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.
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
how the company can scan neighborhoods for missing dogs
Hilarious. Thanks for making me laugh.
Data privacy starts at home. From the onset, I was suspicious of my data in the ring camera or ring cloud; my old mechanical bell rules.
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…
Break it. Do crime. Do it.
break it and be recorded on their camera breaking it. that will end well.
Tell me without telling me that you’ve never needed the police to do anything useful.
You can’t put a mask on and cover your distinguishing features? Weak
Exactly. I never used Gemini or gave sensitive information/photos to major AI companies, but my family has, including photos of me.
I’ve never had a Facebook account. I’ve always hated when people posted pictures I was in and said who I was.
Meta algorithms have ghost profiles, including dead people or babies not yet born
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 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.
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.
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.
I can’t say that’s surprising but I have only heard of smart TVs having been confirmed to do that
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.
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.
unplug what? his asshole?
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.
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. Dahua is by far the best. All of them record to a local server running Home Assistant and Frigate.
TP-Link
I hope its not one of the 32 TP-Link cameras that have unpatched auth flaws allowing malicious actors to reset the admin credentials in them.. This is a local exploit, so you’re probably okay, but these exploits could be used in concert with others to compromise your security/privacy.
I really need to set up frigate. Been procrastinating for months 😐
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.
When people in a Lemmy technology community say “encryption” it should be obvious we’re referring to effective encryption, not a marketing claim on a product box.
yes, that would be ideal, but at any point in time we will have newcomers, for them it won’t be obvious
Your prior comment was for newcomers?
"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? "
This was obviously written for people with quite a bit of knowledge. Most newcomers would have absolutely no idea what any of it means.
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
The subscription is ostensibly to cover the cost of bandwidth. But of course they’re uploading anyway…
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.
Because they’re wiretaps. Insane that it took this long for people to understand this.
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.
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).
So, what security cameras would you use or are you just back seat driving without a good suggestion?
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.
It is baffling that people hadn’t clued in about this sooner
Don’t worry, the majority of Ring owners still haven’t.
Either they are ignorant or choosing convenience over security.
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.
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.
Put your reolink in privacy mode so it wont contact the reolink servers. Then set up Frigate to record a week of data. You dont need much space for 7 days of a couple of cameras.
I have their NVR and yeah, it’s all in privacy mode.
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.
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.
ten years too late
I think the better question is why they didn’t do it sooner
the few that do this are the smart ones. I fear the ignorant/dumb wont follow when this story eventually dies
