation, all of that flows from generations of news orgs who rarely notice the 4th Amendment, nevertheless treasure it on behalf of the public.

The curious part is that for every ideological group (and Americans adore their ideological groups) that has a theoretical boogie man, 4A violations are key and core to the rise of that nemesis.

Examples are

   - bulk warrantless surveillance is critical for any aspiring anti-christ
   - a surveillance state is the largest possible government 
   - omnipresent surveillance ensures gov revenge for having guns/abortions

Yet adherents from each of those groups are super comfortable with sweeping, pervasive surveillance - the continual monitoring that captures them and their descendants for perpetual subjugation to govs/corps/etc.

Re: Amazon’s Ring to partner with Flock

#504

Post by vanc_cefepime » Sat, Oct 18, 2025, 7:47 PM UTC

_rs wrote: post #447

vanc_cefepime wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have the same UI protect system w 7 cameras. After that incident, I made it local only. I like Unifi gear, but I became super paranoid after that incident. After some digging around, I found homebridge [0] (with the homebridge-unifi-protect plugin by hjdhjd [1]) which fixed that for me by tying the UI Protect system into Apple's HomeKit ecosystem (which also leverages the homekit secure video that keeps alerts/moti…

I haven't seen any in depth performance comparisons, but I had also started to dig into this and I was leaning towards using Scrypted instead of the HomeBridge plugin. Just wanted to name-drop them for others also interested in all this

Scrypted is faster when I tested it a year or so ago.

I almost jumped into their Scypted NVR system (with all the bells and whistles all fully integrated in one app and would cost me $70/yr for 7 cameras) but it seemed like I'm trading one remote access system for another hence why I decided to keep using Homebridge (HB) until the HB project starts becoming stagnant or unless something breaks on my end. You can have Scrypted+HomeKit just like I have Homebridge+HomeKit setup, but Homebridge is pretty fast for me on Apple Silicon hardware so as they say "if it ain't broke, dont fix it."

This is the beauty of open source projects like these. Pick which works for you and just keep it updated and donate a few $ when you can to support the project.

Re: Amazon’s Ring to partner with Flock

#505

Post by pixxel » Sat, Oct 18, 2025, 9:39 PM UTC

kylehotchkiss wrote: post #334

IncreasePosts wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most people with video door bells just like being able to answer the door when they aren't at home and to see who is there without getting up from the couch

Video door bells are a massive safety feature for people living by themselves.

[dead]

Re: Amazon’s Ring to partner with Flock

#506

Post by cosmicgadget » Sat, Oct 18, 2025, 10:38 PM UTC

x______________ wrote: post #433

namibj wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So use one that you know to now be dead.

We live in the age of generative AI.. can't you just use one of those instead?

"That puppy is an AI fake, you must be casing the neighborhood."

Re: Amazon’s Ring to partner with Flock

#507

Post by Spooky23 » Sun, Oct 19, 2025, 1:42 AM UTC

saxenaabhi wrote: post #441

Spooky23 wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I participate in Nextdoor.com because of a community group I work with. The fear in people’s hearts is insane. One memorable one was a Little boy who decided to sell candy bars. I knew the kid from my son’s school. Some psycho followed him for a few hours, tracked down to his home and called the sales tax authorities and the city clerk as he didn’t have a peddler permit. She documented her “investigation”, complete w…

Can you share more? Why was this person upset with kids selling candies?

Some people are psychopaths when people ring their doorbell.

Re: Amazon’s Ring to partner with Flock

#508

Post by stogot » Sun, Oct 19, 2025, 2:25 AM UTC

kotaKat wrote: post #104

stogot wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a Ring. I got the email notifying me and was about to go disable it, but it doesn’t share anything. It says it will notify you that your camera detected the dog and then YOU choose to share the video or not. So I left it enabled, as it becomes a later choice. Effectively I’m not opted into sharing was my take.

But you’re opted into the automatic detection , regardless. Ring is still processing your video still to see if there’s a match to any Search Party unless you turn the feature off. At what point will the police request a warrant to run their own Search Party without consent?

So what? It already processes my video to detect people walking toward my house. Thats why I bought a smart camera not a dumb camera

A dog isn’t even on par to identifying humans. But let’s suppose if there’s a shooter on the run and my camera detects it, would I share that. Yes of course. Why wouldn’t I?

Re: Amazon’s Ring to partner with Flock

#509

Post by morshu9001 » Sun, Oct 19, 2025, 3:41 AM UTC

scjon wrote: post #233

morshu9001 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is an equivalently capable alternative that puts the user more in control? The reason Ring is popular isn't just marketing or network effect, it's that it works. Before Ring and clones, security camera / DVR combos were really hard to make effective, I tried. Maybe you'd have a totally reliable system with good video, but it'd fail to notify you when you need it to, or notify way too often. Battery power was inf…

Unifi is as good or better and doesn't require a subscription

I trust them, I'll check it out

Re: Amazon’s Ring to partner with Flock

#510

Post by lotsoweiners » Sun, Oct 19, 2025, 3:43 AM UTC

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.

I’d prefer to see a solution provided by technology that negates surveillance. Could be a very lucrative industry to start selling Bond style tech to the masses.