all 90 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 149 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Any time someone says an ultra cheap monitoring device is subscription free I just picture an odd man running a curio shop telling me his wares don't cost money

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The actual hardware cost of these devices is actually minimal. Basically any wifi capable microcontroller, a camera and depending on implementation some storage (or a micro sd-card holder). So that price is only cheap in comparison to existing products.

    For reference, said microcontroller with basic camera can be had for like 3$ or something.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Retail pricing dictates a $3 component cost is $12. And that $3 would have to include packaging and assembly costs. And the plastic case and button. £17 is tough to hit with all that, especially if there is an SD card included or any software development to ensure any kind of security.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 110 points 1 year ago (25 children)

    ...and do they sell data, including video, to law enforcement and insurance?

    Sincerely, A person who recently was in a fender bender and was not surprised at all when Progressive shared "incident footage" from a Ring camera across the street at a location completely unrelated to the fender bender

    (They ARE selling your data, folks. NEVER trust big tech to act in your best interest)

  • source
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I stopped my Ring subscription but kept the doorbell camera.

    It wasn't until a year later when I was moving and the house was almost completely empty (still had internet/wifi setup) and I looked at the wifi app and saw that the ring doorbell still had significant data usage.

    They were clearly still capturing my doorbell video.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -13 points 1 year ago* (22 children)

    Umm… that could have just been the other driver asking the person for their footage from the camera they saw.

    Not everything is a conspiracy dude, that’s commonly done after any incident lmfao.

    I have cameras and plenty of people have asked me for random footage for thefts and collisions, none being a company or insurance, always the person affected…

    Edit, sorry I guess once the police did, but still there’s nothing odd or weird about what happened to you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago (21 children)

    Except it literally is a conspiracy (An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.) and actually happening. Debatably it's legal, rightful, and not subversive. I think most people would disagree though. It's not like people are just guessing this is happening. We know the data is being sold, to the police/government, and presumably also to other companies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago* (19 children)

    In this case, it might not involve the surveillance company selling or sharing anything. All an insurance adjuster has to do is knock on doors in the area and ask the home owners if they are willing to share any video footage they have.

    And yes, people do this all the time. I work in this industry.

    I really hate to stand on the side of the data hoarding conglomerates, but there's a significant chance they were not involved in the release of that video.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (18 children)

    Just to be clear in most places it’s not legal to have a video camera pointed at the street (or your neighbors’ houses). Not that this has been enforced at all. But if somebody wanted to pursue you legally for that they could.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (17 children)

    What places?

    Usually it’s a misinterpretation of the law, they are not meant to interfere with security and law enforcement. There’s always exceptions, usually it’s how they trigger or store the data. If it’s automatically wiped, usually no laws have been broken for example.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Don't know about most places but regarding Germany, OP is correct. It's verboten to film property of neighbours, public places or places shared with neighbours with your statically installed surveillance camera. You have to get consent of filming neighbours and you have to put up signs informing persons like delivery drivers that they're getting filmed. That's what my short search resulted in.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    Where I live for instance. Like I said it isn’t enforced.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (14 children)

    What country? I’m sure there’s exceptions that you don’t know about, the laws normally don’t disallow their use, it’s in how the data is stored.

    A security system that doesn’t record, but is watched by someone would be legal anywhere for example. Just the fact that there’s one, means sweet fuck all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (13 children)
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (8 children)

    That applies to audio… not video recordings mate.

    Why are you telling me to chill? Because I used a bloody swear word…?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    It applies to both.

    Yes and because you need to chill.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    No… your link even specifies that….

    L

    O

    Fucking

    L

    It’s the internet, people can swear dude.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    In my state it’s both.

    Yes you can. You still need to chill.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    I’ve never heard of that before… and Google shows zero results for “states with two party consent for video recording” all links are for audio… what state… please… how many times do I need to ask nicely so we can solve this?

    Just because you’re wrong and got called out doesn’t mean the other person is being aggressive lmfao.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Right because a quick google search makes you a legal expert…

    For real chill.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Is it so odd, that someone knows how to read and understand code and law books? It’s part of any tradesperson training.

    I know it’s not a thing, from plenty of research into my own camera systems, and I am confident that I know the results I found are correct, because I know how to understand code and law books.

    And no it doesn’t, but the lack of any results shows that you’re full of fucking shit.

    Again, just because someone swears doesn’t mean they are being aggressive! It’s common repertoire for a lot of working people! Sorry princess!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I am a compliance expert. I too am confident in my assessment of the legal situation.

    I am officially tagging you as a troll and moving on with my life. You seriously need to learn to chill.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    I am a compliance expert.

    Yet you claim there is two party consent for video, won’t provide anything to support that claim, and the one link you did specifically says it doesn’t…

    . I too am confident in my assessment of the legal situation.

    People can be confidently wrong, like in this case..

    Awwwwhhh I upset muffin by using logic and reason to refute them.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Your link completely refutes what you're saying lol

    The legality of video recording hinges on the concept of a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” You are permitted to record video of your own property and public spaces visible from your property, such as sidewalks and the street in front of your house.

    Maybe try reading it next time "compliance expert"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    That only applies if you aren’t recording audio as well.

    The article is just a general overview of specifically Ring cameras and not specific to any one state or other recording devices. In my state for instance it is also illegal to be able to see license plates from personally owned security cameras, though we have Flock cameras here so yeah…

    Why do so many people on Lemmy just really need a “gotcha”?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    That only applies if you aren’t recording audio as well.

    Reasonable expectation of privacy applies to video recording, audio recording, and still photography. You can be in a public space having a private conversation if you can reasonably expect no one would be able to hear it, but you can't have a conversation in front of a plainly visible surveillance camera and then claim you were being eavesdropped on. You don't even truly need to "consent" to being recorded, you just have to have knowledge that it is happening.

    That's also not what you said, your original comment was "it’s not legal to have a video camera pointed at the street".

    In my state for instance it is also illegal to be able to see license plates from personally owned security cameras

    I'd love to see a law on the books anywhere that says this. License plates do not have more rights than people. By "compliance expert" did you actually mean that you're a cop? Usually cops are the ones going around spreading legal misinformation like this.

    Why do so many people on Lemmy just really need a “gotcha”?

    You were so confident that you were correct that you brazenly posted something that contradicted your misinformation without reading it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago*

    I meant that the article was talking about non audio cameras. What you are saying specifically depends on if you are in a single party state or not and what your state laws are.

    What I said was it isn’t enforced but if somebody wanted to pursue you legally they could.

    People in this thread would clearly be surprised about the things that are in the legal books. In the town I grew up in it was illegal to drive a car on a paved road. But that law was written at a time when horses were still more common than cars. Likewise the license plate law in my state was written long before cameras had the resolution to do that from a porch without a large zoom lens and was specifically written to prevent people putting security cameras on mailboxes and other places close to the street. This has created a legal gray area for ring cameras which is pretty much what the article and I in my original post was saying; It’s illegal but not enforced though if somebody wanted to pursue it they could.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 38 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    It may not require a subscription fee, but that's really only a minor concern.

    Having my video surveillance be uploaded to a cloud service and having to use some proprietary app to use my device is the real problems.

    If you want security cameras, look for boring Power over Ethernet cameras that have an RTSP output. They connect to your network and provide a video stream out a specific port. Then you can plug that into whatever FOSS network video recording system you're using (Zone Minder or Frigate) and then you can access it like you access any other thing on your local network.

    Never goes to a cloud, never leaves your house.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago*

    If it has local storage then it doesn't get uploaded anywhere.

    It also has BT so the offline mode could be simply "record to SD card and view videos using some app via Bluetooth".

    Online mode with notifications and two-way talking has to require internet access so I definitely wouldn't trust it, with or without subscription.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    You seem to be knowledgeable. What camera can I use to plug in into a light bulb socket and have it use powerline communication? Wi-Fi is fine too, but would prefer PLC.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    e: Oh, sorry I misread your question. I haven't seen a lightbulb socket powerline adapter. There's no reason why they can't exist though afaik. e2: Lighbulb socket -> power plug adapter -> insert the rest here

    You'd use a few things in a chain. Socket -> Ethernet over Power connection -> Cat6 cable -> Power over Ethernet injector -> Cat6 -> PoE Camera

    If you want to hook up multiple cameras to one power plug, go Socket -> Ethernet over Power -> Switch -> PoE power injector on each of your camera lines -> etc

    You can also buy switches that do the PoE injection for you so you don't need multiple injectors. You'd have to compare the prices, but the PoE switch is likely cheaper than a regular switch + multiple PoE injectors.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 32 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    "Doorbell with a subscription" is something so utterly stupid, an absolute misdevelopment.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    The fuck does it even need a subscription for, anyway? Is it not hosting the videos locally? Fuck that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    Local hosting for a security camera is a rather terrible idea, because it can be defeated by stealing or breaking the camera.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    The camera isn't storing anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Oh, I guess the micro sd card slot under the batteries of the doorbell camera is non-functional then, and it saves the videos into your ass, where you pulled that claim from?

    Yes. Yes it does store them to the camera.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    First of all, I was just speaking generally about security cameras, not specifically a ring, when responding to your comment about local storage being stupid for a security camera.

    Secondly not all Ring doorbells use an SD card slot or even have batteries. They can be wired directly to the home and save the data to another external device.

    Third and pedantically: An SD card is not the camera. It's an SD card. 😌

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The fuck does it even need a subscription for, anyway? Is it not hosting the videos locally? Fuck that.

    "It" being a "Doorbell with a subscription", from the message you directly replied to. In a thread about a video doorbell from Aldi.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago*

    Local hosting for a security camera is a rather terrible idea, because it can be defeated by stealing or breaking the camera.

    This is what I replied to with concern for storing security camera data locally. You didnt say this camera or Ring cameras, so your comment seems pretty fucking stupid and generic changing the subject to be about local storage for all security cameras.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    Not so bad when you think about it …… Ring’s subscription isn’t too expensive and it gives you cloud storage and remote access. Bring on the hatred but I’ve found it one of the few worthwhile subscriptions

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (17 children)

    I believe this is only for the European market though. Aldi has stores in the United States, but I don't believe it's available here.

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    Are these even legal in Europe (the part that is not the UK...)?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    I'm no expert, but I believe this is down to the individual member states.

    In my country (the NL) it is technically not allowed to film the public street with an automated camera, which effectively makes Ring and equivalents illegal to install in most places

    Practically this is not really enforced though, so you see them everywhere anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    It's indeed not enforced here, but on top of that the police would really like to know that you have cameras filming public space.

    Not so they can do something about it, but so they know they can come to you to ask for footage if something happens.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    Turn off the motion sensor and only use the push activation, that wouldn’t break the “auto” recording portion. There’s always exemptions, security and law professionals wouldn’t be left without a way to assist themselves.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    I think yes, as long as it only sees within your private property.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Front yards don’t have the expectation of privacy… that applies to backyards doesn’t it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    If your front yard is public property, you can't constantly record it, simple.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Front yards aren’t…

    And you can’t record a public street for security? Even if it’s deleted? That makes absolutely no sense, how would you ever catch a crime?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Individuals can apply for registration of a fixed camera which must be approved by the privacy agency of the state. If it is approved, you can film into public space, but normally this comes with rules like the anonymization of visible faces and car plates when you are a normal citizen.

    Without doing this you are allowed to place a camera for constant monitoring at a fixed place if it films your private property only.

    For normal businesses the same rules apply, although you might get a camera approved which watches the area around your entry/exit easier.

    Those rules made dashcams illegal in most of the EU, but legislation has caught up in those cases in a few countries - but not all yet.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    How do we catch a crime without cameras recording everything all the time? That is your question?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    No, I’m asking you. Because you seem to be applying the law to stuff it doesn’t apply to, so I’m trying to figure out your knowledge on it, so we can figure out where you went wrong.

    And who said ALL the time, security cameras use motion, or a host of other tech to not record all the time and NOT store it. So which law do you think is being broken?

    You are asininely saying that if I took a picture of someone throwing something on my house, that would be inadmissible because the street was in it…? Is that what you think the law is doing here…?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Why wouldn't they be? Is it illegal to record people without their permission in the EU or something? Clueless American here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    You cannot permanently record public places and you may not publish recordings of people (as in them being the main content in the video) without their consent. A temporary recording or live stream should be pretty much a non-issue, especially if you don't do anything with it other than watching it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago
    [–] 16 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Stop putting bloody cameras bloody everywhere bloody hell!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    I always thought it would be cool to have a doorbell that, when pressed, would flash a red light on the person standing there and then a machine voice would say 'Target Acquired'.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Security researcher here. I'm assuming this to be some low cost chinese easily hacked thing.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    The product page says it offers cloud storage. Though you maybe can use it offline by recording to an SD card.

    So it may not require a subscription, but it still requires an online service... which kind of misses the point that people make about these things being privacy nightmares.

    It wasn't the fee that people were worried about, it was the network video camera uploading to a cloud service which can be accessed by the secret police.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Do you have a recommendation for consumer-priced outdoor cameras/doorbells? Seems like a minefield.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I don't have input on cameras specifically, but I have gone pretty deep into trying to understand how to maximise security and interoperability in smart home stuff, through open source control.

    A starting point for the you-in-control app to use for smart devices is Home assistant. I was surprised by how easy it was to set up self hosted smart home stuff, largely because there's loads of guides that build around home assistant. So whether a particular camera works with home assistant is a good starting search filter

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    how about i dont need a video doorbell and i can use my eyeballs and look out the window

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Good luck doing that in my place.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    i get it that tech is cool and stuff, but as ive gotten older, ive learned not to rely on it as much

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Yeah, but you literally cannot see where the doorbell is at my place. It's a physical impossibility. I live on the second floor of a two flat with an enclosed entryway. No window anywhere in the building can see who rang the doorbell. Glad that works for you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Because I can check my door when I'm not even home and even talk to those at my door to pretend like there is someone home. Because it will record the porch pirate stealing off my porch. It's for security and evidence, not so much an actual doorbell.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    if i wanted security like that, id get a closed loop camera system, all stored locally.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    No subscription fee yet. Enshittification hits everything eventually.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    640x360. They claim it's 480p. Maybe oy half-interlaces? Hah

  • source
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It says subscription-free, writes to AN SD card, and implies no cloud storage. It could very well be þat it requires no internet connection, in which case þe only limiter to using it in þe US would be power. Eiþer it's battery powered, or doorbell line powered (like many smart doorbell devices in þe US). Doorbell lines in þe US are 12V (or 24V - I don't remember which exactly), but if it's battery powered I can't see why you couldn't use it in þe US - batteries are þe one truly universal international standard.

    It's probably too much to hope for zwave or someþing, but even if its WiFi, it looks as if þey're positioning it to be cloud-service-free. Looks interesting.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 71 comments in c/homeassistant@lemmy.world view that post