A Super Bowl ad for Ring security cameras boasting how the company can scan neighborhoods for missing dogs has prompted some customers to remove or even destroy their cameras.
Online, videos of people removing or destroying their Ring cameras have gone viral. One video posted by Seattle-based artist Maggie Butler shows her pulling off her porch-facing camera and flipping it the middle finger.
Butler explained that she originally bought the camera to protect against package thefts, but decided the pet-tracking system raised too many concerns about government access to data.
“They aren’t just tracking lost dogs, they’re tracking you and your neighbors,” Butler said in the video that has more than 3.2 million views.
the problem with these fucking things is that you can’t really opt out. even if you don’t buy your own, some neighbours will happily buy and install the big brother to watch you from their porch and there is very little you can do about it.
same as you can’t really escape the google, even if you don’t use single one of their service, there is always the other part to any communication you are having…
Exactly. I never used Gemini or gave sensitive information/photos to major AI companies, but my family has, including photos of me.
I hope what really gets people to pay attention is how the FBI said they searched that news ladies’ moms’ ring camera footage even though she didn’t have an active subscription.
My wife and I recently moved to a home with ring cameras preinstalled, but no subscription of course. We can only access a live feed via the cloud service. I told my wife, I don’t think it matters whether we have a subscription or not… if they want to use the footage from our home cameras for any reason at all, it’s in their power to do so. They can save it, scan it, watch it, … they don’t even need to save the video, they can save results from a scan to get out the important details more efficiently.
My wife didn’t want to hear it. She said we aren’t paying them, so there’s nothing they can do. Then this news story dropped about Google Nest. I showed my wife. We no longer have the ring cameras.
I wonder if removing the cameras is the best move.
It might be better to let them run but have them watching a TV streaming Disney movies.
Then drop the dime to Disney that they are copying their IP.
Copyright theft isn’t only an issue for the poor.
Have you been in a cave where AI doesn’t exist, or…?
I’m half curious if I cut open the box… you think there’d be an easy way to replace the camera with a video stream of my choosing? Because I wouldn’t mind cutting out the camera and leaving the device plugged into my PC for a constant headless stream of video content.
Just print out a image of your asshole and tape it to the front of the nest, and poke a needle through the microphone.
Or you know… Unplug it.
The subscription is ostensibly to cover the cost of bandwidth. But of course they’re uploading anyway…
It was a NEST camera from Google, which is only a meaningful distinction because it means they ALL do this shit.
The only ones that don’t are ones that only send data to your data storage.
And even then, big question mark, as most Chinese produced camera modules have black box firmware. If it’s on the Internet it’s not yours.
My cameras have local network access only. Most people who are tech savvy enough to set up their own storage are also able to block Internet access for security cameras.
But another big concern for externally mounted cameras with microsd cards is the confiscation of those cards. They are are very easy to remove, often without tools.
Which cameras do you use?
TP-Link (which are cheap but so unreliable I had to add smart switches to reset them when they stop working), Foscam and Dahua. Duhua is by far the best. All of them record to a local server running Home Assistant and Frigate.
And the NEST camera apparently has some sort of free tier that saves a short amount (the last few hours) of video by default, so NEST users shouldn’t be surprised at all that their video feed is sent to the cloud as its one of the features of the subscription-less model.
The problem isn’t that it’s being sent to the cloud, the problem is that it’s not being encrypted and Amazon is doing whatever they fuck they want with it, including giving it to law enforcement without a warrant.
Just to note here, they are referring to nest which is google.
A big exception to the rule are the HomeKit secure video cameras that work in Apple’s ecosystem. If your HomeKit compatible camera is going straight into HKSV, and isn’t paired with manufacturer’s own cloud video service, then it’s all E2EE and it can’t be accessed by Apple, even with a warrant.
Problem is, camera offerings are limited, and scrolling clips in HomeKit is paaaainful. Also, if you’re not in Apple’s ecosystem, you can’t use it.
Can’t you get a surveillance camera from anywhere and use that?
They’re pointing out that HomeKit cameras are specifically end to end encrypted and claimed inaccessible. Apple has really been pushing online privacy as a feature
You can get a camera from anywhere and either use it locally only or implement your own encryption before saving to a cloud resource if you can get one with any expectation of privacy. But you have to do all the work and it is never end to end encrypted
Depends on your precise definition of the camera “end” I suppose, but an IP camera absolutely can be and should be end to end encrypted. Even if the camera itself does not support native encryption, at worst the aggregation point/server should. Really, surveillance cameras should be on their own dedicated private IP network anyway, ideally with physical isolation on any wired connections. Besides a physical, on-site attack (which is what the cameras are for!) there really should not be any plausible method of an outside attacker breaching into the non-encrypted part of the network at all.
And that’s the worst case, real-world scenario. Quite a few cameras do in fact support on-device encryption now so “never” is still definitely incorrect. You do have to do the work though. That’s how good security works, it doesn’t come in a box as much as many wish it would and even if it does it’s never one-size-fits-all.
Initially, NBC Nightly News (Savannah Guthrie’s network) stated that Ring cameras could only record 4-6 hours before the footage would start to rewrite over itself. Yet being able to uncover what they did after the fact seems hella sketchy.
Not at all, that’s tons of time.
That was a nest and I don’t know about them, but for Ring they store snippets activated by motion or ringing the bell. Once you’re only saving snippets, 4-6 hours video could be weeks
Ring can also save snapshots, at regular intervals, but that’s a still photo taking much less storage.
I used to have a nest doorbell. You can set it to record continuously, just FYI.
E: that will also require a subscription, which includes 60 days of saved footage (and other stuff)
Yet being able to uncover what they did after the fact seems hella sketchy.
Not really if you know how this kind of computing/information technology works.
A file consists of the data itself, and a pointer to the data location on the storage device or index record. When the computer wants to retrieve the data, it looks at the index to get the data location, then goes to that location to get the data. This is how the majority of computers/devices work. When a file is “deleted” the index is usually the only thing that goes away, not the data itself. Over the course of time, the data is eventually overwritten as its in areas marked as “free space”. So other new files will occupy some or all of that space changing it to hold the new file data.
If you want to get rid of the data itself, that is usually considered “purge” where the data is intentionally overwritten with something else to make the data irretrievable.
What the Google engineers were able to do was essentially go through all the areas marked as “free space” across dozens (hundreds?) of cloud servers that hold customer Nest camera data and try to find any parts that hadn’t been overwritten yet by new data. This is probably part of why it took so long to produce the video. Its like sorting through a giant dumpster to find an accidentally discarded wedding ring.
Will be using Unifi cameras when I get around to installing them in my home.
If your stupid gadget needs a separate proprietary app that demands internet access, anticipate that all data is shared for all kinds of shady business.
Not always the case. Some cameras require a proprietary app for set up but can then be set to stream to a local server. Internet access can then be completely blocked with router settings.
Still, would you really want that? A half-baked device in your network, a device you suspect would constantly betray you, if given the chance?
I personally can’t imagine getting used to that. I’d despise the device (and myself probably).
It’s pretty trivial to block devices from accessing the Internet.
I have absolutely no problem using these kinds of devices.
I have an old phone and a generic Play account that I used for setup so the companies have nothing of consequence but my public IP address. Setup takes less than 15 minutes and after that all Internet access is completely blocked just like it would be if I unplugged my cable modem. There is no way for the cameras to override my router settings.
My smart TV is much more of a concern.
So, what security cameras would you use or are you just back seat driving without a good suggestion?
It is baffling that people hadn’t clued in about this sooner
Either they are ignorant or choosing convenience over security.
Don’t worry, the majority of Ring owners still haven’t.
People still love Chrome, even though tech reviewers told us exactly how creepy that browser is. That info has been publicly available since day one.
Same story with Facebook, but somehow that syphilis If the web is still alive. I have no idea what these people are thinking.
For anyone who has a Ring camera, wants to get rid of it, but still wants a doorbell camera for security/convenience reasons, I’ll point out that Ecobee has a fairly good rating on Mozilla’s Privacy Not Included page where they review products for their privacy.
E2EE transmission of video from the camera to your phone when streaming, on-device processing of video feeds, auto-deletes any cloud footage when people uninstall the app (so non-technical users who think uninstalling an app deletes their data will actually get that benefit), only saves clips when actual motion is detected, first line of their privacy policy is “Your personal information and data belong to you”, and their subscription is 100% optional.
Only real privacy concern is that if you choose to integrate yours with Alexa, it might get some data from that, but that’s optional. The main downside is just that they only have a wired option for outdoor setups, but they do have an indoor one that doesn’t require any kind of hookup directly into wires in your wall.
As always though, if you have the technical ability to set something up yourself that runs only on your local network, do it.
the other day I heard someone make the point that Amazon is just a more successful Palinteer
I remembee reading they are building a mesh network using all of their devices
Like Apple? Not trying to sound snarky, but they wouldn’t be the first or only ones.
I mean, they have cams around the world, many people address, many other personal data, AWS…
I wouldn’t say that much more but still
I chose Reolink. AFAICT it’s not leaking anything outside my network and it’s fairly inexpensive. Not as cheap as the subsidized Ring brand but hey, at least I own them.
I’ve got a few Reolinks. I have them set to record to a local SD card and have blocked outside internet so that they’re not phoning home.
I have a reolink that I use as a baby monitor. It’s on our wifi but I set up my router to prevent it from accessing the internet. So you can only access it if you’re phone is on the wifi. And it records onto an SD card.
I’ve been worried about security, and therefore haven’t even researched the options. I’d like to have one, but I don’t want people able to see what’s happening without me allowing it for specific footage. Only guaranteed way was to just not have any. I could do local only, but there is less utility with that. So, it wasn’t worth the effort and cost.
I have my reolink cameras setup on an internal network without direct internet access, but have a server running Frigate and a VPN that I can remote into from my phone. Gives me full control of where the recordings are backed up and remote access controls. This setup works for their doorbells too which is neat.
PoE, no wifi for me. The DVR is in the rack, I keep meaning to back it up to a cloud account of some sort but haven’t gotten around to it so if you break into my house and steal the NVR I won’t have a record of you being there.
I have my security alerts sent to Telegram from Frigate just so it’s in another location for that reason.
I have a QNAP. Free dvr software. I buy cheap rtsp-capable cameras and roll my own.
I can confirm, people are destroying their cameras. Dozens of them!
ten tears too late
The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now.
I feel like the second best time is 19 years ago
Nuh-uh, it was 19 years, 364 days, 23hours, 59 minutes ago!
I also completely missed the point of the saying, why do you ask?
I don’t know if time is discrete, so I can’t give a correct answer, but I think that is too late as well.
Switched to Logitech a while back. Uses iCloud encrypted storage.
the few that do this are the smart ones. I fear the ignorant/dumb wont follow when this story eventually dies
I mean it is even a major plot point of Weapons.
Question is why they bought a Ring camera in the first place?
There is no way they can have been unaware that these gadgets can be accessed from outside.
But it was only when the evidence was put right in their face they finally connected the dots?So my answer is quite simple: Because they are stupid, and bought a sleazy product from a known sleazy company, and when they found out it was in fact as sleazy as could be expected, they figured that maybe they didn’t want to to be voluntarily surveilled anyway.
Question is why they bought a Ring camera in the first place?
Probably because of marketing.
There is no way they can have been unaware that these gadgets can be accessed from outside.
(1) Clearly you’ve not talked to enough people outside the privacy-aware community. Absolutely they can have been unaware of that.
(2) They may well have known, but not known the scope, or not cared. If you’re having trouble with (for instance) porch pirates, you might not care about the privacy ramifications.
But it was only when the evidence was put right in their face they finally connected the dots?
Yes. When you don’t live and breathe this stuff, a lot of times that’s what it takes.
My mom used to use the same password for every service. It was a ten-letter password that she came up with in 1999, and she essentially never deviated from it; until I typed it in for her on haveibeenpwned and showed how many times it had been leaked. People who don’t care about privacy won’t care until they’re shown how it actually affects them.
So my answer is quite simple: Because they are stupid,
Profoundly uncharitable read on the situation. Are you “stupid” if you don’t know what you don’t know? We don’t have classes about this sort of thing in high school or anything. There are billions of dollars going toward telling people that sleazy products are actually great and companies actually care about their well-being, and only neckbeards like us on Lemmy spending $0 to tell them the opposite. If they’re not watching tech news because the regular news is too much, or because they have jobs and families and hobbies, or because they don’t know how to process or parse it, or just because they’re not interested and have never been convinced that they should be, they aren’t stupid, just propagandized.
and bought a sleazy product from a known sleazy company,
First of all, “sleazy” is a perfect word for this, and thank you for using it.
But second, keep in mind that for a lot of people, most companies are still responsible members of society; “pillars of the community,” and generally worthy of trust. It’s not because they’re dumb, it’s because they’ve been propagandized into believing it.
and when they found out it was in fact as sleazy as could be expected, they figured that maybe they didn’t want to to be voluntarily surveilled anyway.
People are waking up to the reality of big tech “convenience.” That’s a good thing. Don’t shoot at them for coming to their senses.
Thank you for bringing the detail and tone I was going to type. You covered so many good points. It’s nice to see someone outside the tech-heavy, privacy-hyperaware echo chamber.
But second, keep in mind that for a lot of people, most companies are still responsible members of society; “pillars of the community,” and generally worthy of trust. It’s not because they’re dumb, it’s because they’ve been propagandized into believing it.
Oh boy that is so true, I was laughing my ass off during the financial crisis about how people were shocked that banks are businesses trying to maximize profits like any other business.
They genuinely thought that banks were some sort of community institution that existed to help people with their finances, and not businesses that are selling products to make money.
Still even if people are so ignorant that they are unaware of privacy issues, they have chosen to be willfully ignorant, because this issue has been talked about non stop for decades. For nothing to sieve in at some point, you have to be a special kind of willfully ignorant.
Even people that are very low information on technology, know that the Internet is a source of potential surveillance, and having your info on the internet in any form is a potential for being surveilled. Everybody knows that all the big IT companies are trying to gather as much information as they can. And Amazon is right at the top among them.
So to claim they were ignorant of Amazon possibly collecting and sharing their data is a bit far fetched IMO.For the banks, the two biggest ones in germany were in fact exactly this: community owned and with supporting local residence and businesses in mind.
I think the better question is why they didn’t do it sooner
