[HN Gopher] Who owns private home security footage, and who can ...
___________________________________________________________________
Who owns private home security footage, and who can get access to
it?
Author : thunderbong
Score : 220 points
Date : 2023-03-08 14:58 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.politico.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.politico.com)
| originalcopying wrote:
| I say that if I have the footage, then under (non-existing)
| regulations of digital assets I own them along with anybody who
| also has their "own copy".
|
| The problem with this notion of ownership is that it's not
| compatible with the idea of trading assets in a typical
| traditional market like all that existed before the internet was
| built
| bob1029 wrote:
| This kind of outcome is precisely why I removed all cameras and
| other smart capabilities from my home on the day I moved in.
|
| I've never once seen someone in my friend & family circle achieve
| some positive outcome in their own household by having more
| surveillance around it. The only thing I observe is increased
| anxiety when squirrels or FedEx trigger push notifications to
| phones.
| JohnFen wrote:
| I recently had my place broken into and was the first thing I
| did was to hand the cops a memory stick with the relevant
| footage from my cameras on it.
|
| My system isn't managed by any companies, so nobody can be all
| sneaky about getting footage. But I could still provide that
| footage to the cops when needed. It's the best of both worlds.
|
| I should note that I have no cameras that can see any public
| space. They only record my private areas. I have too much
| respect for my neighbors to invade their privacy.
| squokko wrote:
| Did you get your stuff back?
| JohnFen wrote:
| It's unlikely I will. But the alarm chased them off, so
| they took very little. I lost about $300 of stuff.
| ambicapter wrote:
| Did anything come out of you handing over that footage?
| JohnFen wrote:
| It's still under active investigation. The police won't
| update me about progress until/unless they need to.
| [deleted]
| BeetleB wrote:
| > This kind of outcome is precisely why I removed all cameras
| and other smart capabilities from my home on the day I moved
| in.
|
| I have a cat. Someone needs to take care of it when I travel. A
| smart camera and smart lock let me know if someone came to my
| house to give the cat food. Before that, twice, my cat went
| 24-48 hours without food because the designated caregiver
| dropped the ball.
| macrolime wrote:
| You were missing the AI squirrel counter. If you had this, you
| could have a dashboard showing the number of squirrels visiting
| you each day and the time of their visit. Instead of being
| anxious, you could be a squirrel expert and you long
| conversation on squirrel behavior with your neighbors. Instead
| of getting a notification for each squirrel, you could instead
| set goals of how many squirrels you want to visit you and get
| notifications when you reach those goals. Then you'd have a fun
| game. How to get 10 or more squirrels to visit each day? Maybe
| put some nuts outside? Endless possibilities.
| Zetice wrote:
| You can challenge a subpoena right? Like, he could hire a lawyer
| and contest the scope of this?
|
| Not saying it's not wildly inconvenient, but he could if he
| wanted to.
| squarefoot wrote:
| Not sure if I'll be setting up CCTV at the new home this year or
| later, but for sure it'll be ZoneMinder based and everything,
| especially cameras, will be firewalled and behind their physical
| subnet.
|
| See: https://zoneminder.com/
| wara23arish wrote:
| Has anyone set up a home security system using HomeAssistant?
| tptacek wrote:
| It seems worth calling out that if Larkin had "owned" the footage
| in the sense the article means, perhaps by recording it onto
| magnetic tape like a convenience store, he'd still be required to
| furnish it to the police. Deliberately destroying that tape, even
| in advance of the receipt of a warrant, can be actionable
| depending on your state's tampering and obstruction statutes.
|
| So my take would be that it's not so much the "cloud" part of
| this problem as it is the "it's now convenient to have lots more
| cameras" part of it.
| WaitWaitWha wrote:
| I have a slight different take on this.
|
| To me the concern is not a proper subpoena duces tecum to
| Larkin, but the lack of specificity that can be ignored going
| to the cloud provider.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| >Deliberately destroying that tape, even in advance of the
| receipt of a warrant, can be actionable depending on your
| state's tampering and obstruction statutes.
|
| Wouldn't they be required to prove that it was deliberate
| though? Rather than an unfortunate accident with a hammer?
| jackvalentine wrote:
| This is classic nerd thinking they're so clever stuff -
| judges see right through that.
|
| If you've never destroyed a tape before but suddenly start
| doing it after an incident it won't go well for you. Even if
| you do get off it'll be a painful process.
|
| The only way to do this safely is good old records management
| - routinely and boringly destroy records on a regular
| cadence. Preferably automatically. If you become aware it may
| be subject to a police investigation then take action to
| preserve it.
|
| If you don't want to do any of this the best option is to
| just not keep the record at all - don't make a recording.
| [deleted]
| annoyingnoob wrote:
| In this scenario, there would be no need to provide video from
| cameras inside the house.
|
| One big issue I have here is that Amazon provided video from
| cameras inside the home that could not possibly have what the
| police are after. Not only is this a privacy violation, the
| police are going to waste time looking at useless video. Seems
| to me that dumping huge amounts of data on police is an issue
| of cost to the community.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I hear Tucker Carlson has a team ready to review security
| camera footage. Just throw a MAGA sticker on it, and have
| them do it for you. /s
| donmcronald wrote:
| I wonder how it works (technically) for things like Amazon's
| Blink cameras that advertise local storage. They're absolutely
| trash because the local storage mode is (deceptively) crippled,
| but as far as I can tell they actually store the video locally.
|
| Is Amazon allowed to reach into your network and take the video
| they want?
| ethbr0 wrote:
| That's the difference between the government compelling
| speech (1st Amendment) and serving warrants with due process
| (5th/14th Amendment).
|
| IANAL, so not sure on recent case law, but last I knew (~2010
| Apple encryption case?) the government couldn't compel a
| private company to _change_ their existing architecture to
| expose data in unencrypted and /or physically/legally-
| accessible fashion.
|
| If they _already_ have data security implementation gaps or a
| tap-susceptible architecture, then it 's a different matter.
| The government serves them a warrant, and they have to
| comply.
|
| But if Amazon being compelled to reach into a network and
| retrieve video stored locally is a threat model, that should
| be mitigated by a tight firewall and non-updating devices...
|
| Half of the IoT privacy gaps are because people don't run
| network security barriers anymore, and then are shocked when
| companies abuse them.
| scubadude wrote:
| What I can't work out is why people put security cameras _inside_
| their house? What do you possibly stand to achieve from doing
| that?
| JohnFen wrote:
| I think I accidentally answered your question here:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35075366
| scubadude wrote:
| Thank you for being considerate of your neighbours and the
| general public!
| shapefrog wrote:
| > They amount to a large and unregulated web of eyes on American
| communities -- which can provide law enforcement valuable
| information in the event of a crime, but also create a 24/7
| recording operation that even the owners of the cameras aren't
| fully aware they've helped to build.
|
| They drew this conclusion from a _court order_ being served upon
| people who had selected "record everything" when they set up
| their surveillence camera?
| yborg wrote:
| I don't understand what you find confusing about this. If a
| court can order that all camera footage from a citizen be
| provided to law enforcement at any time for any reason (in the
| case cited the individual wasn't a suspect, he just happened to
| have an external camera that might have shown an actual
| suspect) then you have a surveillance infrastructure. The
| citizen in question got tired of doing the police's job for
| them as they widened their dragnet, so they just demanded his
| entire account from Ring, which included cameras inside his
| home. Which Ring provided without hesitation, and the best part
| is that they paid for this "service".
| barbazoo wrote:
| Because no one understands how those features they're paying
| for work. People want everything to be convenient and "cheap".
| Ring isn't cheap, it just appears so if you look at it per
| month. That's why we end up with that privacy nightmare that's
| Ring.
|
| People with different priorities buy different hardware that's
| more complicated to set up and more expensive but keeps the
| sensitive data local.
| BeetleB wrote:
| > Because no one understands how those features they're
| paying for work.
|
| Everyone I know who owns a Ring does. They don't care.
| Convenience always wins. People who put privacy and related
| rights above convenience are the exception.
| shapefrog wrote:
| > Because no one understands how those features they're
| paying for work
|
| In my experience they know exactly how they work, they want
| to record everything that happens in the street infront of
| their house - that is litterally what happens.
|
| Is ring etc really much more of a privacy nightmare than any
| other cctv? Given the wide spread use, it is easier for
| police to do a blanket request, but back in ye olde days the
| officer would stand there, look around and see all the
| cameras and go make requests where they saw one.
|
| End result is identical, its the same thing with a few extra
| steps.
| barbazoo wrote:
| It's a set of hurdles that I think wouldn't hurt. Plus more
| reasonable retention periods to limit the impact on the
| people around them. I think that would be positive. At
| least that way police have to intentionally select which
| cameras to pursue instead of just asking Ring for data on
| an entire neighborhood what I assume is happening now.
| JohnFen wrote:
| Those extra steps can often make all the difference in the
| world in terms of privacy protection. I object to every
| public place being monitored by CCTV. I would have less of
| an objection to every public place having a uniformed
| officer instead.
|
| If nothing else, at least then it would be obvious when
| you're being watched, so you wouldn't have to be on guard
| every moment.
| ROTMetro wrote:
| That would be a great augmented reality app. Show a
| virtual officer standing everywhere there are cameras.
| fitblipper wrote:
| Ring doorbells providing this information to law enforcement
| quickly and easily is working as intended and is part of the
| reason it exists at all. Amazon has even used police to sell the
| doorbells arguing it provides better security [1].
|
| It is great that the people who had their video data provided to
| law enforcement were notified after the fact in this situation. I
| wonder how many people never find out due to national security
| letters not allowing it.
|
| [1]https://www.vice.com/en/article/mb88za/amazon-requires-
| polic...
| IncandescentGas wrote:
| > I wonder how many people never find out due to national
| security letters not allowing it.
|
| There's an annoying thought. Amazon could be providing a live
| feed of every ring device directly to an aggregated
| intelligence data center, while being legally prevented from
| revealing that fact by a national security letter. Seems
| inevitable, and anybody buying a ring device should assume it
| as likely.
|
| Imagine the boon of having indexed facial, gait and voice
| recognition feeds recorded and stored for eternity covering a
| significant portion of residential and business locations.
| mywittyname wrote:
| Presumably this evidence will eventually come to light
| through court proceedings. I'm not talking like one huge
| case, but through thousands of inconsequential small cases
| where an effort is not made to hide the data origin.
| MPSimmons wrote:
| This is obviously horrible. But I'm curious, since I have an
| internal-only camera system - is this materially different than
| if the police subpoenaed his recordings directly?
| henryfjordan wrote:
| The biggest difference is that he was not the subject of the
| warrant, Ring was, so he didn't risk any issues about non-
| compliance with the warrant or anything.
|
| Ring gave him a chance to challenge the warrant but decided not
| to. He might've just had to write Ring a letter, though he says
| in the article he thought he'd need a lawyer. If he was the
| subject of the warrant directly then he'd need to deal with the
| court directly, probably requiring the help of a lawyer. Ring
| deals with warrants all the time though, so they are probably a
| good resource for challenging these kinds of things.
| test6554 wrote:
| I use ring cameras. I gave some initial consideration to the
| privacy concerns before going all in. I decided I'm fine with it.
| I positioned the cameras specifically knowing that whatever they
| record could be made public at some point. I consent to Amazon or
| Ring sharing the footage with police and 70% or so of my
| neighbors all do the same.
|
| If my footage can help catch a burglar or vandal in my
| neighborhood I've made the whole community a bit better. But I
| already live in a very safe area. All I've caught so far are some
| possums, cats, squirrels, and wasps.
|
| But I also see when packages get delivered, etc.
|
| If I'm ever not OK with it I can just replace the cameras with
| any PoE alternative. My house is wired to be flexible.
| nixpulvis wrote:
| We need a comprehensive, people first, data ownership bill
| drafted and pushing to law ASAP. I know a lot of work has/is
| being done on this front, but I'm even someone who cares and I
| have trouble following it all. It seems corporations and
| private/government interest are running the show completely. Am I
| wrong?
| nixpulvis wrote:
| Allow me to expand and spitball here just a little bit.
|
| 1. Technology companies as data creators should have the
| responsibility of clearly denoting the ownership of the data
| they create.
|
| 2. Data created as a product or derivative of something a user
| owns should be given the option to be owned by the same user.
|
| 3. Rights for data owned by a user should be akin to physical
| ownership and stewardship, including limited scope of warrant
| by law enforcement, etc. (Why would we limit the ability for a
| police officer to search your home, but not the video footage
| you installed of the same?)
|
| 4. Technical implementation including but not limited to
| advanced cryptography should NEVER be disallowed or restricted
| by the owners of data.
| theloco wrote:
| I use iSpy. Its free and open source and you can connect as many
| IP cameras to it you want. Need cloud backup? Save the videos to
| google drive. Need text notifications? Theres apis for that.
| bityard wrote:
| It claims to be open source but it seems to be only in name.
| The web site says you can use it for free for personal use, but
| such a claim makes it NOT open source by definition. (Source-
| available at best.)
|
| I had to dig really hard to find a link to github
| (https://github.com/ispysoftware/iSpy) but I get the impression
| from the README and lack of activity that this repo was
| superceded by another product from the same company, and that
| appears to be what the main website is marketing for
| download/payment. And according to the license file, some
| rather important bits of it are not open source at all.
| schwartzworld wrote:
| Relevant podcast:
| https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-97-porch-pirate-p...
| mcbits wrote:
| Is there any sort of encryption scheme that would make it
| possible to generate a key on-demand to decrypt only the data
| that was encrypted within some arbitrary interval of time? The
| idea being if 100 terabytes of someone's private life history is
| seized, a judge could order the decryption of only the parts
| likely to contain material evidence.
|
| The closest thing that comes to mind is to use a unique AES key
| for every chunk of 5 minutes or so, and then encrypt those keys
| with an asymmetric cipher with the private key secured off-site
| somewhere, which could selectively decrypt some of the AES keys.
| But that could be an inconveniently long list of keys for, say,
| 10 video feeds over several days.
| aleksandrh wrote:
| Police: We suspect your neighbor committed a crime...
|
| You: Okay
|
| Police: ...so we're going to need all the footage from inside
| your home
|
| You: Wait wha--
|
| Judge: Sure, I'll sign a warrant for this. That sounds perfectly
| reasonable.
| mattkrause wrote:
| And so you move to quash some or all of that request!
| hooverd wrote:
| Simple as...?
| henryfjordan wrote:
| More like:
|
| Police: Hey can we get a warrant for all the Ring cameras on
| this street. Oh and we know for a fact that there's a guy with
| more exterior cameras who has refused to share footage with us.
|
| Judge: Sure, I'll sign that warrant. Nobody would be dumb
| enough to put Ring cameras in their house.
|
| Guy who is that dumb: I'm not going to fight the warrant even
| though I got a letter saying I can totally prevent my interior
| cameras from being included in the data Ring turns over.
| lionkor wrote:
| I dont want to be that guy, but who _didnt_ know this would eb
| possible and would happen?
| altairprime wrote:
| Judges can do absolutely anything, once, if someone decides not
| to object at the time.
|
| Recall campaigns for judges exist in a lot of American
| jurisdictions. Such is warranted here. If it's recognized that
| rubber-stamping Ring requests can and has lead to a recall
| being presented to voters, judges will in general take more
| care to consider the request in the future.
| deviantbit wrote:
| "that concerns privacy advocates and Democratic lawmakers..."
|
| https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/27/politics/house-vote-fisa/inde...
|
| Snicker. I love when people the media spreads false information.
| Democrats have been all about monitoring your every move, just as
| Republicans. I hate politics. How about we all become
| Libertarians please. Less government, less in our business.
|
| Why would anyone put camera's in their home? This is lunacy.
| Outside, I can understand.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| > Why would anyone put camera's in their home? This is lunacy.
| Outside, I can understand.
|
| I thought so too at first glance. But the article explains,
| that they only come on when the security system is turned on.
| i.e. when one leaves the house. I could see investigating a
| burglary when at work, for example. Would not send it to the
| cloud, but can see the logic otherwise.
| lancesells wrote:
| I'm wondering how many people here have cameras and have had
| something go wrong where the camera made the difference?
|
| I think for most neighborhoods and people they seem needless, but
| perhaps I'm a bit too naive.
| rconti wrote:
| I'm sort of the "I'd rather not know" camp. I've lived in my
| house for 8 years now. I'm sure in that time the area has been
| prowled. Somebody has probably walked into my fenced backyard
| to see if I left a window open in the summer, or tried my front
| door to see if it's unlocked, or scoped out my cars for
| catalytic converters. But, I've never had a crime issue. Not a
| single package stolen, ever. Why work myself into a tizzy about
| everything that "seems strange"?
|
| Don't get me wrong, I'm sure if something did happen, I'd wish
| I had footage. And maybe I'd go out and buy cameras. But then,
| I've watched my brother-in-law's Ring footage of his catalytic
| converter being stolen from his Prius. On 3 separate occasions.
| Gotten angry, thought about what I'd do if I happened upon
| these scumbags. And yet, that's all the footage does; makes you
| angrier.
| dangoor wrote:
| This is why the only cameras I've bought have been ones that
| support HomeKit Secure Video, which is end-to-end encrypted:
| https://www.digitaltrends.com/home/why-you-should-use-homeki...
|
| It limits the choices, and they tend to be a bit pricier, but the
| tradeoff seemed reasonable.
| BeetleB wrote:
| Indeed. A good question is why aren't there any security camera
| providers that store data in the cloud with only you having the
| encryption key?
|
| My PC's cloud backup is like this: It is stored in their cloud,
| but the provider cannot decrypt the data. Only I have the key.
|
| Why should Ring or other such companies actually require access
| to the video? Only I should have access to the contents.
| shostack wrote:
| Are there comparable Android options out there?
| js2 wrote:
| > It limits the choices
|
| https://github.com/koush/scrypted extends HKSV to a lot more
| cameras.
|
| I'm using it with an Amcrest AD410. I have an SD card in the
| AD410 to record 24/7, then anything with detected motion is
| also recorded by Scrypted to my NAS as well as uploaded via
| HKSV to Apple.
|
| HKSV is pretty aggressive about what it's willing to keep, so I
| can go back to my NAS if HKSV trimmed a clip too aggressively,
| and if even motion wasn't detected, I've always got the SD card
| I can go to.
| shapefrog wrote:
| You could still be served a court order to hand over the
| footage, it is just a couple of steps harder than the one stop
| shop that is Ring / Amazon.
| barbazoo wrote:
| As long as it's within the retention period of the video
| data. It's nuts for Ring to store the data for 180 days. If I
| had exterior cameras, I'd store the data for maybe a week?!
| However long I'd need to backup important snippets in case
| something happens, like a theft.
| shapefrog wrote:
| > If I had exterior cameras, I'd store the data for maybe a
| week?
|
| Annecdata - but people I know who have cctv around their
| home store for as long as possible, limited only by the
| storage size availiable - every motion from a car / person
| / tree blowing through the trees - years of recordings.
|
| People are selecting 180 days on Ring as the retention
| period (if they could select longer they probably would),
| the default is 60 days.
| barbazoo wrote:
| Thanks for correcting me on the retention period.
|
| What realistic use case am I missing that would require
| 60 days let alone, 180?
| bell-cot wrote:
| I'd assume that the dominant use case for both is "self-
| medication of anxiety and other personality issues".
| Though I'm sure there are seasonal vacation homes, abuse
| victims with restraining orders against ex's, zealous
| ornithologists hoping to catch a glimpse of some
| extremely rare species of bird, and more.
| at_a_remove wrote:
| I think they can order you to hand over the files, but not
| decrypt them first.
| rom-antics wrote:
| You mean due process? Sounds great, sign me up!
| eternalban wrote:
| Great point.
| pc86 wrote:
| Yeah, I don't think most people object to Ring video
| _potentially_ being used by LE (I 'm sure there are some
| though). I think the biggest complaint is the complete lack
| of due process and even the lack of notifying anyone when
| _their_ footage is used.
| sneak wrote:
| US law enforcement is not to be trusted. Any data to
| which they have access is police abuse waiting to happen.
| sneak wrote:
| No. The article is about a failure of that exact system.
| Judges just sign search warrants for just about anything;
| the only thing they check for generally is that it's not
| involving the search of hundreds of people. Invading the
| privacy of 1-10 innocents is just a rubber stamp.
| JohnFen wrote:
| Yes, but obtaining footage directly from 10 different
| people is ten times more work than obtaining the same
| footage from a single source. That additional work
| increases friction and decreases (but certainly doesn't
| eliminate) the level of abuse that will happen.
| cptcobalt wrote:
| That means you (or someone that represents you) can fight
| back on unreasonable requests. That's great. Doesn't seem
| like Ring even gave half an ass.
| pc86 wrote:
| Amazon does a lot of business with the government. They
| have very little to gain over fighting about handing over
| video footage like this, and a lot to lose.
| bgentry wrote:
| I also have only HSV cameras or Ubiquiti ones for this reason.
| Everything I care about is stored on-site or in the cloud with
| end-to-end encryption, no privacy or surveillance state
| enablement concerns.
|
| There's a great HomeBridge plugin which enables HomeKit Secure
| Video on my UniFi Protect cameras:
| https://github.com/hjdhjd/homebridge-unifi-protect
| eunoia wrote:
| +1 for both HKSV and Ubiquiti.
|
| Used to use HKSV, but I'm running a Unifi Protect setup these
| days. Everything records locally to my NVR with a 30 day
| retention policy. No cloud. Honestly it's been more reliable
| too. Downside is I spend a decent amount of time running
| Ethernet lines.
|
| UI's stuff works so well with the Apple ecosystem (mainly
| thinking ATV and iOS apps) that I haven't even bothered to
| bridge the setup into HomeKit yet.
| tjoff wrote:
| Seems awfully convoluted just to be able to store it in the
| cloud.
| t-writescode wrote:
| Just to be able to [store it in a location that's internet
| accessible, but that is also wholly owned and controlled by
| the user, rather than a separate entity]
| FinnKuhn wrote:
| I guess this is technically "a" cloud, but you are the
| owner and in control of it.
| mulmen wrote:
| Who owns it? The homeowner.
|
| Who can access it? Anyone with an internet connection that can
| reach shodan.io.
| concordDance wrote:
| Seems like the judge signed an overly broad warrant.
| yabones wrote:
| If you're willing to put an afternoon's work into it, you can
| easily and inexpensively build a home surveillance system with
| ZoneMinder that stores all data securely and safely on-prem. The
| cops can still take it, but it requires a few warrants to do so.
|
| Shameless plug -> https://nbailey.ca/post/nvr/
|
| But it's also important to only record what you absolutely must.
| I think putting CCTV cameras inside your house is insane, and
| putting up cameras in any "private" outdoor area should likewise
| be avoided. Once the data exists, somebody will want it
| eventually.
| rytis wrote:
| Do you have any recommendations what cameras to use? Rather
| simple set of requirements, but I really struggle to find
| anything suitable: compatible with zoneminder/motioneye, poe,
| no cloud nonsense, outdoor weatherproof, preferably non-
| chinese, reasonably priced. Don't need NVR. Was eyeing
| hikvision, but there seems to be mixed feelings about them.
| orangepurple wrote:
| https://docs.frigate.video/frigate/hardware
| JohnFen wrote:
| > I think putting CCTV cameras inside your house is insane
|
| I'm very sympathetic to this. However, I have cameras inside my
| house. The reason is that there's no way to cover the outside
| of my house in an effective manner without also recording
| what's happening on the sidewalk or in my neighbor's yards.
|
| But the cameras are hardwired and no video leaves my premises,
| so that becomes an acceptable risk for me. The video isn't kept
| for all that long, so even if someone has a warrant, they can't
| get a long history of video.
|
| And it proved useful in my break-in, because I could see
| exactly what the burglar took.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Not to mention your name doesn't show up in a registry (Ring
| client list), so they might not even ask you for video if they
| don't go door to door.
| giantg2 wrote:
| "Who owns private home security footage"
|
| I do. DIY on-site only system.
|
| Pretty simple really - stop using third party vendors for data
| storage. They're cheap and easy because _your data_ is usually
| the product. Sure, you would still be forced to comply with
| warrants /subpoenas if they think you have data, but that's
| basically unescapable.
| rtkwe wrote:
| In this case even that might not have solved the issue because
| the cops got a warrant for EVERY camera on the person's account
| including those inside the house that couldn't reasonably show
| evidence of the thing they were investigating.
| r3trohack3r wrote:
| > EVERY camera on the person's account including those inside
| the house that couldn't reasonably show evidence of the thing
| they were investigating.
|
| Armchairing it here - these broad warrants are probably carry
| over from the days where you'd issue a single warrant for
| "the tapes" since every camera in the system recorded onto a
| single shared medium.
|
| Like GP, I have a personal offline system with remote backups
| that I control. The footage all goes onto a single shared HDD
| for all the cameras like the old "tape" days. A warrant would
| likely ask for that HDD - not the footage from a specific
| camera.
| rtkwe wrote:
| That doesn't really change that even though you're
| completely uninvolved in the investigation as a target
| suddenly you've got cops examining the recordings of the
| interior of your house. Exterior recordings are at least
| often of nominally publicly viewable areas barring things
| like fences. Either way though I'm not that inclined to
| give the cops a pass for being lazy about the warrant
| writing just because it's the old way, warrants should be
| minimally invasive, particularly so for people NOT INVOLVED
| in the crime under investigation.
| JohnFen wrote:
| The main advantage to having this data yourself rather
| than being held by a third party is that you have a
| chance to push back if you have it yourself.
|
| If you get a subpoena that you believe is overly broad,
| you can take the matter before a judge and argue your
| case. As I understand it, this can be quite effective in
| narrowing the scope. It's not perfect, of course, but
| it's better than having no say whatsoever.
| pixl97 wrote:
| It could solve it in the sense that you have much more power
| I denying access to the data while to fight to get the scope
| of the warrant reduced.
| StrangeATractor wrote:
| Do you have outdoor cameras? What did you do for
| weatherproofing?
| hot_gril wrote:
| > stop using third party vendors for data storage
|
| No. I need a system that detects motion during scheduled times
| (ideally only humans) and buzzes my phone instantly, giving me
| a live view and saving a recording around that time. And most
| of all, it has to be reliable enough that I don't question
| whether it's working. Anyone who says this is easy is
| underestimating it.
|
| Something on-prem could do all that, but nobody sells it, and
| most DIY systems don't have those features (does yours?). So
| here I am with the Ring.
| wyager wrote:
| You can do all that locally with Frigate, FYI
| hot_gril wrote:
| Yeah, Frigate is pretty cool, but here are the moving
| parts: https://docs.frigate.video/frigate/hardware/ and
| https://docs.frigate.video/guides/ha_notifications/ . I
| don't trust that to all work without maintenance.
| tohnjitor wrote:
| Unifi Protect can do that on-prem. Remote access is optional.
| Salgat wrote:
| Ubiquiti does that. I have motion detection alerts disabled
| but human motion detection enabled depending on the camera.
| You can also set regions in the view that it ignores for
| motion detection.
| hot_gril wrote:
| Tech-savvy people say great things about Ubiquiti wifi, but
| my experience was that it's way more annoying to deal with
| than the AirPorts I was replacing. So I have doubts about
| relying on their security solution to "just work," but
| maybe I'll give it a try.
|
| And sure I'm tech-savvy, but I also don't want to deal with
| things. The real test is at my parents' house, where I
| don't live but I manage some of their stuff remotely /
| occasionally in person. I can't babysit whatever gets
| installed, and they don't understand computers. Like,
| whenever their internet was having problems, they'd only
| know how to reboot the router; eventually they automated
| this task with a lamp timer. But they were fine managing
| the Ring once I set it up.
| alar44 wrote:
| [dead]
| l72 wrote:
| I have several cameras hooked up to an NVR that has 2TB
| drives for constant recording (when space runs out older
| recordings are deleted. I usually have a few weeks
| available).
|
| I then have frigate[1] set up on a small fitlet (with a usb
| CORAL TPU), which gives me excellent control over detection
| (Humans vs dogs vs cars vs ...). Frigate grabs the streams
| from my NVR over rstp.
|
| This is then hooked up to my Home Assistant where I have
| various rules to send alerts to my mobile devices based upon
| object detected, location of camera, and time of day.
|
| Everything is internal. I have an always on wireguard on my
| family's mobile devices allowing them to access the cameras
| and home assistant alerts from anywhere.
|
| It works great, but I have refused to set this up for my
| extended family (even though they have the same NVR and
| _really_ want my system), just because there are a lot of
| moving pieces that need to be maintained (not to mention
| having a server + vpn)
|
| [1] https://frigate.video/
| phil21 wrote:
| Frigate looks pretty interesting. Do you have an estimation
| of how much CPU it's using for your cameras?
|
| I have about a dozen 4k cameras I'd love to migrate to a
| much more capable NVR, but doing so with software typically
| means I go from a 30W NVR to maxing out a 8 core 200W Xeon
| even without object detection.
|
| Would love to kill my Duaha NVR and toss this on the
| Proxmox cluster instead.
| ssl232 wrote:
| The Frigate website seems to heavily recommend a Coral
| card to offload the bulk of the processing from the CPU.
|
| EDIT: looks like CPU still used for video decoding
| regardless of Coral being available:
| https://docs.frigate.video/frigate/hardware/#do-hwaccel-
| args...
| wjamesg wrote:
| I agree, but it's not so evident or easy for the average
| person. Who wants to deal with managing storage? Cloud will
| typically win for the masses, who are typically not thinking
| about privacy and may not know the difference between a SSD and
| HDD
| rtkwe wrote:
| Most security video recorders will just let you set automatic
| limits to the storage or age of recordings it's not that hard
| to just dedicate a small part of an attached or internal HDD
| to recordings and forget about it.
| WaitWaitWha wrote:
| I agree many are _not willing_ , but I disagree that it is
| not "easy for the average person".
|
| One can walk into a local supermarket on any planet(e.g.,
| Walkmart, Sam's Club, Carrefour, Aldi, Tesco, Auchan) and
| likely be able to pick up a self-managed NVR with cameras.
|
| If it was not relatively easy, I do not believe these
| companies would carry them.
|
| You are right, many are not willing.
| bbarn wrote:
| How much storage do you need?
|
| Unless it's proof to the negative, which in most
| jurisdictions isn't something you'd ever need to prove, as
| the burden is on something occurring, after some amount of
| time most recordings are useless?
| dylan604 wrote:
| How much storage do you need? is a classic question as old
| as time.
|
| the classic response is "how much you got?"
| JohnFen wrote:
| I store 48 hours worth unless I'm going to be gone for a
| long period of time, then I store everything for the
| duration that I'm gone.
|
| My thinking is that if something happens that I need the
| footage for, I'll know that I need it within 48 hours.
|
| A 32Gb flash card is able to store about a month's worth of
| video in my system.
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| I've long wondered why something like a general computing
| device maintenance service hasn't become a thing. I guess
| cloud storage stepped in and removed the need.
|
| When my AC unit broke I didn't need to know the finer
| decisions surrounding which unit to choose.
|
| I have weekly visits from the pool guy for a pool and
| gardener for the landscaping. A yearly termite check and
| AC/furnace maintenance. And so on.
| deepakhj wrote:
| Fully managed security camera solution with LTE. They'll
| repair or service it if there's vandalism or any issues.
| https://www.flocksafety.com/
| r3trohack3r wrote:
| You can't offer a similar service at a substantially
| reduced priced by centralizing maintenance of your pool.
| Same for termites. Those have to happen on site.
|
| For software, there are strong incentives on both sides of
| the transaction (buyer and seller) for a system to be
| remotely managed.
| link_108 wrote:
| I think services like Geek Squad fill this need
| froggit wrote:
| I used to work for geek squad. They actually subcontract
| any work that can't specifically be done in store. I'd
| hardly call their service "general purpose computing
| maintenance" as it only extends to things they've done
| the install for and that's limited to items sold at the
| store. However they will provide maintenance, via those
| subcontractors, to items that fit that scope, such as
| replacing the bulbs for home theater projectors when they
| burn out.
| [deleted]
| vault_ wrote:
| It's not "general purpose computing" maintenance, but the
| service you're talking about does exist, though AFAIK
| mostly at the very high-end. It's typically for things like
| home theaters, whole-home audio systems, or smart-home type
| setups (predating and now merging with current consumer
| IoT/home automation platforms). Not sure how much that's
| "maintenance" in the typical sense so much as support for
| their custom install work, but I bet if you had a Sonos or
| Lutron system where your installer went out of business
| you'd be able to find a different guy to deal with it.
| swatcoder wrote:
| Your pool, landscaping, and traditional appliances are all
| fairly mature and stable in a way that lets local workers
| learn basic, repurposeable maintenance skills that last a
| long time and cover a large number of clients.
|
| We won't have that for home compute appliances until
| hardware/interface innovation slows down, and that'd
| actually been trending in the other direction for a while
| now. It will stabilize, even while innovation happens at
| other layers, but core stability plays a huge role in what
| you have in mind here.
|
| Cloud stuff basically hid that that stuff on the other side
| of a pipe for a while, but has its own drawbacks and we're
| likely seeing the start of a turn away from it.
| jollyllama wrote:
| Even then, there are contractors who will not work on
| systems installed by contractors not adhering to certain
| standards of workmanship.
| rlyshw wrote:
| Linux has been pretty stable for decades now. I've been
| using the same core configs and bulk data in my home
| compute environment basically since I started using
| Linux. Remote repos for any syncing needs, then just
| tar/rsync bulk archive data over. Store longer term or
| stale data on older decommissioned HDDs.
|
| I've been running more or less the same services through
| hardware, hypervisor, and now kubernetes migrations and
| revisions. It seems to me doing things "the Linux way",
| sticking to open source where possible, is resistant to
| the fast pace of the consumer innovation market. When
| anything new comes along, it's usually relatively trivial
| to transfer over.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > Linux has been pretty stable for decades now
|
| Really? I installed Ubuntu after a 5 year holiday from it
| - Now you have some kind of Snaps, and flatpak. There is
| whatever is happening in wayland. To install handbrake,
| you need to install flatpack.
|
| There used to be 4 different drivers for intel GPU, now
| there are 7, and I still can't get Quicksync to work in
| Handbrake. There seems to be some kind of plugin you can
| download from their website, but that doesn't install.
|
| After tinkering, I realised that Quicksync works in
| ffmpeg and in Jellyfin, but not in Handbrake
|
| Mind you, I have a home server that runs 20 docker
| contsiner for things like home assistant. I deploy
| applications to kubernetes in my say job.
|
| But this shit is still frustrating
|
| Who do I call to fix this for less than $500 an hour?
| rlyshw wrote:
| I know that this is a typical HN post, assuming everyone
| should become a Linux sysadmin. But related to the
| parent, and recent developments in Zero Trust Access
| products, I wonder if there is a pathway towards
| neighborhood-scale sysadmin services.
|
| I mean, I essentially provide that to my small social
| community with a private media tenant.
|
| With ZTA systems in place to accommodate remote access,
| maybe there is an appetite for neighbor-to-neighbor
| network sysadmin services? Hard to compete with the sleek
| silos of big box brands and their infinite marketing
| budget, plus 5 9s of service, though.
| zamnos wrote:
| If only there were some sort of regional authority, a
| local group of people to whom we all gave money to, that
| could hire someone to administer such a system. This
| group could take on the responsibility of running, not
| just this neighborhood network system, but also, I dunno,
| the fire department and the police department and maybe
| also the schools?
|
| I _know_ it 's an "out there" crazy silicon valley
| leftist idea but maybe something like that could work?
|
| Okay no but for reals, the USPS could do that!
| CrazyPyroLinux wrote:
| Odd that you pick USPS of all possible examples:
| https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/apr/23/usps-
| covert...
| froggit wrote:
| The posted article is about the problem presented by
| police overreach into data that the average person has a
| mistaken expectation of privacy for. I may be
| misunderstanding what you're proposing, but it seems to
| me like having the same organization run things for both
| the neighborhood and police would actually facilitate
| police access to this kind of data moreso than provide
| any benefits in privacy.
| rlyshw wrote:
| USPS might be mired in fed scale problems. Maybe a
| Library is more appropriate? At least, more directly
| accessible at the local level. I'm just not sure how
| exactly that would work, or operate thru existing library
| organization...
|
| I think the incentive of a trade/artisan economy would
| make more sense, and justify individualized labor (house
| calls for NAS reconfiguration, for instance). Like a
| plumbing contractor vs inspector... I like the socialized
| idea, but I don't see how the implementation would work
| under current social service labor system and
| organization...
| jedberg wrote:
| I'm not sure that's necessarily true. For example when
| need maintenance on my heater, I have to call someone
| certified in support for my brand. Same with my washer,
| dishwasher, refrigerator, and stove.
|
| If GE made a home security product for example, it would
| make sense for vendors to get certified on GE home
| security support. Even if the underlying tech changed a
| lot, if they had access to support docs and a support
| portal it could work.
| swatcoder wrote:
| That's true and that's probably what first entrants will
| do (are doing), but it takes a big capital expenditure
| and a lot of time to set up a program like that and
| recruit local shops to participate in, and your market
| opportunity is constrained by that growth.
|
| It's easier to certify techs at an existing HVAC repair
| on your specific heater than it is to convince somebody
| to set up shop just for your new and peculiar product.
| Maturity of industry matters.
| apercu wrote:
| Innovation doesn't seem that fast to me. I've been in
| tech since the mid-90's and all I see is iteration when
| it comes to storage technology.
|
| What is faster and faster is anti-consumer activities and
| the general acceptance of it.
| User23 wrote:
| If you buy a Synology NAS there's really not much to manage.
| Other than inserting the drives and waiting for it to
| initialize, it's not considerably harder than setting up an
| account somewhere. It also has apps for security cameras.
| koheripbal wrote:
| I use Blue Iris. Cheap and easy.
| SkyBelow wrote:
| >Sure, you would still be forced to comply with
| warrants/subpoenas if they think you have data, but that's
| basically unescapable.
|
| Isn't there the standard work around that companies do of
| having scheduled deletion. As long as the deletion is scheduled
| and not in response to a legal request, what is gone is gone
| and not a crime. If you receive a warrant you might have to
| stop further deletion, but what they want is likely already
| gone.
| slowhand09 wrote:
| I have a ring doorbell and I detest it. But my wife wants it.
|
| Since you have your own system, would you be willing to share
| links to info on a "roll your own" system?
| pkulak wrote:
| Not OP, but I _love_ talking about this stuff, so you're
| stuck with me. :D
|
| I'm a big fan of this project:
|
| https://frigate.video/
|
| It's open source, and you can hook it up to a Coral (or some
| other things, I think) to get crazy-fast classifications. But
| CPU is fine for only a few cameras.
|
| Once you get something like that setup, it's just a matter of
| finding cameras that support RTSP. You get them setup however
| you like (but preferably wired, with PoE), point Frigate at
| the RTSP stream, and that's it. Now you've got home security
| footage that never leaves your house. You can set up a VPN to
| watch the feeds from elsewhere. Frigate supports MQTT as
| well, so you can hook it into Home Assistant to get
| notifications, and even pipe person events into something
| like Double Take to get face detection:
|
| https://github.com/jakowenko/double-take
|
| EDIT: Oh, and the most important part is to have your
| security cameras on a totally separate network that doesn't
| have access to your internal network or the internet. The
| best cameras are from China, and you don't want to give them
| any opportunities.
| MrFoof wrote:
| Ubiquiti's UniFi is an option (of many). They include
| doorbell cameras nowadays.
|
| You can use Ubiquiti's surveillance software that's part of
| the UniFi console _(that you can manage locally, with no
| cloud account)_ , or other third party local-only monitoring
| software such as Synology Surveillance Station, BlueIris, and
| open source solutions such as iSpy, Frigate, ZoneMinder, and
| many others.
| dheera wrote:
| I use Unifi's security cameras at home, they store all data on
| your own disks on-site.
|
| Owning footage is only half the story, privacy is also a big
| issue for me, I don't want images of my home being sent to
| corporations even if I own all rights to it.
|
| The only downside I can think of is that a really advanced
| thief might know to pull the hard drives and walk with them,
| but I suspect most residential thieves aren't that smart or
| wouldn't know what disk to pull from my rack.
|
| The other downside for less techy people is that without the
| cloud it's not that simple to view your home from a remote
| location. I just VPN into my home network and view it, but it
| took some effort to set that up, especially with dynamic DNS
| and all.
| dahart wrote:
| Have you tried TailScale for the remote access part?
| teawrecks wrote:
| I agree, but still, I don't think it was appropriate for the
| judge to approve this warrant. Just because person X is
| suspected of a crime doesn't justify a search/seizure from
| person Y who just happens to be nearby at the time. Imagine a
| police officer legally searching your car just because the car
| next to you was suspected of a crime. It's just not reasonable.
| I hope the EFF or someone can help push back on this.
| kshacker wrote:
| Are these examples even comparable? A camera can provide
| direct evidence.
| JohnFen wrote:
| I think they're comparable. Both are the police searching
| the private property of an innocent bystander.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I have a pretty decent outdoor camera system, because I
| actually wrote some ONVIF software, and got them for testing.
|
| I _will not_ use an external server. The cameras are in an
| internal DMZ, and no ports are open. I have a Synology server,
| recording the video.
|
| But the convenience (and well-written apps) for Ring and Nest
| cameras is hard to argue with. People don't care about this
| kind of thing, if they can pull up video of their dog taking a
| dump in the living room, while they are sitting at a bar with
| you.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| > I do. DIY on-site only system
|
| The police can still subpoena that footage and if they do, you
| can't legally destroy it.
|
| If you've got the money, you can fight the subpoena and you can
| be sure that they can't bypass you and get the footage while
| your fighting it, but you better preserve it and don't let it
| age out if your NVR in case you lose the fight.
| zamalek wrote:
| That's fine. I don't mind complying with a warrant.
|
| The likes of Ring (it might have actually been Ring if memory
| serves) were recently caught sending data to whomever asked
| nicely.
| Agrue8u wrote:
| If the footage is encrypted, are you legally required to
| unencrypt it for the police?
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| Not a lawyer, but I read about cases where the judge put
| people in prison for contempt because they refused to
| disclose passwords for encrypted content. There was a guy
| that was in prison for more than 1 year in such a case.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| If they give you a valid subpoena, then yeah, you have to
| give them the video in a format they can use, you can't
| give them a bunch of encrypted video files and say "Good
| luck trying to watch it".
|
| If you refuse to hand it over and they get a warrant and
| seize your NVR, then I'm not sure if they can compel you to
| decrypt it, but you may already be in jail for contempt and
| probably are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in
| legal fees at this point, so most people would cave long
| before this and just hand it over.
| pixl97 wrote:
| This is how laws have worked for centuries at this point in
| the US. At least with this method you have the option of
| fighting it and the data isn't secretly used behind your
| back. Also you can force them to clearly define what data
| they need, like front porch, rather than as much as they can
| get.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| Yes, as I said if you have the money (a big if and whether
| you win or lose, you can't recover that money ) you can
| fight it, but can you really say you "own" your data if you
| can be forced to give it up?
| compiler-guy wrote:
| Of course. Just like I own my car but if I violate
| certain laws it may be confiscated.
|
| If "can't be forced to give it up by normal legal
| processes" is your standard for what it means to own
| something, there is very little in the world that you do
| actually own. So little, in fact that the concept doesn't
| mean much at all.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| But you can have your video footage taken without you
| having violated any laws or even have any relation at all
| to the reason they want the footage, the cops can say "We
| think there's something we want to see on your camera
| feed, now give it to us", and as long as they have
| reasonable suspicion that there's footage related to an
| investigation, they'll get it.
| JohnFen wrote:
| If you're assuming the cops and the judges are so corrupt
| that the safeguard of the subpoena process is worthless,
| then you also have to think of everything you own being
| subject to seizure. Not just data.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| I think you are talking past each other. If a crime (not
| committed by you) happens near your security camera, then
| your footage can be subpoenaed. This is not corruption or
| a violation of the subpoena safeguard process. I agree
| that it's a bit over-the-top to say "you don't own the
| footage." just because of this, but that appears to be
| the point that is being made.
| Thrymr wrote:
| > But you can have your video footage taken without you
| having violated any laws
|
| This is true of your car too, look up civil forfeiture in
| the US. The bar for seizing property is much lower than
| for criminal conviction.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| A low bar doesn't mean "no bar" - they literally need
| zero reason to think you had and relation to a crime to
| take your video footage, but for civil forfeiture, they
| have to have suspicion that the property seized was
| related to wrongdoing.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > can you really say you "own" your data if you can be
| forced to give it up?
|
| You can be forced to give up anything you have. If that's
| the deciding factor for the question of ownership, then
| nobody owns anything. I don't think that's a useful
| definition, though.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| > nobody owns anything
|
| This is a pretty accurate statement.
| uoaei wrote:
| The allure of convenience makes a lot of people blind to what's
| going on outside their small bubble of awareness. I see it a
| lot in the boomers around me.
| JohnFen wrote:
| That's hardly something boomers are more prone to than
| anybody else.
| jjav wrote:
| > I do. DIY on-site only system.
|
| Agreed, that's the only way to build a secure system. I have
| some outdoor cameras but they are on a physically separate
| network and can't talk to anything.
|
| Also, they are on ethernet but because they also support wifi I
| physically cut the antenna connections because I'm not about to
| trust the manufacturer of the camera to not try to exfiltrate
| something.
|
| But sadly this is, while not difficult, too much for the non-
| techie person to do. So people just buy Ring cameras with all
| the associated privacy problems.
|
| The worst is that while my system is secure, many of the
| surrounding neighbors have ring cameras outside so I can't
| protect from those!
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > physically cut the antenna connections because I'm not
| about to trust the manufacturer of the camera to not try to
| exfiltrate something
|
| This is not normal - there is no other industry where the
| customer routinely expects to be defrauded, and everyone to
| get away with it.
| lancesells wrote:
| I'm not sure if you're talking about the security products
| industry but I think of the "conncted" industry is this
| way. It makes me fairly uncomfortable knowing that every
| move I'm making, either online or offline, is being
| uploaded to some server. I stopped installing apps, I
| stopped signing up to things, I set up automations to turn
| wifi and bluetooth off as I leave the house.
| loeg wrote:
| Well, there's crypto.
| JohnFen wrote:
| It's the new normal, it seems. Same thing holds with the
| software industry.
| Ralo wrote:
| I host my own on-site and have had my security footage
| requested by police 4 different times. It's never a subpoena or
| demanding. Just some detectives will stop by and say they want
| to know which direction a vehicle went. They come inside, give
| me a USB stick and we copy it over.
|
| I'm sure I could tell them to kick rocks, and they would have
| to write up a subpoena but there's no reason to do that.
| iotku wrote:
| >I'm sure I could tell them to kick rocks, and they would
| have to write up a subpoena but there's no reason to do that
|
| Would they have the right to subpoena you though? Over mere
| suspicion that they think a vehicle at some point drove a
| certain direction?
|
| Sure if it was a case involving me personally I'd probably be
| cooperative, but I don't fancy the idea of just letting LEOs
| just waltz into my property to "just to take a look"
| Ralo wrote:
| Legally, I'm not sure. I could say they aren't working, or
| they're fake etc.
|
| My neighbor has fake cameras and he gets asked too but they
| just leave it at that and never press it.
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| Yeah I have zero issue doing this, it costs me nothing, and
| if it helps keep others accountable for their actions even
| better.
| hsbauauvhabzb wrote:
| I'm not saying don't help the police but I think it's worth
| acknowledging that point of view when applied en made is
| how we end up with policies attempting to back door
| encryption etc.
|
| I think making sure some decision basis should be applied
| (there was a break in, commotion, and a car speed chase
| which ended here is much different to 'we just wanna see if
| this car drove past')
| anonu wrote:
| Is there a home solution as easy as Nest or Ring and which
| offers the same feature set?
| bobleeswagger wrote:
| Frigate takes 5 minutes to setup and try. There's really no
| excuse these days but these companies will keep walling-up
| their gardens.
| jjeaff wrote:
| I use frigate and like it. But it did take me a few hours
| to figure out all the right config file settings for my 3
| cameras and then figure out how to configure storage
| settings and the like. And that's not counting the fact
| that I already have experience with docker and Linux
| systems and already had a running server with docker
| containers launched from a docker compose file. In other
| words, frigate is not for the 99%.
| giantg2 wrote:
| "Is there a home solution as easy as Nest or Ring and which
| offers the same feature set?"
|
| I highly doubt it, for the fact that many of the features are
| incompatible with the goal of privacy and convenience.
|
| There are plenty of on-site options that offer the bulk of
| the benefits, like self contained NVR systems. Once you want
| things like texts, web access, etc then it gets tricky. Those
| typically aren't offered in a secure _and easy_ way.
| hapticmonkey wrote:
| Apple HomeKit's secure video is end to end encrypted and very
| easy to set up. You need compatible devices though.
| gresrun wrote:
| UniFi Protect[0] is a decent on-prem solution and has all the
| main features of Nest/Ring. Certainly expensive though,
| minimal system for a doorbell cam is $199 for the camera[1] +
| $199 for the smallest NVR[2].
|
| [0]: https://ui.com/camera-security [1]:
| https://store.ui.com/collections/unifi-protect-
| cameras/produ... [2]: https://store.ui.com/collections/unifi-
| protect/products/unif...
| schwank wrote:
| I use UniFi devices throughout my home but the cameras (G3
| specifically) are buggy and frequently disconnect, and
| don't auto reconnect. Basically useless.
|
| Over the year end holidays I was traveling and set one up
| to monitor my front yard. There was actually an incident
| while I was gone and I remoted in to find the camera
| offline, totally missed it when it should have had perfect
| perspective. The police asked me for video and in this case
| I would have shared it, but alas could not. Sucks as I have
| the CloudKey box for video storage, but its very
| undependable in my experience.
| hot_gril wrote:
| What concerns me isn't so much that the camera was down
| but that you _didn 't know_ it was down. Does it not
| alert you of that?
| Axsuul wrote:
| Would you not recommend UniFi then? Will you be migrating
| to another system?
| zrail wrote:
| I have a smallish Protect system (UNVR, four G4 Pros, one
| doorbell, two G3 Instants).
|
| The positives are that it pretty much just works. The
| mobile app is excellent, the web app on the UNVR is fine,
| and it has full spousal approval factor.
|
| I have had very few issues with the system, primarily
| just the doorbell was unreliable until I upgraded the
| transformer and put an access point right next to it. I
| had an issue with the NVR right before it went out of
| warranty and I fixed it by replacing the internal USB
| drive with an SSD.
|
| The negatives are that it's more costly than other
| options, Ubiquiti has had perennial stock problems over
| the last few years, and you're locked into their
| ecosystem. The NVR won't work with generic cameras and
| you can't run the software on your own hardware.
|
| It's also possible that, if you have their remote access
| proxy set up (required for mobile app), you could be
| subject to the same warrant issues as with Ring.
| zrail wrote:
| This has not been my experience with mostly G4 pro
| hardwired PoE cameras. I have their G4 doorbell and did
| have similar problems until I upgraded its transformer
| and pointed an access point directly at it. Been smooth
| sailing ever since.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| This has been my experience. In a year of use I've had 0
| problems with PoE cameras and maybe 2-3 disconnects on
| the doorbell over wifi.
| surfsvammel wrote:
| That is not my experience with them at all. I have about
| 10 G3 cameras. They have never been any problem at all.
| Nothing.
|
| My cloud key however, have killed a couple of drives over
| the years though.
| alistairSH wrote:
| Aren't most of those PoE (the doorbell being the exception
| - appears powered by regular doorbell power supply)? So,
| you have to run cables to each camera. Not an easy
| undertaking for most.
| sirwally wrote:
| as easy as plug and play? not really. blueiris(windows) &
| securityspy(macOS) offer similar features, but it takes a bit
| of setup to add the cams via RTSP/ONVIF, configure storage
| and retention, configure monitoring schedules/alerts etc..
| WaitWaitWha wrote:
| > as easy
|
| This is a very subjective area. As I noted you can get all
| kinds of NVRs with notification and cameras, others have
| mentioned Ubiquiti, Roku is also getting into the home
| automation field, and of course there are open source
| solutions like Home Assistant.
| wara23arish wrote:
| Have any links related to what you're using and what to
| recommend?
| scrappyjoe wrote:
| When I went through this vueville had enough info for me to
| build an intuition for what to look for on Amazon.
|
| https://www.vueville.com/home-security/cctv/ip-
| cameras/ultim...
| jszymborski wrote:
| Reolink cameras are pretty affordable, can be accessed with
| ONVIF, and you can just put them on a VLAN/Firewall that has
| no internet access if you're afraid that it's phoning home.
|
| I have a Synology NAS and their free security camera software
| is pretty easy to set-up and use with ONVIF cameras.
| varenc wrote:
| If you want a really simple and cheap local storage camera,
| check out Wyze[0]. By "simple" I mean actually simple for
| non-techies. It's one of the very few consumer oriented
| options with support for local SD storage.
|
| By default it uploads short clips of motion to "the cloud"
| and requires an app + wifi for setup, but you can disable
| clip uploading after it's setup.
|
| If you don't trust it even with cloud uploading disabled, you
| can just deprive it of internet access once it's setup.
| (Block the device on your network, etc). It'll keep writing
| video to the SD card while offline. Though with the fully
| offline approach you'll need to physically take out the SD
| card to access the video instead of using their app.
|
| There's certainly better local storage options out there. But
| for local storage with a single camera it's the easiest and
| cheapest setup I know.
|
| [0] https://www.wyze.com/products/wyze-cam
| UberFly wrote:
| "you can deprive it of internet access".
|
| Very good advice when it comes to Wyze products. Sadly
| they're just the tip of the security/privacy nightmare
| iceberg.
| ortusdux wrote:
| POE cameras paired with either an NVR or custom server. I
| prefer wired cameras and local storage.
| jjeaff wrote:
| I am using Frigate. Simple, open source project. It streams
| the cameras and can do object and motion detection and only
| record for specific events (like motion). It allows me to set
| how long to keep the recordings. For any additional
| functionality, I have it integrated with my home assistant.
| giantg2 wrote:
| No actual links, but ReoLink PoE cameras, a miniPC, PoE
| switch, Zoneminder, 2TB SSD, external enclosure, and backup
| UPS.
| liotier wrote:
| A more contemporary alternative to ZoneMinder would be
| Shinobi: https://shinobi.video/
| tastysandwich wrote:
| How have you found Shinobi versus Zoneminder? I've been
| using ZoneMinder for years. It's a bit clunky but once
| it's set up it works fairly well, but I'd be open to
| switching to something better.
| didgetmaster wrote:
| Everyone seems to be accepting at face value the government's
| claim that they were investigating a real crime in the
| neighborhood and not specifically targeting this guy and using
| this as a lame excuse to spy on him.
|
| Given all the instances of government agencies abusing their
| power to target political enemies of the current administration;
| I wonder how reasonable such an assumption really is.
| [deleted]
| lrvick wrote:
| This is exactly why security footage will never be available in
| decrypted form except on hardware I own.
| bluGill wrote:
| If the courts find out you have the data they can demand you
| decrypt it, and send you to prison if you do not.
| [deleted]
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >If the courts find out you have the data they can demand you
| decrypt it, and send you to prison if you do not.
|
| If the courts decide there's _anything_ (physical or digital)
| law enforcement wants /needs, you have to turn it over or
| face jail[0][3] and/or fines. That's nothing new. Nor is it
| likely to change anytime soon.
|
| However, not being able to comply (e.g., you don't _actually_
| have such data) is a defense for contempt of court. As such,
| short-term retention policies and secure deletion methods
| would be preferred.
|
| Perhaps also with a 'canary'[2] as well, that will delete
| _all_ data if some key /setting/file isn't updated within a
| specific period of time. Unless one has been _ordered_ by the
| court (or some law on the books to retain data), this is
| perfectly legal.
|
| [0] Not prison. Contempt of court[1] means jail, not prison.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court#United_St
| ate...
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary -- Not
| exactly this (as it affects the retention/deletion of
| personal data rather than informing others of government
| involvement), but a similar idea.
|
| [3] https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/jail-vs-
| prison...
|
| Edit: Corrected punctuation.
| JohnFen wrote:
| This. My security system incudes video, but that video stays
| with me. It's not being managed by any third party service. If
| the police want it, they have to ask me for it directly -- they
| can't go to some company and bypass my protections.
| syntaxing wrote:
| I currently run frigate with Docker and the setup is pretty
| straightforward if you know how to modify YAMLs. Got rid of all
| my eufy stuff after the scandal. It's so nice to have an on
| premise system since you can set a camera VLAN to have no
| internet access. The tensorflow lite based detections is miles
| ahead of motion based detection too.
| oaththrowaway wrote:
| I'm also running Frigate and I've helped 2 other people set it
| up. Pretty slick if you have a Coral
| rex_gallorum2 wrote:
| Nobody seems to be asking whether/why you need cameras in the
| first place. The last thing I want is surveillance cameras in my
| living space, and the fact that other people have street facing
| cameras casting suspicion on people lawfully using public spaces
| really unnerves me.
|
| These companies are encouraging fear and paranoia to sell their
| products, and there is no guarantee using said products will
| deter criminals, or ensure that they are caught and punished even
| if you have clear video evidence.
|
| This whole camera craze is built on a bunch of hot air. Ditch the
| cameras and stop living in fear.
| icelancer wrote:
| > This whole camera craze is built on a bunch of hot air. Ditch
| the cameras and stop living in fear.
|
| Living in the inner city where property crime is rampant might
| make you change your mind. A dashcam was the star of a legal
| case I was in, and our outdoor cameras have caught multiple
| yard prowlers. Police don't do anything about it, of course,
| but at least I can notify my neighbors with actual evidence.
| rex_gallorum2 wrote:
| It might sound a little 'out there', but I can recommend
| keeping a couple of geese (if you have space in the city).
| They go absolutely nuts and honk like a car alarm if
| strangers come around.
| icelancer wrote:
| That would be far from the most ridiculous thing that
| happens in my neighborhood of Seattle. Although I am not
| sure that geese can be "kept" from my experiences with them
| both out here and in the Midwest...
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| I used to think the same thing until I caught a 40 year old man
| stalking my teen daughter and continually trying to peer into
| her bedroom windows on camera. So while it feels good to be
| ignorant, it doesn't make everything go away. Also, the people
| commiting crime seem the most concerned with people having
| cameras. Hmm, wonder why.
| [deleted]
| rex_gallorum2 wrote:
| The irony is that you wouldn't know if your neighbors were
| using their own cameras to observe your daughter. Or you for
| that matter.
| BeetleB wrote:
| Your use case would have been fine with external cameras,
| right?
|
| I believe that was the intent of the GP's question: Why have
| _indoor_ cameras?
| rex_gallorum2 wrote:
| The indoor camera thing is pretty freaky. Setting them up
| to keep an eye on things when you are gone would probably
| be a good idea - but all the time?
| Antelope13 wrote:
| We have a few rescue cats that each have... quirks. We
| have two indoor cameras set up in our basement: one on
| the feeding area, and one on the potty area.
|
| Sometimes they fight over food (automated feeder) and one
| doesn't get fed. But it's hard to tell if they're meowing
| at us because they were bullied out of food, or because
| they know we are softies and will feed them if they meow
| enough. We can check the feeder footage and see who got
| fed.
|
| One of them is potty-shy, and about once every 3-6 months
| stops using the litter box and starts using obscure
| corners of the basement until we can coax him back to
| using the litter box. We check the footage every couple
| days to make sure he's using litter boxes.
|
| For a software-oriented site, I'm baffled at how obtuse
| users can be. A lot of the negativity I'm seeing is along
| the lines of "I have no use for an indoor camera,
| therefor anyone who uses them is dumb." There are lots of
| legit uses (if you think about it for more than 2
| seconds), and not all of us want provide the police with
| indoor footage of our cats shitting.
| icelancer wrote:
| He specifically mentioned street facing cameras, so I don't
| think it's just indoor cameras.
| [deleted]
| ajross wrote:
| > Nobody seems to be asking whether/why you need cameras in the
| first place.
|
| Oh, come on. Go install a Nest or Ring for a week and see how
| much you come to rely on it. "Do I need to answer the door or
| is it just girl scouts selling cookies?" "Do I have time for
| coffee or should I head home to grab the package?" You can chat
| with the folks at the door! You can say thank you to the
| Grubhub driver as they drop the meal. You can see what the
| neighbor's cats are doing on your doorstep in the middle of the
| night. You can point one into your backyard trivially and see
| if it's the rabbits eating your leeks.
|
| I mean, no, you don't "need" this, just like you don't need a
| dishwasher. But don't pretend it's just about paranoia, it's a
| fun tool for the modern era.
| jabroni_salad wrote:
| The reason I run one is because of other people that have
| access to my living area, as in the landlord, maintenance guy,
| property management company etc. They seem to think that
| possession of a key entitles them to whatever they want.
|
| At multiple locations and every area of the price spectrum,
| from indies to bigcorps, I have had my rights and privacy
| violated. So I keep a camera so I can know about it.
|
| At 2 locations now I have used footage to break my lease early
| with zero penalty. Never got actual charges pressed against
| anyone but just with that it has paid for itself multiple times
| over.
| rex_gallorum2 wrote:
| That works! The other thing nobody talks about is how cameras
| can be used for blackmail or for leverage. It could be a
| matter of catching someone doing something out of line, or
| more sinister, extorting money from a cheating neighbor.
| These are some of the reasons I find ubiquitous camera
| surveillance so insidious. There is infinite potential for
| petty abuse and chicanery. In a residential setting, they
| give busybodies and petty rule enforcers a very powerful
| weapon.
| rex_gallorum2 wrote:
| I keep change in two (usually) unlocked cars as bait. If the
| change is gone, someone has been going through the cars. A
| while back the change was gone. If I had video footage of that,
| would the cops pursue the case? Hell no. If I received a
| notification from a camera/sensor, would I confront or possibly
| shoot (legal in this jurisdiction) a petty thief? Hell no.
| Anyone who is stealing loose change out of cars is desperate to
| the point that they do not care anymore.
|
| Around the time the bait disappeared, the police were pursuing
| a suspect from house to house at 2am. If it was the same
| person, and I had proof, stealing from parked cars would be the
| least of anyone's concern.
|
| What are the odds your local police are going to take your
| package theft footage and actually pursue the thief? Even for
| more serious crimes, it's questionable whether they will seek
| (or use) camera evidence, or be successful if they do. I know
| of an armed robbery attempt that occurred close to home, and to
| my knowledge no inquiries were made regarding camera evidence
| (I was a witness).
|
| I can think of plenty of concrete uses for surveillance
| cameras, sure, but I'd say the costs vastly outweigh the
| benefits for most people using them today.
|
| Check out some online social (fearmongering) sites like
| Nextdoor some time - it's nothing but busybodies speculating
| that the person parked on the street is casing their house or
| stealing packages. Quick, report them to the cops.
|
| Oops. The local cops no longer accept 'suspicious person or
| vehicle' reports unless there is a crime in progress.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| In your scenario, the costs seem to outweigh the benefits
| because police and/or the courts are dropping the ball on
| prosecuting thieves.
| WaitWaitWha wrote:
| If this is a concern for you, consider Home Assistant[0]. Near
| dummy proof (I am prime example), can bet set up to have zero
| third-party involvement. My properties are not locked into any
| ecosystem and I am able to do everything the closed commercial
| gardens offer.
|
| [0]: https://www.home-assistant.io/
| rconti wrote:
| From my skimming, the article doesn't explain why the police knew
| to ask for the footage.
|
| Did he volunteer it to them initially, or to someone else? Is he
| part of a ring neighborhood thing? (They have a function to offer
| to share footage with your neighbors). Or did the police simply
| throw out the dragnet and look to see if Ring had any customers
| in the area? I suspect it's one of the first two options.
|
| In such a case, you're better off not offering your information
| to begin with (unfortunately), and you'd likely be okay with a
| Ring as long as you didn't advertise its existence online. You'd
| be better off still with a non-cloud solution that, while subject
| to subpoena-or-something, flies under the radar even more.
| krupan wrote:
| Several people questioning why you'd have cameras inside your
| home. I have a story. A few years back I started discovering wet
| spots on the carpet around my house. It was pretty clearly urine.
| None if my kids would fess up to it, and they seemed sincere. I
| set up some cameras and eventually caught a sleepwalker. At least
| one of my kids would stand up, walk around the house for a bit,
| and take a leak like he thought he was in the bathroom, and have
| zero memory of it! It was kind of hilarious.
|
| Got the kid to a sleep doctor and cleaned (and eventually
| replaced) the carpet. Got rid of the cameras.
|
| It would have been embarrassing at least if anyone got that
| footage. Glad it was all local storage.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| What did the sleep doctor say? I used to sleep so deep that if
| I needed to go to the bathroom, in my dreams, a toilet will
| appear. Even in the middle of a jungle. Peed in a trash can one
| time. My solution was to just not drink anything in the hours
| before going to sleep.
| krupan wrote:
| Basically just told the kid to stop staying up so late
| reading Harry Potter. He said to try a regular sleep schedule
| with an early bedtime first, and if that didn't work to come
| back and there was some medication we could try. The regular
| sleep schedule seemed to fix it
| j45 wrote:
| The cloud is always someone else's computer.
|
| If you put something in someone else's desk drawer, is it really
| yours alone to access?
|
| Self hosting has become much easier than 10-20 years ago.
| anonym29 wrote:
| I wonder what happens if you have a DIY, FOSS, local setup with
| full disk encryption on the footage storage drive, and you simply
| refuse to give up your password for the footage.
|
| At least in some states1 in the USA, police cannot compel you to
| give up a password2.
|
| 1 https://www.reuters.com/business/legal/us-supreme-court-nixe...
|
| 2 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28955830
| dfxm12 wrote:
| Double check with a lawyer, but a web search suggests that at
| least in some jurisdictions, you can be held in civil contempt,
| for which you may be incarcerated for up to 18 months.
|
| https://goldsteinmehta.com/blog/limits-on-federal-civil-
| cont....
| anonym29 wrote:
| Absolutely. Even so, it used to be the case that judges could
| detain people this way indefinitely. Outside of the US, many
| countries offer no such legal protection at all, refusing to
| give up a password is itself a crime, in some cases with
| penalties exceeding the original charges.
|
| People should absolutely familiarize themselves with the laws
| surrounding this in their jurisdiction even if they're doing
| nothing wrong - legitimately forgetting a password and
| defiantly refusing to share it are often treated the same way
| by the criminal justice system.
| JohnFen wrote:
| In my state, you could be put in jail until you give up the
| password.
| duck0duck wrote:
| In my current work I develop software on this area. Kind of CCTV
| from scratch in .NET. We archive high performance using static
| FFmpeg libraries. Right now, because of currency exchange, I'm
| looking for a new job. ely at duck dot com
| caseysoftware wrote:
| Effectively anyone.
|
| Third Party Doctrine says that once you give your data to someone
| else, you lose most of your rights to privacy, control, etc. It's
| why law enforcement doesn't NEED a warrant to go after so many
| things like cell phone records, bank account info, and so much
| more. The fact that so many companies want a warrant is usually a
| courtesy, not a requirement.
|
| Check out the book "Habeas Data" for the (US) legal reasoning on
| it.
|
| And to be clear, I think Third Party Doctrine should be wiped out
| and I should be able to say "you can't use, sell, share, etc my
| data without EXPLICIT PRIOR permission from me."
|
| Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine
| nugget wrote:
| This is not as true as it used to be, at least in certain
| states.
|
| Under CCPA/CPRA in California, you can request that personal
| information is removed. There are half a dozen other laws
| around the US that allow for similar requests in different
| forms.
|
| Enforcement is still hit or miss. Lobbyists are starting to
| fight back against the most effective laws, for example:
|
| https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-opinion...
|
| I'm involved in the fight to strengthen and expand these laws,
| and overall I'm hopeful for the future.
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >Under CCPA/CPRA in California, you can request that personal
| information is removed. There are half a dozen other laws
| around the US that allow for similar requests in different
| forms.
|
| CCPA/CPRA is a _minor_ start, IMHO.
|
| Telecoms _need_ to collect and store usage information
| (including call detail) to perform billing functions.
|
| As with most such laws, there are loopholes big enough to
| drive a column of tanks through.
|
| And many other corporations collect and store data both for
| billing and _because they can_ [mine|analyse|sell] such data.
|
| Just being able to _request_ removal of "data" isn't nearly
| enough.
|
| Unless there are unambiguous opt- _in_ data collection
| /retention policies, with clear, concise language about how
| such data could be used.
|
| What's more, such policies should apply to any and all third
| parties providing services to corporations with such data.
|
| Further, as another comment[0] in this discussion pointed
| out, the Third-Party Doctrine should be gutted and a
| requirement that _all_ government agencies collect data _for
| law enforcement purposes_ through the issuance of warrants by
| judges that specify the "probable cause, supported by oath
| or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
| searched, and the persons or things to be seized."[1]
|
| This is (unfortunately) a wide-ranging issue, with a growing
| number of industries (autos, electronics, "cloud" services,
| etc., etc., etc.) collecting, storing, using and selling all
| sorts of PII.
|
| From a privacy perspective, this is a nightmare, the CCPA
| notwithstanding -- even in California.
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35073264
|
| [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment
| JohnFen wrote:
| > CCPA/CPRA is a minor start, IMHO.
|
| That's a real understatement. When I see how much effort is
| being put into neutering even the minor protections that
| has, I wonder how we'll ever get anything like reasonable
| protection.
| caseysoftware wrote:
| There are exceptions for LEO in each of the relevant laws -
| cited in the article - but thanks for fighting this battle.
|
| We didn't get this way overnight so while I'd love my idea to
| fly immediately, I appreciate people pushing things the right
| direction.
| nugget wrote:
| As a rule, if law enforcement has a warrant then it's going
| to be difficult to prevent them from gaining access. You
| can self-host and encrypt but that's difficult for
| mainstream users to do, and even for experts, it limits the
| tools you have access to. You can also be prosecuted for
| refusal to decrypt a device since SCOTUS hasn't yet ruled
| on the scope of the 5th amendment's protections with
| respect to encrypted personal devices.
|
| I think the best solution is to set content to auto-delete
| (unless flagged) after some period of time. You can't turn
| over what you don't have.
| giantg2 wrote:
| "I think the best solution is to set content to auto-
| delete (unless flagged) after some period of time."
|
| This is basically a necessity in on-site systems to free
| up space for additonal recordings anyways. Run a few
| cameras at decent resolution even at a fairly low
| framerate and you're looking at a couple TB per month.
| JohnFen wrote:
| Most systems (I think -- at least the ones I've seen) let
| you set it up so video is only recorded when the camera
| sees movement. Depending on what's in the field of view,
| that seriously cuts down on the memory requirement. Even
| inexpensive commercial systems will also allow you to
| specify areas in the field of view to ignore motion in,
| so that swaying trees and the like won't constantly
| trigger recording.
|
| I have three cameras recording at a decent resolution and
| framerate, and together, about two weeks of video takes
| up less than 32Gb, because most of the time nothing is
| moving in the fields of view.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > You can self-host and encrypt but that's difficult for
| mainstream users to do
|
| It's really not. You can buy off-the-shelf systems from
| Amazon right now for around $500 that your grandmother
| could set up and have running without difficulty.
|
| The real problem is the perception that this is a
| difficult thing for non-techy people to do.
| [deleted]
| caseysoftware wrote:
| Further..
|
| If the police get a warrant to search my home, they can see
| what I _HAVE_ in my physical possession at that moment not what
| I _DID_ have, have _DONE_ , or _SAID_.
|
| With video (or audio) data, someone could review every action,
| conversation, item, or facial expression my family has had
| within sight (or hearing) of the camera.
|
| When someone can construct a _complete_ record of everything
| that happened, it gets ripe for abuse.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I would have to ask why you have cameras recording inside the
| home when you're actively at home like this? Shouldn't the
| cameras only on when at night typical when you would arm the
| alarm type of situation?
| jjav wrote:
| > Third Party Doctrine says that once you give your data to
| someone else, you lose most of your rights to privacy, control,
| etc.
|
| This is what I wish more people could understand about "the
| cloud".
|
| The moment your private data is sent to a third party, it's
| game over in terms of having any privacy control on that data
| (unless it's encrypted with keys only you control and only you
| can ever access, but that's rare, intentionally).
|
| So many people will argue "Oh but I trust company Foo" without
| realizing that is completely irrelevant. Company Foo _might_ be
| trustworty, today. But management can change in the blink of an
| eye and they now still have your data. Or most importantly,
| regardless of how honorable management is, they can receive
| government orders (up to including NSLs) which force them to
| leak the data no matter what.
| anonymouse008 wrote:
| I wish the 2nd amendment movement had a sister group with the
| same vigor for the 4th amendment. What you proposed is the
| sensible legislation that we need to ensure our longevity as a
| "free society"
|
| One could almost say that aggressive opposition to this exposes
| a true tyrant.
| mywittyname wrote:
| There's a financial component to the 2A (and 1A) that doesn't
| really exist for the 4A. So the 4A will never have the same
| level of financial support as the other two.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Is that always going to be true though. As data becomes
| more valuable, being able to search&seize that data from
| anywhere anytime sure seems suspect to me.
| mrWiz wrote:
| Firearm manufacturers have a financial motivation to
| promote 2A rights. Who would have a financial motivation
| for 4A?
| giantg2 wrote:
| Interestingly enough that group does tends to advocate for
| 4th amendment protections, at least within limited scope.
| Although those same concepts and case law could be applied to
| other areas. So it's possible to piggyback off of it.
|
| Some examples are red flag laws which use the civil system to
| avoid the protections of the criminal system for the
| government to seize property (beyond a reasonable doubt,
| right to representation, ex parte protections, etc). Police
| stopping, questioning, and sometimes seizing guns (property)
| without any crime being committed and with some of those guns
| (property) being destroyed. There is of course pushback on
| things related to data reporting such as registries (Ring is
| essentially a registry that allowed police to contact the
| individual in this article), new credit card merchant codes,
| and data abuses of carry permit information (disclosing names
| and addresses of gun owner which is basically a map for
| thieves).
| dpkirchner wrote:
| I've never seen this, but I'll admit some ignorance. Have
| there been 2A-themed protests following 4A violations (as
| in, civil asset forfeitures of money, say), similar to
| those we see when the 2A is challenged in some way? Google
| searches show only passing references to the fourth
| amendment on the NRA site. It looks like most arguments
| against red flag laws rely on the 2A instead.
| icelancer wrote:
| 2A zealots tend to be very protective of their property
| being unlawfully searched or seized. The whole Sovereign
| Citizen movement is emblematic of the extremes in this
| regard, but it's absolutely true overall.
|
| As someone else said, though, the 4A doesn't really give
| companies and people much to sell to one another in that
| section of society. They would seriously benefit from
| password safety products, better choice of hardware, and
| full-disk encryption, but this group doesn't tend to have
| a lot of electronics technical chops.
|
| I say this as someone who recreationally shoots long arms
| and works in a tech/science field. The Venn diagram
| hardly overlaps. Which is a shame for both sides, I
| think.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Yeah, like I said, it's usually within the limited scope
| of 2A issues, but could be expanded to other areas. The
| red flag laws are something that hasn't been addressed.
| The thing about that is you can effectively circumvent
| the 4th amendment by going through the civil court since
| the protections are so much more limited. That's why TX
| wanted that civil abortion law and CA wanted to copy it
| for guns. No reason that can't be expanded to immediately
| sieze other property without a crime unless the
| protections are expanded. There are some limits to it's
| application to civil assest forfeiture since most
| firearms generally have a paper trail to prove ownership.
|
| One of the big problems is that many of the coverage of
| the cases focuses on 2A and the 4A part gets hidden. Of
| course that makes for a bigger headline for the involved
| groups. Or they can be in specific industries that a
| normal person doesn't care about (FFL blanket record
| copies).
|
| Recent case with more prominent 4th amendment angle.
| https://crescentcitytimes.com/supreme-court-sides-with-
| goa-i...
|
| General stuff about searches.
| https://jslawgroup.com/fourth-amendment-gun-rights/
|
| ATF has been performing entire book copies when they're
| only supposed to copy data related to specific
| guns/individuals related to a crime or error.
|
| https://fflconsultinggroup.com/firearms-record-books-atf-
| for...
| dpkirchner wrote:
| > One of the big problems is that many of the coverage of
| the cases focuses on 2A and the 4A part gets hidden.
|
| The cynic in me thinks that the 2A gets more press
| because it's easy to find commercial and foreign
| government support for their organizations. 4A proponents
| don't have much if anything to sell.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > Third Party Doctrine says that once you give your data to
| someone else, you lose most of your rights to privacy, control,
| etc.
|
| It's useful to think of this not as you losing your rights, but
| you transferring your rights to that third party. The end
| result is the same, but that emphasizes that someone else has
| gained what you lost.
| giantg2 wrote:
| The real issue is that the vendors don't care.
|
| If they did, they could set it up like AWS where you hit a
| button to spin up a pre-configured image that is considered
| yours. They don't want to do it this way because they want your
| data.
|
| Also whether they need a warrant or not seems to be moot since
| it seems the judges are more than willing to sign them. We
| would also have to address the lax views on "probable cause"
| that seem to be rampant with warrant approval.
| austinkhale wrote:
| I've been using UniFi cameras for a couple of years now, writing
| to a local SSD (~ 40 days of storage), stored in a UDMPro.
|
| The initial outlay is a bit more expensive but the setup is rock
| solid, provides tons of network analytics, has smart lights
| paired next to the cameras, and continues to work even when my
| ISP has issues. I've _voluntarily_ given footage to the police a
| couple of times but it feels much better when the entire system
| is within my control, sitting in my office.
| nmilo wrote:
| Couldn't the police in theory get a warrant for the footage on
| your SSDs? The problem with Ring is that they give data to
| police without warrants, but in this case the problem seems to
| be the over-invasion of privacy of the warrant system.
| tptacek wrote:
| They absolutely can and, in the era before widespread cloud
| cameras, routinely did.
| pc86 wrote:
| IANAL but the short answer is yes. Slightly longest answer is
| probably, but they'd have to convince a judge that _this_
| camera has something worthwhile compared to any other cameras
| on that street. Somewhat paradoxically the more of your
| neighbors have things like Ring the "safer" you are from
| something like this.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| To be clear, you're safer from being the one to give up
| footage, but you're not "safer". You have a street filled
| with cameras, and implicitly with this argument, it's easy
| for the police to gain access to some of the cameras. So
| all you gain is not being the directly invaded privacy
| wise, but you'll already have lost since being filmed all
| the time anyways.
| pc86 wrote:
| Yes I just meant "safer" in the "having to give the
| police _your_ data " sense and not any other (more
| important) ones.
| pjdesno wrote:
| IANAL, but it seems that would require the equivalent of a
| warrant to search your house. (among other things, they would
| need to actually get physical possession of your SSDs for the
| key to be useful, so they'd need a warrant for an actual
| physical search)
|
| If judges in your area are giving those out like candy then
| you've got a problem, whether you have security cameras or
| not.
| teachrdan wrote:
| If the police aren't going into your home to seize your hard
| drive, it might be a subpoena, rather than a warrant. The
| advantage here is that you can fight it. For the subject of
| this story, he likely could have fought to only turn over
| footage of the outside of his home -- not the footage from
| inside his home and store.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpoena_duces_tecum
| bluGill wrote:
| Note that as soon as the police inform you they are seeking
| data you have to ensure you preserve it. That may mean you
| have to buy additional storage while you fight it. If the
| police lose the case but can prove that the data expired
| before they lost they can then get you for deleting the
| data!
| dylan604 wrote:
| Not just the police. It can be for any law suit. I had to
| help someone that was in a legal battle with a
| construction company, and they had cameras showing the
| hours the work was being done including while the site
| was red tagged. I had to download the footage to external
| drives while they were away on vacation to ensure the
| copies were preserved before the system rolled over the
| older data. Once the lawyers knew the cameras existed,
| they issued the order and it became a nightmare ever
| since. I'm sure the expense of all of those drives was a
| rounding error in the overall cost of the case, but it's
| just another one of those things that stuck with me on
| the vindictiveness of an opposing counsel and the games
| they are allowed to play.
| noodlesUK wrote:
| I'm curious. Do you currently have Unifi remote access [1]
| enabled, or is any remote access done through a VPN that you
| control? I suspect that if a law enforcement agency were
| sufficiently determined, they could convince Ubiquiti to give
| them access to your system if you had remote access turned on.
| Whether this is realistic depends on your threat model.
|
| [1] https://help.ui.com/hc/en-us/articles/115012240067-UniFi-
| Net...
| jaywalk wrote:
| With a security-minded setup, Ubiquiti would not be able to
| grant remote access. Whether they actually have a security-
| minded setup or not is the question. As a user of their
| stuff, I have remote access disabled. I can access everything
| I need through Home Assistant, which is completely controlled
| by me.
| bigfatfrock wrote:
| Great to know, as a fellow UDM owner I was ironically working
| on making the switch from a NetGear camera setup a week ago
| because of their awful option sets and related interface, their
| increasing cloud pricing, and finally and most importantly what
| happened in the OP.
| izacus wrote:
| You can get by much cheaper as well - e.g. occasionally I use
| TP-Link Tapo cameras which record to internal SD card and can
| also stream to Synology NAS Surveillance Station software (all
| local).
|
| I'm a bit miffed that the app is trying to sell cloud storage,
| but for now a full cheap local setup is still possible.
|
| (For a serious setup I'd of course opt for something more
| serious).
| ww520 wrote:
| Does Synology NAS have a mobile app that can view the
| recordings?
|
| Also what are some good 4k Wi-Fi cameras that work with
| Synology?
| Eumenes wrote:
| Are the UniFi cameras just IP but use PoE?
| Wistar wrote:
| Yes.
| czbond wrote:
| Anyone recommend a UniFi specific model? (ideally non-wired)
| jaywalk wrote:
| The Flex models (G3 and G4) are the only non-wired cameras
| they offer.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-03-08 23:00 UTC)