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 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 330 points 9 months ago (42 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.

  • source
  • hideshow 42 child comments
  • [–] 226 points 9 months ago (24 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 56 points 9 months ago (11 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 9 months ago (10 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] [S] 53 points 9 months ago* (9 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 9 months ago (8 children)
  • [–] [S] 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (7 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    I really need to set up frigate. Been procrastinating for months 😐

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 5 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Frigate is a marvel. Setting it up and tweaking it does take time but once done it requires almost no maintenance (at least in my experience) and is close to flawless. It's only had 1 false alert in the last year and that was caused by a spiderweb on the camera. I wish all my applications were as trouble free.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] [S] 11 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago* (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 4 points 9 months ago* (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    yes, that would be ideal, but at any point in time we will have newcomers, for them it won't be obvious

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    Your prior comment was for newcomers?

    no, it was for everyone.

    This was obviously written for people with quite a bit of knowledge. Most newcomers would have absolutely no idea what any of it means.

    the point was not to explain how encryption works, but to paint a picture about how many details matter a lot, so that the reader can know that just some kind of "encryption" does not mean much

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (2 children)

    Can't you get a surveillance camera from anywhere and use that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 52 points 9 months ago (9 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 9 months 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (3 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 9 months 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago* (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 102 points 9 months ago (17 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...

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 9 months ago (2 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (1 child)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 9 months 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

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    In Belgium, it is legally required to put a sign up if you have cameras, you can't point them at a place including public properties IIRC, and you can force them via the local government to move the camera if they are pointing at your property (at least in theory).

    Lasers. Blue lasers are what you can do. https://www.reddit.com/r/Ring/comments/wqxkdq/what_is_this_person_doing_to_my_camera/ (hate to link to reddit but it is a good demo)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

    it is similar here in czechia, at least in theory, but the theory will always differ from real life.

    you first have to know there is a camera to identify the problem, then if you are in doubt... i don't know, sue them to prove that camera does not capture your property?

    it would take few years, because the justice system here works on geological scales. and before you would get any reasonable result, billion other cameras would pop up meantime.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (3 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Tell me without telling me that you've never needed the police to do anything useful.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

    Are you kidding? Police LOVE investigating petty vandalism. Almost as much as DAs love prosecuting them! Top priority. Clearance rates are very high. You may have to call them 2 or three times before sleepy fat ass deputy (who is too stupid to do anything else) will come and take down half a report but trust me, they really do care, and will stop at nothing to achieve justice for your spy gadget.

    Half the prison population in US are people who drew swastikas on Teslas.

    Fear not! Your doorbell will be avenged!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 61 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    "They aren't just tracking lost dogs, they're tracking you and your neighbors,"

    Uh, yeah. You didn't get the news about them sharing with ICE?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    I think the majority of people don't even have tech conversations with their friends and coworkers, they just talk about sports or gambling or whatever else normal people do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    During Superbowl I was talking with a software guy working for a big shopping ( data) company, he was telling us how every interaction on their website is recorded for data analysis, and his own wife was shocked. It came up after I prompted for that conversation, talking about the license plate tracking in parking lots (which she didn't know about).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 122 points 9 months ago (8 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.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] [S] 8 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    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).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    It's pretty trivial to block devices from accessing the Internet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    For those that know what they’re doing, and those that know what they’re doing don’t buy ring to begin with.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago*

    some of those that know what they're doing, do it through pihole. But a DNS sink is really not enough. Even blacklisting the MAC might not be enough. If it requires a key from a server it might even be necessary to hack the device if it's not a SoC and you can't defile or use M-x Butterflies

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    So, what security cameras would you use or are you just back seat driving without a good suggestion?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 0 points 9 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 57 points 9 months ago (10 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

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 9 months ago (8 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    +1 for Reolink. I have those and UniFi cameras tied to my UniFi system.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    I have a few Amcrest cameras and they're pretty decent as well. Outdoor rated, PoE, 4k, UV LEDs, they have PTZ variants too and offer standard RTSP streams without any kind of vendor software hassle.

    Running a local NVR with some image segmentation and classification models is goodbut also consider adding a bit of Kismet and SDR trickery. Having a bit more awareness is always useful and the radio spectrum is increasingly full of useful information that can be relevant to home security.

    Most people are also radio beacons of some form or another due to their tech/car/flipper zero and being able to detect things like modern cars, people wearing bluetooth earbuds, wifi deauthentication attacks or new radio sources which could indicate some kind of hostile surveillance or tracking... those are all useful and relatively simple things to monitor. With a bit more money you could make some good estimates about the location and relative motion of these sources.

    You could also add some cheap SDRs and listen to your local county's dispatch trunking system. This is perfectly legal, it's all broadcast in the clear. CB users and scanner owners used to do this but it became harder once they switched to trunking systems because you required some kind of processor to navigate the trunking protocol. Now you can do the same thing with 2 cheap RTL-SDRs and some open source software: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9KJrtIO8_4 Language models reading transcripts of these could alert you to any major events near you, like a traffic accident (or active shooting, USA! USA! USA!).

    Obviously this is a bit more involved than 'Press buy button on Amazon, login to camera, glue to wall.', but the end product that you can create is better than anything that you can buy as a commercial product.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    The audio system in my car is broken. I use my SDR to stream the radio to my phone and play it on a Bluetooth speaker. Overkill? Yes. Learning experience? Yes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    I had a similar experience, playing with a spectrum analyzer connected to the SDR and the first signals that I 'found' were the WFM broadcasts and celebrated by listening to the radio for a few hours.

    In hindsight, I didn't realize how much the antenna size and just happened to have the right length antenna to get good WFM coverage.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 9 months ago (2 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 9 months ago* (1 child)

    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)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 22 points 9 months ago

    I love lemmy. On the other site, you'd have 100 snarky and/or insulting replies. Here, there's a single reply that is straightforward and helpful.

    I dunno, thanks for being a bright spot in otherwise somewhat bleak world.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 52 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    They've backed off this and ended the partnership, claim Flock never got any footage, which I think is a total lie.

    They'll re-partner when the heat is off, or just do it silently, Amazon shouldn't be trusted. Explain why to your friends and neighbors.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 47 points 9 months ago* (9 children)

    I honestly didn't know what they were thinking with that commercial. Why would you proudly advertise that you've built a massive surveillance network, during one of the most-watched yearly televised events too for that matter? Did they seriously believe that there wouldn't be a major backlash? I mean I appreciate the blunt honesty in that commercial so I'll give them credit for that.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    I honestly didn't know what they were thinking with that commercial. Why would you proudly advertise that you've built a massive surveillance network

    Presumably because most end users are in deep with the "if you do nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about" crowd ... and besides it can find a lost dog /s.

    They brought these sorts of intrusive cameras in the first place so privacy was not top of mind, or even in 2nd or 3rd place.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 9 months ago

    Tbh I think the people at the top still haven't caught up with the rapid changing sentiments among the population. My zero-tech-savy retired mother in-law was talking to me about Palantir the other day.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 9 months ago

    My guess is that since Ring has a history of well-known collaborations with police and ICE, they wanted to re-frame their evil surveillance network as a way to save a puppy. Instead, lots of uninformed normies suddenly realized what those cameras are capable of, and had a huge negative reaction given the state of things.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›