this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2026
508 points (99.6% liked)

Technology

81078 readers
4180 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] mlg@lemmy.world 15 points 55 minutes ago (1 children)

My personal choice for security stuff is ubiquiti, but I'm sure someone here can find a super cheap doorbell camera that saves to an SD card and accomplishes the same thing.

I'm really glad people didn't just fall over for this ad, and connected the dots on what Amazon is doing

[–] AspieEgg@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 31 minutes ago (1 children)

Reolink doorbell cameras don’t need to be connected to the cloud. They can record to an SD card or upload to an FTP server. You can connect to them with RTSP and run your own NVR if you want too.

[–] Bongles@lemmy.zip 1 points 22 minutes ago (1 children)

Hmm yes, I understand some of these acronyms. /s

[–] AspieEgg@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 18 minutes ago* (last edited 17 minutes ago)

SD - Secure Digital (memory card you’d use for most things)

FTP - File Transfer Protocol (a way to upload files to a server)

RTSP - Real Time Streaming Protocol (a way to stream video)

NVR - Network Video Recorder (a device that records video)

[–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 51 points 3 hours ago (3 children)

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...

[–] jambudz@lemmy.zip 5 points 49 minutes ago (1 children)

Break it. Do crime. Do it.

[–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 0 points 4 minutes ago (1 children)

break it and be recorded on their camera breaking it. that will end well.

[–] jambudz@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 minutes ago

You can’t put a mask on and cover your distinguishing features? Weak

[–] ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online 16 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Exactly. I never used Gemini or gave sensitive information/photos to major AI companies, but my family has, including photos of me.

[–] Pupscent@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 hour ago

I've never had a Facebook account. I've always hated when people posted pictures I was in and said who I was.

[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

IR LEDs don't work on these like with some CCTV cameras, right?

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 hours ago

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

https://youtu.be/j0GZKXWf3vg?t=749

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago (4 children)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] teft@piefed.social 218 points 5 hours ago (7 children)

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.

[–] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip 28 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 1 points 59 minutes ago (2 children)

Theoretically they wouldn't have internet access if a previous occupant set them up unless one of your neighbors has an unsecured AP. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you and you're saying you set them up on your wireless network after you moved in. Still a good move to get rid of them but I wouldn't be as concerned about them if the only AP they were set up to use was no longer present.

[–] wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 54 minutes ago

Nope. Ring cameras are part of Amazon Sidewalk which is effectively an automatic, invisible, and not end-user-controllable wireless mesh network "meant to keep devices working during wifi outages" or in other words to ensure the data makes it back to the cloud at any cost.

Their are more and more device manufacturers starting to use techniques like this to ensure connection regardless of owner intent.

[–] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip 1 points 34 minutes ago

Interesting, I didn’t think about that nor did I know about the mesh network someone else mentioned in a reply to you. In my case, I’m renting the home. The landlord pays for a very small internet package that is reserved for the cameras. He stopped paying for the subscription at some point but he still pays for the Internet it connects to, which is how we were able to access live footage in the past.

When I said “we no longer have the ring camera.” More accurately I could have said “we stopped charging it.” The landlord would probably have a minor aneurism if we tried explaining why we want to replace the camera he mounted a case for into the stucko by the front door.

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 3 hours ago (4 children)

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.

[–] Rooster326@programming.dev 12 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Copyright theft is only an issue for the poor.

Have you been in a cave where AI doesn't exist, or....?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 6 points 2 hours ago

The subscription is ostensibly to cover the cost of bandwidth. But of course they're uploading anyway…

[–] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social 149 points 5 hours ago (11 children)

It was a NEST camera from Google, which is only a meaningful distinction because it means they ALL do this shit.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 35 points 5 hours ago (6 children)

The only ones that don't are ones that only send data to your data storage.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] dukemirage@lemmy.world 82 points 5 hours ago (6 children)

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.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] DaddleDew@lemmy.world 50 points 5 hours ago (3 children)

It is baffling that people hadn't clued in about this sooner

[–] turboSnail@piefed.europe.pub 6 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

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.

[–] treadful@lemmy.zip 35 points 5 hours ago

Don't worry, the majority of Ring owners still haven't.

[–] dan1101@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago

Either they are ignorant or choosing convenience over security.

[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

I think the better question is why they didn't do it sooner

[–] AmbitiousProcess@piefed.social 16 points 4 hours ago

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.

load more comments
view more: next ›