This is a victory in a long fight, not just against blanket police surveillance, but also against a culture in which private, for-profit companies build special tools to allow law enforcement to more easily access companies’ users and their data—all of which ultimately undermine their customers’ trust.
Not even just a technical security standpoint, why would you put a live camera up when someone else legally owns the feed?
I’ve had discussions and people claim it’s no different because other systems can be hacked and you have a phone with a camera that can be remotely accessed, etc.
But those things are illegal, the people using Ring are knowingly putting up a camera where someone else owns the footage. They aren’t hacking, they aren’t stealing. In fact, they’re letting you borrow the footage anytime you check the camera yourself.
There’s two kinds of tech enthusiasts. Ones who think cloud based is a great feature that means they don’t have to worry about it as much, and ones who understand that using the cloud just means you give up control of any data that ends up there, possibly along with control of the device itself.
Wait, don’t forget the third type: the kind that knows self-hosting is better in almost all ways, and hates HATES not having ownership (or even just access!) to the raw data and dev interface, but is too ground down by their capitalist bullshit work week and other life to keep up with the admin of maintaining their own systems. SIGH.
In a way the sketchy off brand seems like a better idea in that case, at least there’s not some monolithic entity holding millions of feeds to ask for access to
I still remember watching unsecured cameras through a site I’d feel uncomfortable posting. All five minutes of it was eye opening. As an aside, more external security cameras are connected to the internet than I had originally thought.
Oh I’m sure browsing through something like shodan.io would give a bunch of open feeds. Some are intentional, a lot are mistakes, bringing their presence to light is a net good though in alerting both the public and potentially the owner to fix their gear.
But you don’t have to go sketchy off brand. You can get Ubiquiti if you want a really good system, or eufy or reolink if you don’t want to muck about with the sysadmin stuff Ubiquiti requires
Yeah, plenty of options out there. I have a couple cheap Chinese type that aren’t plugged in on any regular basis. Neat thing is that the accounts are basically by serial number if I recall from back when I set it up, so with them off my trusted net and the data fed put through a VPN to home base they’re functionally ghost cams without a location attached.
Plus they can record to local SD, so if the server goes offline in the future they can work like a dashcam at least.
Not even just a technical security standpoint, why would you put a live camera up when someone else legally owns the feed?
I’ve had discussions and people claim it’s no different because other systems can be hacked and you have a phone with a camera that can be remotely accessed, etc.
But those things are illegal, the people using Ring are knowingly putting up a camera where someone else owns the footage. They aren’t hacking, they aren’t stealing. In fact, they’re letting you borrow the footage anytime you check the camera yourself.
Because people have been trained since the eighties to ignore EULAs and just click “ok”.
Most people, have no idea they don’t own the video their door bell takes…
Hell I’m fairly tech savvy and I didn’t know. (Don’t have a camera).
Tech savvy people don’t fall for the bullshit or use open source products.
There’s two kinds of tech enthusiasts. Ones who think cloud based is a great feature that means they don’t have to worry about it as much, and ones who understand that using the cloud just means you give up control of any data that ends up there, possibly along with control of the device itself.
Wait, don’t forget the third type: the kind that knows self-hosting is better in almost all ways, and hates HATES not having ownership (or even just access!) to the raw data and dev interface, but is too ground down by their capitalist bullshit work week and other life to keep up with the admin of maintaining their own systems. SIGH.
I don’t use Arch, btw.
In a way the sketchy off brand seems like a better idea in that case, at least there’s not some monolithic entity holding millions of feeds to ask for access to
I still remember watching unsecured cameras through a site I’d feel uncomfortable posting. All five minutes of it was eye opening. As an aside, more external security cameras are connected to the internet than I had originally thought.
Oh I’m sure browsing through something like shodan.io would give a bunch of open feeds. Some are intentional, a lot are mistakes, bringing their presence to light is a net good though in alerting both the public and potentially the owner to fix their gear.
…indeed.
That’s a flip flop and a bed. The 360 controls work. Wish I could contact the owner, assuming they’re not running a social experiment.
But you don’t have to go sketchy off brand. You can get Ubiquiti if you want a really good system, or eufy or reolink if you don’t want to muck about with the sysadmin stuff Ubiquiti requires
Yeah, plenty of options out there. I have a couple cheap Chinese type that aren’t plugged in on any regular basis. Neat thing is that the accounts are basically by serial number if I recall from back when I set it up, so with them off my trusted net and the data fed put through a VPN to home base they’re functionally ghost cams without a location attached.
Plus they can record to local SD, so if the server goes offline in the future they can work like a dashcam at least.
Most likely cost of entry and ease of use. Those are the things most people are going to be concerned with.