This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
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.
IR LEDs don't work on these like with some CCTV cameras, right?
At close range they'll blind them, but the tech is getting better these days.
What knocks out the camera is the auto exposure, they used to just take the whole sensors input, average it and set the brightness against that value. A lot of the newer surveillance cameras will just ignore the overall and compensate pixel per pixel.
Project farm looked at a bunch
I think the better question is why they didn't do it sooner
It would be good if they had a way to limit range so it couldn't focus on anything that isn't within 10 ft of the door.
There's no focus on my cameras, but they're set not to detect people unless them come into zones near the house.
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 is 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.
Print out a image of your asshole, though I suppose it could be anyone's, and tape it to the front of the camera, then poke a needle through the microphone.
Or you know... Just 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 and I don't believe for a minute that the fact that a warrant is required would make police actually get one before taking the card.
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.
encryption wouldn't solve the problem, just raise more questions. how is it encrypted, with what algorithm? was the alg implemented securely? who has the decryption keys? how were the keys generated? were they generated from a good enough entropy source? these are non-trivial questions that have to be asked in an encrypted system where encryption is not just a gimmick or a marketing buzzword.
having encryption and "secure!" plastered all over the box and the phone app does not mean anything, especially when you need protection against the manufacturer.
Just to note here, they are referring to nest which is google.
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)
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?
Will be using Unifi cameras when I get around to installing them in my home.
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 of 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 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.
