[HN Gopher] Who owns private home security footage, and who can ... ___________________________________________________________________ Who owns private home security footage, and who can get access to it? Author : thunderbong Score : 220 points Date : 2023-03-08 14:58 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.politico.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.politico.com) | originalcopying wrote: | I say that if I have the footage, then under (non-existing) | regulations of digital assets I own them along with anybody who | also has their "own copy". | | The problem with this notion of ownership is that it's not | compatible with the idea of trading assets in a typical | traditional market like all that existed before the internet was | built | bob1029 wrote: | This kind of outcome is precisely why I removed all cameras and | other smart capabilities from my home on the day I moved in. | | I've never once seen someone in my friend & family circle achieve | some positive outcome in their own household by having more | surveillance around it. The only thing I observe is increased | anxiety when squirrels or FedEx trigger push notifications to | phones. | JohnFen wrote: | I recently had my place broken into and was the first thing I | did was to hand the cops a memory stick with the relevant | footage from my cameras on it. | | My system isn't managed by any companies, so nobody can be all | sneaky about getting footage. But I could still provide that | footage to the cops when needed. It's the best of both worlds. | | I should note that I have no cameras that can see any public | space. They only record my private areas. I have too much | respect for my neighbors to invade their privacy. | squokko wrote: | Did you get your stuff back? | JohnFen wrote: | It's unlikely I will. But the alarm chased them off, so | they took very little. I lost about $300 of stuff. | ambicapter wrote: | Did anything come out of you handing over that footage? | JohnFen wrote: | It's still under active investigation. The police won't | update me about progress until/unless they need to. | [deleted] | BeetleB wrote: | > This kind of outcome is precisely why I removed all cameras | and other smart capabilities from my home on the day I moved | in. | | I have a cat. Someone needs to take care of it when I travel. A | smart camera and smart lock let me know if someone came to my | house to give the cat food. Before that, twice, my cat went | 24-48 hours without food because the designated caregiver | dropped the ball. | macrolime wrote: | You were missing the AI squirrel counter. If you had this, you | could have a dashboard showing the number of squirrels visiting | you each day and the time of their visit. Instead of being | anxious, you could be a squirrel expert and you long | conversation on squirrel behavior with your neighbors. Instead | of getting a notification for each squirrel, you could instead | set goals of how many squirrels you want to visit you and get | notifications when you reach those goals. Then you'd have a fun | game. How to get 10 or more squirrels to visit each day? Maybe | put some nuts outside? Endless possibilities. | Zetice wrote: | You can challenge a subpoena right? Like, he could hire a lawyer | and contest the scope of this? | | Not saying it's not wildly inconvenient, but he could if he | wanted to. | squarefoot wrote: | Not sure if I'll be setting up CCTV at the new home this year or | later, but for sure it'll be ZoneMinder based and everything, | especially cameras, will be firewalled and behind their physical | subnet. | | See: https://zoneminder.com/ | wara23arish wrote: | Has anyone set up a home security system using HomeAssistant? | tptacek wrote: | It seems worth calling out that if Larkin had "owned" the footage | in the sense the article means, perhaps by recording it onto | magnetic tape like a convenience store, he'd still be required to | furnish it to the police. Deliberately destroying that tape, even | in advance of the receipt of a warrant, can be actionable | depending on your state's tampering and obstruction statutes. | | So my take would be that it's not so much the "cloud" part of | this problem as it is the "it's now convenient to have lots more | cameras" part of it. | WaitWaitWha wrote: | I have a slight different take on this. | | To me the concern is not a proper subpoena duces tecum to | Larkin, but the lack of specificity that can be ignored going | to the cloud provider. | RobotToaster wrote: | >Deliberately destroying that tape, even in advance of the | receipt of a warrant, can be actionable depending on your | state's tampering and obstruction statutes. | | Wouldn't they be required to prove that it was deliberate | though? Rather than an unfortunate accident with a hammer? | jackvalentine wrote: | This is classic nerd thinking they're so clever stuff - | judges see right through that. | | If you've never destroyed a tape before but suddenly start | doing it after an incident it won't go well for you. Even if | you do get off it'll be a painful process. | | The only way to do this safely is good old records management | - routinely and boringly destroy records on a regular | cadence. Preferably automatically. If you become aware it may | be subject to a police investigation then take action to | preserve it. | | If you don't want to do any of this the best option is to | just not keep the record at all - don't make a recording. | [deleted] | annoyingnoob wrote: | In this scenario, there would be no need to provide video from | cameras inside the house. | | One big issue I have here is that Amazon provided video from | cameras inside the home that could not possibly have what the | police are after. Not only is this a privacy violation, the | police are going to waste time looking at useless video. Seems | to me that dumping huge amounts of data on police is an issue | of cost to the community. | dylan604 wrote: | I hear Tucker Carlson has a team ready to review security | camera footage. Just throw a MAGA sticker on it, and have | them do it for you. /s | donmcronald wrote: | I wonder how it works (technically) for things like Amazon's | Blink cameras that advertise local storage. They're absolutely | trash because the local storage mode is (deceptively) crippled, | but as far as I can tell they actually store the video locally. | | Is Amazon allowed to reach into your network and take the video | they want? | ethbr0 wrote: | That's the difference between the government compelling | speech (1st Amendment) and serving warrants with due process | (5th/14th Amendment). | | IANAL, so not sure on recent case law, but last I knew (~2010 | Apple encryption case?) the government couldn't compel a | private company to _change_ their existing architecture to | expose data in unencrypted and /or physically/legally- | accessible fashion. | | If they _already_ have data security implementation gaps or a | tap-susceptible architecture, then it 's a different matter. | The government serves them a warrant, and they have to | comply. | | But if Amazon being compelled to reach into a network and | retrieve video stored locally is a threat model, that should | be mitigated by a tight firewall and non-updating devices... | | Half of the IoT privacy gaps are because people don't run | network security barriers anymore, and then are shocked when | companies abuse them. | scubadude wrote: | What I can't work out is why people put security cameras _inside_ | their house? What do you possibly stand to achieve from doing | that? | JohnFen wrote: | I think I accidentally answered your question here: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35075366 | scubadude wrote: | Thank you for being considerate of your neighbours and the | general public! | shapefrog wrote: | > They amount to a large and unregulated web of eyes on American | communities -- which can provide law enforcement valuable | information in the event of a crime, but also create a 24/7 | recording operation that even the owners of the cameras aren't | fully aware they've helped to build. | | They drew this conclusion from a _court order_ being served upon | people who had selected "record everything" when they set up | their surveillence camera? | yborg wrote: | I don't understand what you find confusing about this. If a | court can order that all camera footage from a citizen be | provided to law enforcement at any time for any reason (in the | case cited the individual wasn't a suspect, he just happened to | have an external camera that might have shown an actual | suspect) then you have a surveillance infrastructure. The | citizen in question got tired of doing the police's job for | them as they widened their dragnet, so they just demanded his | entire account from Ring, which included cameras inside his | home. Which Ring provided without hesitation, and the best part | is that they paid for this "service". | barbazoo wrote: | Because no one understands how those features they're paying | for work. People want everything to be convenient and "cheap". | Ring isn't cheap, it just appears so if you look at it per | month. That's why we end up with that privacy nightmare that's | Ring. | | People with different priorities buy different hardware that's | more complicated to set up and more expensive but keeps the | sensitive data local. | BeetleB wrote: | > Because no one understands how those features they're | paying for work. | | Everyone I know who owns a Ring does. They don't care. | Convenience always wins. People who put privacy and related | rights above convenience are the exception. | shapefrog wrote: | > Because no one understands how those features they're | paying for work | | In my experience they know exactly how they work, they want | to record everything that happens in the street infront of | their house - that is litterally what happens. | | Is ring etc really much more of a privacy nightmare than any | other cctv? Given the wide spread use, it is easier for | police to do a blanket request, but back in ye olde days the | officer would stand there, look around and see all the | cameras and go make requests where they saw one. | | End result is identical, its the same thing with a few extra | steps. | barbazoo wrote: | It's a set of hurdles that I think wouldn't hurt. Plus more | reasonable retention periods to limit the impact on the | people around them. I think that would be positive. At | least that way police have to intentionally select which | cameras to pursue instead of just asking Ring for data on | an entire neighborhood what I assume is happening now. | JohnFen wrote: | Those extra steps can often make all the difference in the | world in terms of privacy protection. I object to every | public place being monitored by CCTV. I would have less of | an objection to every public place having a uniformed | officer instead. | | If nothing else, at least then it would be obvious when | you're being watched, so you wouldn't have to be on guard | every moment. | ROTMetro wrote: | That would be a great augmented reality app. Show a | virtual officer standing everywhere there are cameras. | fitblipper wrote: | Ring doorbells providing this information to law enforcement | quickly and easily is working as intended and is part of the | reason it exists at all. Amazon has even used police to sell the | doorbells arguing it provides better security [1]. | | It is great that the people who had their video data provided to | law enforcement were notified after the fact in this situation. I | wonder how many people never find out due to national security | letters not allowing it. | | [1]https://www.vice.com/en/article/mb88za/amazon-requires- | polic... | IncandescentGas wrote: | > I wonder how many people never find out due to national | security letters not allowing it. | | There's an annoying thought. Amazon could be providing a live | feed of every ring device directly to an aggregated | intelligence data center, while being legally prevented from | revealing that fact by a national security letter. Seems | inevitable, and anybody buying a ring device should assume it | as likely. | | Imagine the boon of having indexed facial, gait and voice | recognition feeds recorded and stored for eternity covering a | significant portion of residential and business locations. | mywittyname wrote: | Presumably this evidence will eventually come to light | through court proceedings. I'm not talking like one huge | case, but through thousands of inconsequential small cases | where an effort is not made to hide the data origin. | MPSimmons wrote: | This is obviously horrible. But I'm curious, since I have an | internal-only camera system - is this materially different than | if the police subpoenaed his recordings directly? | henryfjordan wrote: | The biggest difference is that he was not the subject of the | warrant, Ring was, so he didn't risk any issues about non- | compliance with the warrant or anything. | | Ring gave him a chance to challenge the warrant but decided not | to. He might've just had to write Ring a letter, though he says | in the article he thought he'd need a lawyer. If he was the | subject of the warrant directly then he'd need to deal with the | court directly, probably requiring the help of a lawyer. Ring | deals with warrants all the time though, so they are probably a | good resource for challenging these kinds of things. | test6554 wrote: | I use ring cameras. I gave some initial consideration to the | privacy concerns before going all in. I decided I'm fine with it. | I positioned the cameras specifically knowing that whatever they | record could be made public at some point. I consent to Amazon or | Ring sharing the footage with police and 70% or so of my | neighbors all do the same. | | If my footage can help catch a burglar or vandal in my | neighborhood I've made the whole community a bit better. But I | already live in a very safe area. All I've caught so far are some | possums, cats, squirrels, and wasps. | | But I also see when packages get delivered, etc. | | If I'm ever not OK with it I can just replace the cameras with | any PoE alternative. My house is wired to be flexible. | nixpulvis wrote: | We need a comprehensive, people first, data ownership bill | drafted and pushing to law ASAP. I know a lot of work has/is | being done on this front, but I'm even someone who cares and I | have trouble following it all. It seems corporations and | private/government interest are running the show completely. Am I | wrong? | nixpulvis wrote: | Allow me to expand and spitball here just a little bit. | | 1. Technology companies as data creators should have the | responsibility of clearly denoting the ownership of the data | they create. | | 2. Data created as a product or derivative of something a user | owns should be given the option to be owned by the same user. | | 3. Rights for data owned by a user should be akin to physical | ownership and stewardship, including limited scope of warrant | by law enforcement, etc. (Why would we limit the ability for a | police officer to search your home, but not the video footage | you installed of the same?) | | 4. Technical implementation including but not limited to | advanced cryptography should NEVER be disallowed or restricted | by the owners of data. | theloco wrote: | I use iSpy. Its free and open source and you can connect as many | IP cameras to it you want. Need cloud backup? Save the videos to | google drive. Need text notifications? Theres apis for that. | bityard wrote: | It claims to be open source but it seems to be only in name. | The web site says you can use it for free for personal use, but | such a claim makes it NOT open source by definition. (Source- | available at best.) | | I had to dig really hard to find a link to github | (https://github.com/ispysoftware/iSpy) but I get the impression | from the README and lack of activity that this repo was | superceded by another product from the same company, and that | appears to be what the main website is marketing for | download/payment. And according to the license file, some | rather important bits of it are not open source at all. | schwartzworld wrote: | Relevant podcast: | https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-97-porch-pirate-p... | mcbits wrote: | Is there any sort of encryption scheme that would make it | possible to generate a key on-demand to decrypt only the data | that was encrypted within some arbitrary interval of time? The | idea being if 100 terabytes of someone's private life history is | seized, a judge could order the decryption of only the parts | likely to contain material evidence. | | The closest thing that comes to mind is to use a unique AES key | for every chunk of 5 minutes or so, and then encrypt those keys | with an asymmetric cipher with the private key secured off-site | somewhere, which could selectively decrypt some of the AES keys. | But that could be an inconveniently long list of keys for, say, | 10 video feeds over several days. | aleksandrh wrote: | Police: We suspect your neighbor committed a crime... | | You: Okay | | Police: ...so we're going to need all the footage from inside | your home | | You: Wait wha-- | | Judge: Sure, I'll sign a warrant for this. That sounds perfectly | reasonable. | mattkrause wrote: | And so you move to quash some or all of that request! | hooverd wrote: | Simple as...? | henryfjordan wrote: | More like: | | Police: Hey can we get a warrant for all the Ring cameras on | this street. Oh and we know for a fact that there's a guy with | more exterior cameras who has refused to share footage with us. | | Judge: Sure, I'll sign that warrant. Nobody would be dumb | enough to put Ring cameras in their house. | | Guy who is that dumb: I'm not going to fight the warrant even | though I got a letter saying I can totally prevent my interior | cameras from being included in the data Ring turns over. | lionkor wrote: | I dont want to be that guy, but who _didnt_ know this would eb | possible and would happen? | altairprime wrote: | Judges can do absolutely anything, once, if someone decides not | to object at the time. | | Recall campaigns for judges exist in a lot of American | jurisdictions. Such is warranted here. If it's recognized that | rubber-stamping Ring requests can and has lead to a recall | being presented to voters, judges will in general take more | care to consider the request in the future. | deviantbit wrote: | "that concerns privacy advocates and Democratic lawmakers..." | | https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/27/politics/house-vote-fisa/inde... | | Snicker. I love when people the media spreads false information. | Democrats have been all about monitoring your every move, just as | Republicans. I hate politics. How about we all become | Libertarians please. Less government, less in our business. | | Why would anyone put camera's in their home? This is lunacy. | Outside, I can understand. | mixmastamyk wrote: | > Why would anyone put camera's in their home? This is lunacy. | Outside, I can understand. | | I thought so too at first glance. But the article explains, | that they only come on when the security system is turned on. | i.e. when one leaves the house. I could see investigating a | burglary when at work, for example. Would not send it to the | cloud, but can see the logic otherwise. | lancesells wrote: | I'm wondering how many people here have cameras and have had | something go wrong where the camera made the difference? | | I think for most neighborhoods and people they seem needless, but | perhaps I'm a bit too naive. | rconti wrote: | I'm sort of the "I'd rather not know" camp. I've lived in my | house for 8 years now. I'm sure in that time the area has been | prowled. Somebody has probably walked into my fenced backyard | to see if I left a window open in the summer, or tried my front | door to see if it's unlocked, or scoped out my cars for | catalytic converters. But, I've never had a crime issue. Not a | single package stolen, ever. Why work myself into a tizzy about | everything that "seems strange"? | | Don't get me wrong, I'm sure if something did happen, I'd wish | I had footage. And maybe I'd go out and buy cameras. But then, | I've watched my brother-in-law's Ring footage of his catalytic | converter being stolen from his Prius. On 3 separate occasions. | Gotten angry, thought about what I'd do if I happened upon | these scumbags. And yet, that's all the footage does; makes you | angrier. | dangoor wrote: | This is why the only cameras I've bought have been ones that | support HomeKit Secure Video, which is end-to-end encrypted: | https://www.digitaltrends.com/home/why-you-should-use-homeki... | | It limits the choices, and they tend to be a bit pricier, but the | tradeoff seemed reasonable. | BeetleB wrote: | Indeed. A good question is why aren't there any security camera | providers that store data in the cloud with only you having the | encryption key? | | My PC's cloud backup is like this: It is stored in their cloud, | but the provider cannot decrypt the data. Only I have the key. | | Why should Ring or other such companies actually require access | to the video? Only I should have access to the contents. | shostack wrote: | Are there comparable Android options out there? | js2 wrote: | > It limits the choices | | https://github.com/koush/scrypted extends HKSV to a lot more | cameras. | | I'm using it with an Amcrest AD410. I have an SD card in the | AD410 to record 24/7, then anything with detected motion is | also recorded by Scrypted to my NAS as well as uploaded via | HKSV to Apple. | | HKSV is pretty aggressive about what it's willing to keep, so I | can go back to my NAS if HKSV trimmed a clip too aggressively, | and if even motion wasn't detected, I've always got the SD card | I can go to. | shapefrog wrote: | You could still be served a court order to hand over the | footage, it is just a couple of steps harder than the one stop | shop that is Ring / Amazon. | barbazoo wrote: | As long as it's within the retention period of the video | data. It's nuts for Ring to store the data for 180 days. If I | had exterior cameras, I'd store the data for maybe a week?! | However long I'd need to backup important snippets in case | something happens, like a theft. | shapefrog wrote: | > If I had exterior cameras, I'd store the data for maybe a | week? | | Annecdata - but people I know who have cctv around their | home store for as long as possible, limited only by the | storage size availiable - every motion from a car / person | / tree blowing through the trees - years of recordings. | | People are selecting 180 days on Ring as the retention | period (if they could select longer they probably would), | the default is 60 days. | barbazoo wrote: | Thanks for correcting me on the retention period. | | What realistic use case am I missing that would require | 60 days let alone, 180? | bell-cot wrote: | I'd assume that the dominant use case for both is "self- | medication of anxiety and other personality issues". | Though I'm sure there are seasonal vacation homes, abuse | victims with restraining orders against ex's, zealous | ornithologists hoping to catch a glimpse of some | extremely rare species of bird, and more. | at_a_remove wrote: | I think they can order you to hand over the files, but not | decrypt them first. | rom-antics wrote: | You mean due process? Sounds great, sign me up! | eternalban wrote: | Great point. | pc86 wrote: | Yeah, I don't think most people object to Ring video | _potentially_ being used by LE (I 'm sure there are some | though). I think the biggest complaint is the complete lack | of due process and even the lack of notifying anyone when | _their_ footage is used. | sneak wrote: | US law enforcement is not to be trusted. Any data to | which they have access is police abuse waiting to happen. | sneak wrote: | No. The article is about a failure of that exact system. | Judges just sign search warrants for just about anything; | the only thing they check for generally is that it's not | involving the search of hundreds of people. Invading the | privacy of 1-10 innocents is just a rubber stamp. | JohnFen wrote: | Yes, but obtaining footage directly from 10 different | people is ten times more work than obtaining the same | footage from a single source. That additional work | increases friction and decreases (but certainly doesn't | eliminate) the level of abuse that will happen. | cptcobalt wrote: | That means you (or someone that represents you) can fight | back on unreasonable requests. That's great. Doesn't seem | like Ring even gave half an ass. | pc86 wrote: | Amazon does a lot of business with the government. They | have very little to gain over fighting about handing over | video footage like this, and a lot to lose. | bgentry wrote: | I also have only HSV cameras or Ubiquiti ones for this reason. | Everything I care about is stored on-site or in the cloud with | end-to-end encryption, no privacy or surveillance state | enablement concerns. | | There's a great HomeBridge plugin which enables HomeKit Secure | Video on my UniFi Protect cameras: | https://github.com/hjdhjd/homebridge-unifi-protect | eunoia wrote: | +1 for both HKSV and Ubiquiti. | | Used to use HKSV, but I'm running a Unifi Protect setup these | days. Everything records locally to my NVR with a 30 day | retention policy. No cloud. Honestly it's been more reliable | too. Downside is I spend a decent amount of time running | Ethernet lines. | | UI's stuff works so well with the Apple ecosystem (mainly | thinking ATV and iOS apps) that I haven't even bothered to | bridge the setup into HomeKit yet. | tjoff wrote: | Seems awfully convoluted just to be able to store it in the | cloud. | t-writescode wrote: | Just to be able to [store it in a location that's internet | accessible, but that is also wholly owned and controlled by | the user, rather than a separate entity] | FinnKuhn wrote: | I guess this is technically "a" cloud, but you are the | owner and in control of it. | mulmen wrote: | Who owns it? The homeowner. | | Who can access it? Anyone with an internet connection that can | reach shodan.io. | concordDance wrote: | Seems like the judge signed an overly broad warrant. | yabones wrote: | If you're willing to put an afternoon's work into it, you can | easily and inexpensively build a home surveillance system with | ZoneMinder that stores all data securely and safely on-prem. The | cops can still take it, but it requires a few warrants to do so. | | Shameless plug -> https://nbailey.ca/post/nvr/ | | But it's also important to only record what you absolutely must. | I think putting CCTV cameras inside your house is insane, and | putting up cameras in any "private" outdoor area should likewise | be avoided. Once the data exists, somebody will want it | eventually. | rytis wrote: | Do you have any recommendations what cameras to use? Rather | simple set of requirements, but I really struggle to find | anything suitable: compatible with zoneminder/motioneye, poe, | no cloud nonsense, outdoor weatherproof, preferably non- | chinese, reasonably priced. Don't need NVR. Was eyeing | hikvision, but there seems to be mixed feelings about them. | orangepurple wrote: | https://docs.frigate.video/frigate/hardware | JohnFen wrote: | > I think putting CCTV cameras inside your house is insane | | I'm very sympathetic to this. However, I have cameras inside my | house. The reason is that there's no way to cover the outside | of my house in an effective manner without also recording | what's happening on the sidewalk or in my neighbor's yards. | | But the cameras are hardwired and no video leaves my premises, | so that becomes an acceptable risk for me. The video isn't kept | for all that long, so even if someone has a warrant, they can't | get a long history of video. | | And it proved useful in my break-in, because I could see | exactly what the burglar took. | giantg2 wrote: | Not to mention your name doesn't show up in a registry (Ring | client list), so they might not even ask you for video if they | don't go door to door. | giantg2 wrote: | "Who owns private home security footage" | | I do. DIY on-site only system. | | Pretty simple really - stop using third party vendors for data | storage. They're cheap and easy because _your data_ is usually | the product. Sure, you would still be forced to comply with | warrants /subpoenas if they think you have data, but that's | basically unescapable. | rtkwe wrote: | In this case even that might not have solved the issue because | the cops got a warrant for EVERY camera on the person's account | including those inside the house that couldn't reasonably show | evidence of the thing they were investigating. | r3trohack3r wrote: | > EVERY camera on the person's account including those inside | the house that couldn't reasonably show evidence of the thing | they were investigating. | | Armchairing it here - these broad warrants are probably carry | over from the days where you'd issue a single warrant for | "the tapes" since every camera in the system recorded onto a | single shared medium. | | Like GP, I have a personal offline system with remote backups | that I control. The footage all goes onto a single shared HDD | for all the cameras like the old "tape" days. A warrant would | likely ask for that HDD - not the footage from a specific | camera. | rtkwe wrote: | That doesn't really change that even though you're | completely uninvolved in the investigation as a target | suddenly you've got cops examining the recordings of the | interior of your house. Exterior recordings are at least | often of nominally publicly viewable areas barring things | like fences. Either way though I'm not that inclined to | give the cops a pass for being lazy about the warrant | writing just because it's the old way, warrants should be | minimally invasive, particularly so for people NOT INVOLVED | in the crime under investigation. | JohnFen wrote: | The main advantage to having this data yourself rather | than being held by a third party is that you have a | chance to push back if you have it yourself. | | If you get a subpoena that you believe is overly broad, | you can take the matter before a judge and argue your | case. As I understand it, this can be quite effective in | narrowing the scope. It's not perfect, of course, but | it's better than having no say whatsoever. | pixl97 wrote: | It could solve it in the sense that you have much more power | I denying access to the data while to fight to get the scope | of the warrant reduced. | StrangeATractor wrote: | Do you have outdoor cameras? What did you do for | weatherproofing? | hot_gril wrote: | > stop using third party vendors for data storage | | No. I need a system that detects motion during scheduled times | (ideally only humans) and buzzes my phone instantly, giving me | a live view and saving a recording around that time. And most | of all, it has to be reliable enough that I don't question | whether it's working. Anyone who says this is easy is | underestimating it. | | Something on-prem could do all that, but nobody sells it, and | most DIY systems don't have those features (does yours?). So | here I am with the Ring. | wyager wrote: | You can do all that locally with Frigate, FYI | hot_gril wrote: | Yeah, Frigate is pretty cool, but here are the moving | parts: https://docs.frigate.video/frigate/hardware/ and | https://docs.frigate.video/guides/ha_notifications/ . I | don't trust that to all work without maintenance. | tohnjitor wrote: | Unifi Protect can do that on-prem. Remote access is optional. | Salgat wrote: | Ubiquiti does that. I have motion detection alerts disabled | but human motion detection enabled depending on the camera. | You can also set regions in the view that it ignores for | motion detection. | hot_gril wrote: | Tech-savvy people say great things about Ubiquiti wifi, but | my experience was that it's way more annoying to deal with | than the AirPorts I was replacing. So I have doubts about | relying on their security solution to "just work," but | maybe I'll give it a try. | | And sure I'm tech-savvy, but I also don't want to deal with | things. The real test is at my parents' house, where I | don't live but I manage some of their stuff remotely / | occasionally in person. I can't babysit whatever gets | installed, and they don't understand computers. Like, | whenever their internet was having problems, they'd only | know how to reboot the router; eventually they automated | this task with a lamp timer. But they were fine managing | the Ring once I set it up. | alar44 wrote: | [dead] | l72 wrote: | I have several cameras hooked up to an NVR that has 2TB | drives for constant recording (when space runs out older | recordings are deleted. I usually have a few weeks | available). | | I then have frigate[1] set up on a small fitlet (with a usb | CORAL TPU), which gives me excellent control over detection | (Humans vs dogs vs cars vs ...). Frigate grabs the streams | from my NVR over rstp. | | This is then hooked up to my Home Assistant where I have | various rules to send alerts to my mobile devices based upon | object detected, location of camera, and time of day. | | Everything is internal. I have an always on wireguard on my | family's mobile devices allowing them to access the cameras | and home assistant alerts from anywhere. | | It works great, but I have refused to set this up for my | extended family (even though they have the same NVR and | _really_ want my system), just because there are a lot of | moving pieces that need to be maintained (not to mention | having a server + vpn) | | [1] https://frigate.video/ | phil21 wrote: | Frigate looks pretty interesting. Do you have an estimation | of how much CPU it's using for your cameras? | | I have about a dozen 4k cameras I'd love to migrate to a | much more capable NVR, but doing so with software typically | means I go from a 30W NVR to maxing out a 8 core 200W Xeon | even without object detection. | | Would love to kill my Duaha NVR and toss this on the | Proxmox cluster instead. | ssl232 wrote: | The Frigate website seems to heavily recommend a Coral | card to offload the bulk of the processing from the CPU. | | EDIT: looks like CPU still used for video decoding | regardless of Coral being available: | https://docs.frigate.video/frigate/hardware/#do-hwaccel- | args... | wjamesg wrote: | I agree, but it's not so evident or easy for the average | person. Who wants to deal with managing storage? Cloud will | typically win for the masses, who are typically not thinking | about privacy and may not know the difference between a SSD and | HDD | rtkwe wrote: | Most security video recorders will just let you set automatic | limits to the storage or age of recordings it's not that hard | to just dedicate a small part of an attached or internal HDD | to recordings and forget about it. | WaitWaitWha wrote: | I agree many are _not willing_ , but I disagree that it is | not "easy for the average person". | | One can walk into a local supermarket on any planet(e.g., | Walkmart, Sam's Club, Carrefour, Aldi, Tesco, Auchan) and | likely be able to pick up a self-managed NVR with cameras. | | If it was not relatively easy, I do not believe these | companies would carry them. | | You are right, many are not willing. | bbarn wrote: | How much storage do you need? | | Unless it's proof to the negative, which in most | jurisdictions isn't something you'd ever need to prove, as | the burden is on something occurring, after some amount of | time most recordings are useless? | dylan604 wrote: | How much storage do you need? is a classic question as old | as time. | | the classic response is "how much you got?" | JohnFen wrote: | I store 48 hours worth unless I'm going to be gone for a | long period of time, then I store everything for the | duration that I'm gone. | | My thinking is that if something happens that I need the | footage for, I'll know that I need it within 48 hours. | | A 32Gb flash card is able to store about a month's worth of | video in my system. | bcrosby95 wrote: | I've long wondered why something like a general computing | device maintenance service hasn't become a thing. I guess | cloud storage stepped in and removed the need. | | When my AC unit broke I didn't need to know the finer | decisions surrounding which unit to choose. | | I have weekly visits from the pool guy for a pool and | gardener for the landscaping. A yearly termite check and | AC/furnace maintenance. And so on. | deepakhj wrote: | Fully managed security camera solution with LTE. They'll | repair or service it if there's vandalism or any issues. | https://www.flocksafety.com/ | r3trohack3r wrote: | You can't offer a similar service at a substantially | reduced priced by centralizing maintenance of your pool. | Same for termites. Those have to happen on site. | | For software, there are strong incentives on both sides of | the transaction (buyer and seller) for a system to be | remotely managed. | link_108 wrote: | I think services like Geek Squad fill this need | froggit wrote: | I used to work for geek squad. They actually subcontract | any work that can't specifically be done in store. I'd | hardly call their service "general purpose computing | maintenance" as it only extends to things they've done | the install for and that's limited to items sold at the | store. However they will provide maintenance, via those | subcontractors, to items that fit that scope, such as | replacing the bulbs for home theater projectors when they | burn out. | [deleted] | vault_ wrote: | It's not "general purpose computing" maintenance, but the | service you're talking about does exist, though AFAIK | mostly at the very high-end. It's typically for things like | home theaters, whole-home audio systems, or smart-home type | setups (predating and now merging with current consumer | IoT/home automation platforms). Not sure how much that's | "maintenance" in the typical sense so much as support for | their custom install work, but I bet if you had a Sonos or | Lutron system where your installer went out of business | you'd be able to find a different guy to deal with it. | swatcoder wrote: | Your pool, landscaping, and traditional appliances are all | fairly mature and stable in a way that lets local workers | learn basic, repurposeable maintenance skills that last a | long time and cover a large number of clients. | | We won't have that for home compute appliances until | hardware/interface innovation slows down, and that'd | actually been trending in the other direction for a while | now. It will stabilize, even while innovation happens at | other layers, but core stability plays a huge role in what | you have in mind here. | | Cloud stuff basically hid that that stuff on the other side | of a pipe for a while, but has its own drawbacks and we're | likely seeing the start of a turn away from it. | jollyllama wrote: | Even then, there are contractors who will not work on | systems installed by contractors not adhering to certain | standards of workmanship. | rlyshw wrote: | Linux has been pretty stable for decades now. I've been | using the same core configs and bulk data in my home | compute environment basically since I started using | Linux. Remote repos for any syncing needs, then just | tar/rsync bulk archive data over. Store longer term or | stale data on older decommissioned HDDs. | | I've been running more or less the same services through | hardware, hypervisor, and now kubernetes migrations and | revisions. It seems to me doing things "the Linux way", | sticking to open source where possible, is resistant to | the fast pace of the consumer innovation market. When | anything new comes along, it's usually relatively trivial | to transfer over. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | > Linux has been pretty stable for decades now | | Really? I installed Ubuntu after a 5 year holiday from it | - Now you have some kind of Snaps, and flatpak. There is | whatever is happening in wayland. To install handbrake, | you need to install flatpack. | | There used to be 4 different drivers for intel GPU, now | there are 7, and I still can't get Quicksync to work in | Handbrake. There seems to be some kind of plugin you can | download from their website, but that doesn't install. | | After tinkering, I realised that Quicksync works in | ffmpeg and in Jellyfin, but not in Handbrake | | Mind you, I have a home server that runs 20 docker | contsiner for things like home assistant. I deploy | applications to kubernetes in my say job. | | But this shit is still frustrating | | Who do I call to fix this for less than $500 an hour? | rlyshw wrote: | I know that this is a typical HN post, assuming everyone | should become a Linux sysadmin. But related to the | parent, and recent developments in Zero Trust Access | products, I wonder if there is a pathway towards | neighborhood-scale sysadmin services. | | I mean, I essentially provide that to my small social | community with a private media tenant. | | With ZTA systems in place to accommodate remote access, | maybe there is an appetite for neighbor-to-neighbor | network sysadmin services? Hard to compete with the sleek | silos of big box brands and their infinite marketing | budget, plus 5 9s of service, though. | zamnos wrote: | If only there were some sort of regional authority, a | local group of people to whom we all gave money to, that | could hire someone to administer such a system. This | group could take on the responsibility of running, not | just this neighborhood network system, but also, I dunno, | the fire department and the police department and maybe | also the schools? | | I _know_ it 's an "out there" crazy silicon valley | leftist idea but maybe something like that could work? | | Okay no but for reals, the USPS could do that! | CrazyPyroLinux wrote: | Odd that you pick USPS of all possible examples: | https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/apr/23/usps- | covert... | froggit wrote: | The posted article is about the problem presented by | police overreach into data that the average person has a | mistaken expectation of privacy for. I may be | misunderstanding what you're proposing, but it seems to | me like having the same organization run things for both | the neighborhood and police would actually facilitate | police access to this kind of data moreso than provide | any benefits in privacy. | rlyshw wrote: | USPS might be mired in fed scale problems. Maybe a | Library is more appropriate? At least, more directly | accessible at the local level. I'm just not sure how | exactly that would work, or operate thru existing library | organization... | | I think the incentive of a trade/artisan economy would | make more sense, and justify individualized labor (house | calls for NAS reconfiguration, for instance). Like a | plumbing contractor vs inspector... I like the socialized | idea, but I don't see how the implementation would work | under current social service labor system and | organization... | jedberg wrote: | I'm not sure that's necessarily true. For example when | need maintenance on my heater, I have to call someone | certified in support for my brand. Same with my washer, | dishwasher, refrigerator, and stove. | | If GE made a home security product for example, it would | make sense for vendors to get certified on GE home | security support. Even if the underlying tech changed a | lot, if they had access to support docs and a support | portal it could work. | swatcoder wrote: | That's true and that's probably what first entrants will | do (are doing), but it takes a big capital expenditure | and a lot of time to set up a program like that and | recruit local shops to participate in, and your market | opportunity is constrained by that growth. | | It's easier to certify techs at an existing HVAC repair | on your specific heater than it is to convince somebody | to set up shop just for your new and peculiar product. | Maturity of industry matters. | apercu wrote: | Innovation doesn't seem that fast to me. I've been in | tech since the mid-90's and all I see is iteration when | it comes to storage technology. | | What is faster and faster is anti-consumer activities and | the general acceptance of it. | User23 wrote: | If you buy a Synology NAS there's really not much to manage. | Other than inserting the drives and waiting for it to | initialize, it's not considerably harder than setting up an | account somewhere. It also has apps for security cameras. | koheripbal wrote: | I use Blue Iris. Cheap and easy. | SkyBelow wrote: | >Sure, you would still be forced to comply with | warrants/subpoenas if they think you have data, but that's | basically unescapable. | | Isn't there the standard work around that companies do of | having scheduled deletion. As long as the deletion is scheduled | and not in response to a legal request, what is gone is gone | and not a crime. If you receive a warrant you might have to | stop further deletion, but what they want is likely already | gone. | slowhand09 wrote: | I have a ring doorbell and I detest it. But my wife wants it. | | Since you have your own system, would you be willing to share | links to info on a "roll your own" system? | pkulak wrote: | Not OP, but I _love_ talking about this stuff, so you're | stuck with me. :D | | I'm a big fan of this project: | | https://frigate.video/ | | It's open source, and you can hook it up to a Coral (or some | other things, I think) to get crazy-fast classifications. But | CPU is fine for only a few cameras. | | Once you get something like that setup, it's just a matter of | finding cameras that support RTSP. You get them setup however | you like (but preferably wired, with PoE), point Frigate at | the RTSP stream, and that's it. Now you've got home security | footage that never leaves your house. You can set up a VPN to | watch the feeds from elsewhere. Frigate supports MQTT as | well, so you can hook it into Home Assistant to get | notifications, and even pipe person events into something | like Double Take to get face detection: | | https://github.com/jakowenko/double-take | | EDIT: Oh, and the most important part is to have your | security cameras on a totally separate network that doesn't | have access to your internal network or the internet. The | best cameras are from China, and you don't want to give them | any opportunities. | MrFoof wrote: | Ubiquiti's UniFi is an option (of many). They include | doorbell cameras nowadays. | | You can use Ubiquiti's surveillance software that's part of | the UniFi console _(that you can manage locally, with no | cloud account)_ , or other third party local-only monitoring | software such as Synology Surveillance Station, BlueIris, and | open source solutions such as iSpy, Frigate, ZoneMinder, and | many others. | dheera wrote: | I use Unifi's security cameras at home, they store all data on | your own disks on-site. | | Owning footage is only half the story, privacy is also a big | issue for me, I don't want images of my home being sent to | corporations even if I own all rights to it. | | The only downside I can think of is that a really advanced | thief might know to pull the hard drives and walk with them, | but I suspect most residential thieves aren't that smart or | wouldn't know what disk to pull from my rack. | | The other downside for less techy people is that without the | cloud it's not that simple to view your home from a remote | location. I just VPN into my home network and view it, but it | took some effort to set that up, especially with dynamic DNS | and all. | dahart wrote: | Have you tried TailScale for the remote access part? | teawrecks wrote: | I agree, but still, I don't think it was appropriate for the | judge to approve this warrant. Just because person X is | suspected of a crime doesn't justify a search/seizure from | person Y who just happens to be nearby at the time. Imagine a | police officer legally searching your car just because the car | next to you was suspected of a crime. It's just not reasonable. | I hope the EFF or someone can help push back on this. | kshacker wrote: | Are these examples even comparable? A camera can provide | direct evidence. | JohnFen wrote: | I think they're comparable. Both are the police searching | the private property of an innocent bystander. | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | I have a pretty decent outdoor camera system, because I | actually wrote some ONVIF software, and got them for testing. | | I _will not_ use an external server. The cameras are in an | internal DMZ, and no ports are open. I have a Synology server, | recording the video. | | But the convenience (and well-written apps) for Ring and Nest | cameras is hard to argue with. People don't care about this | kind of thing, if they can pull up video of their dog taking a | dump in the living room, while they are sitting at a bar with | you. | Johnny555 wrote: | > I do. DIY on-site only system | | The police can still subpoena that footage and if they do, you | can't legally destroy it. | | If you've got the money, you can fight the subpoena and you can | be sure that they can't bypass you and get the footage while | your fighting it, but you better preserve it and don't let it | age out if your NVR in case you lose the fight. | zamalek wrote: | That's fine. I don't mind complying with a warrant. | | The likes of Ring (it might have actually been Ring if memory | serves) were recently caught sending data to whomever asked | nicely. | Agrue8u wrote: | If the footage is encrypted, are you legally required to | unencrypt it for the police? | AdrianB1 wrote: | Not a lawyer, but I read about cases where the judge put | people in prison for contempt because they refused to | disclose passwords for encrypted content. There was a guy | that was in prison for more than 1 year in such a case. | Johnny555 wrote: | If they give you a valid subpoena, then yeah, you have to | give them the video in a format they can use, you can't | give them a bunch of encrypted video files and say "Good | luck trying to watch it". | | If you refuse to hand it over and they get a warrant and | seize your NVR, then I'm not sure if they can compel you to | decrypt it, but you may already be in jail for contempt and | probably are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in | legal fees at this point, so most people would cave long | before this and just hand it over. | pixl97 wrote: | This is how laws have worked for centuries at this point in | the US. At least with this method you have the option of | fighting it and the data isn't secretly used behind your | back. Also you can force them to clearly define what data | they need, like front porch, rather than as much as they can | get. | Johnny555 wrote: | Yes, as I said if you have the money (a big if and whether | you win or lose, you can't recover that money ) you can | fight it, but can you really say you "own" your data if you | can be forced to give it up? | compiler-guy wrote: | Of course. Just like I own my car but if I violate | certain laws it may be confiscated. | | If "can't be forced to give it up by normal legal | processes" is your standard for what it means to own | something, there is very little in the world that you do | actually own. So little, in fact that the concept doesn't | mean much at all. | Johnny555 wrote: | But you can have your video footage taken without you | having violated any laws or even have any relation at all | to the reason they want the footage, the cops can say "We | think there's something we want to see on your camera | feed, now give it to us", and as long as they have | reasonable suspicion that there's footage related to an | investigation, they'll get it. | JohnFen wrote: | If you're assuming the cops and the judges are so corrupt | that the safeguard of the subpoena process is worthless, | then you also have to think of everything you own being | subject to seizure. Not just data. | aidenn0 wrote: | I think you are talking past each other. If a crime (not | committed by you) happens near your security camera, then | your footage can be subpoenaed. This is not corruption or | a violation of the subpoena safeguard process. I agree | that it's a bit over-the-top to say "you don't own the | footage." just because of this, but that appears to be | the point that is being made. | Thrymr wrote: | > But you can have your video footage taken without you | having violated any laws | | This is true of your car too, look up civil forfeiture in | the US. The bar for seizing property is much lower than | for criminal conviction. | Johnny555 wrote: | A low bar doesn't mean "no bar" - they literally need | zero reason to think you had and relation to a crime to | take your video footage, but for civil forfeiture, they | have to have suspicion that the property seized was | related to wrongdoing. | JohnFen wrote: | > can you really say you "own" your data if you can be | forced to give it up? | | You can be forced to give up anything you have. If that's | the deciding factor for the question of ownership, then | nobody owns anything. I don't think that's a useful | definition, though. | AdrianB1 wrote: | > nobody owns anything | | This is a pretty accurate statement. | uoaei wrote: | The allure of convenience makes a lot of people blind to what's | going on outside their small bubble of awareness. I see it a | lot in the boomers around me. | JohnFen wrote: | That's hardly something boomers are more prone to than | anybody else. | jjav wrote: | > I do. DIY on-site only system. | | Agreed, that's the only way to build a secure system. I have | some outdoor cameras but they are on a physically separate | network and can't talk to anything. | | Also, they are on ethernet but because they also support wifi I | physically cut the antenna connections because I'm not about to | trust the manufacturer of the camera to not try to exfiltrate | something. | | But sadly this is, while not difficult, too much for the non- | techie person to do. So people just buy Ring cameras with all | the associated privacy problems. | | The worst is that while my system is secure, many of the | surrounding neighbors have ring cameras outside so I can't | protect from those! | ClumsyPilot wrote: | > physically cut the antenna connections because I'm not | about to trust the manufacturer of the camera to not try to | exfiltrate something | | This is not normal - there is no other industry where the | customer routinely expects to be defrauded, and everyone to | get away with it. | lancesells wrote: | I'm not sure if you're talking about the security products | industry but I think of the "conncted" industry is this | way. It makes me fairly uncomfortable knowing that every | move I'm making, either online or offline, is being | uploaded to some server. I stopped installing apps, I | stopped signing up to things, I set up automations to turn | wifi and bluetooth off as I leave the house. | loeg wrote: | Well, there's crypto. | JohnFen wrote: | It's the new normal, it seems. Same thing holds with the | software industry. | Ralo wrote: | I host my own on-site and have had my security footage | requested by police 4 different times. It's never a subpoena or | demanding. Just some detectives will stop by and say they want | to know which direction a vehicle went. They come inside, give | me a USB stick and we copy it over. | | I'm sure I could tell them to kick rocks, and they would have | to write up a subpoena but there's no reason to do that. | iotku wrote: | >I'm sure I could tell them to kick rocks, and they would | have to write up a subpoena but there's no reason to do that | | Would they have the right to subpoena you though? Over mere | suspicion that they think a vehicle at some point drove a | certain direction? | | Sure if it was a case involving me personally I'd probably be | cooperative, but I don't fancy the idea of just letting LEOs | just waltz into my property to "just to take a look" | Ralo wrote: | Legally, I'm not sure. I could say they aren't working, or | they're fake etc. | | My neighbor has fake cameras and he gets asked too but they | just leave it at that and never press it. | giancarlostoro wrote: | Yeah I have zero issue doing this, it costs me nothing, and | if it helps keep others accountable for their actions even | better. | hsbauauvhabzb wrote: | I'm not saying don't help the police but I think it's worth | acknowledging that point of view when applied en made is | how we end up with policies attempting to back door | encryption etc. | | I think making sure some decision basis should be applied | (there was a break in, commotion, and a car speed chase | which ended here is much different to 'we just wanna see if | this car drove past') | anonu wrote: | Is there a home solution as easy as Nest or Ring and which | offers the same feature set? | bobleeswagger wrote: | Frigate takes 5 minutes to setup and try. There's really no | excuse these days but these companies will keep walling-up | their gardens. | jjeaff wrote: | I use frigate and like it. But it did take me a few hours | to figure out all the right config file settings for my 3 | cameras and then figure out how to configure storage | settings and the like. And that's not counting the fact | that I already have experience with docker and Linux | systems and already had a running server with docker | containers launched from a docker compose file. In other | words, frigate is not for the 99%. | giantg2 wrote: | "Is there a home solution as easy as Nest or Ring and which | offers the same feature set?" | | I highly doubt it, for the fact that many of the features are | incompatible with the goal of privacy and convenience. | | There are plenty of on-site options that offer the bulk of | the benefits, like self contained NVR systems. Once you want | things like texts, web access, etc then it gets tricky. Those | typically aren't offered in a secure _and easy_ way. | hapticmonkey wrote: | Apple HomeKit's secure video is end to end encrypted and very | easy to set up. You need compatible devices though. | gresrun wrote: | UniFi Protect[0] is a decent on-prem solution and has all the | main features of Nest/Ring. Certainly expensive though, | minimal system for a doorbell cam is $199 for the camera[1] + | $199 for the smallest NVR[2]. | | [0]: https://ui.com/camera-security [1]: | https://store.ui.com/collections/unifi-protect- | cameras/produ... [2]: https://store.ui.com/collections/unifi- | protect/products/unif... | schwank wrote: | I use UniFi devices throughout my home but the cameras (G3 | specifically) are buggy and frequently disconnect, and | don't auto reconnect. Basically useless. | | Over the year end holidays I was traveling and set one up | to monitor my front yard. There was actually an incident | while I was gone and I remoted in to find the camera | offline, totally missed it when it should have had perfect | perspective. The police asked me for video and in this case | I would have shared it, but alas could not. Sucks as I have | the CloudKey box for video storage, but its very | undependable in my experience. | hot_gril wrote: | What concerns me isn't so much that the camera was down | but that you _didn 't know_ it was down. Does it not | alert you of that? | Axsuul wrote: | Would you not recommend UniFi then? Will you be migrating | to another system? | zrail wrote: | I have a smallish Protect system (UNVR, four G4 Pros, one | doorbell, two G3 Instants). | | The positives are that it pretty much just works. The | mobile app is excellent, the web app on the UNVR is fine, | and it has full spousal approval factor. | | I have had very few issues with the system, primarily | just the doorbell was unreliable until I upgraded the | transformer and put an access point right next to it. I | had an issue with the NVR right before it went out of | warranty and I fixed it by replacing the internal USB | drive with an SSD. | | The negatives are that it's more costly than other | options, Ubiquiti has had perennial stock problems over | the last few years, and you're locked into their | ecosystem. The NVR won't work with generic cameras and | you can't run the software on your own hardware. | | It's also possible that, if you have their remote access | proxy set up (required for mobile app), you could be | subject to the same warrant issues as with Ring. | zrail wrote: | This has not been my experience with mostly G4 pro | hardwired PoE cameras. I have their G4 doorbell and did | have similar problems until I upgraded its transformer | and pointed an access point directly at it. Been smooth | sailing ever since. | arrosenberg wrote: | This has been my experience. In a year of use I've had 0 | problems with PoE cameras and maybe 2-3 disconnects on | the doorbell over wifi. | surfsvammel wrote: | That is not my experience with them at all. I have about | 10 G3 cameras. They have never been any problem at all. | Nothing. | | My cloud key however, have killed a couple of drives over | the years though. | alistairSH wrote: | Aren't most of those PoE (the doorbell being the exception | - appears powered by regular doorbell power supply)? So, | you have to run cables to each camera. Not an easy | undertaking for most. | sirwally wrote: | as easy as plug and play? not really. blueiris(windows) & | securityspy(macOS) offer similar features, but it takes a bit | of setup to add the cams via RTSP/ONVIF, configure storage | and retention, configure monitoring schedules/alerts etc.. | WaitWaitWha wrote: | > as easy | | This is a very subjective area. As I noted you can get all | kinds of NVRs with notification and cameras, others have | mentioned Ubiquiti, Roku is also getting into the home | automation field, and of course there are open source | solutions like Home Assistant. | wara23arish wrote: | Have any links related to what you're using and what to | recommend? | scrappyjoe wrote: | When I went through this vueville had enough info for me to | build an intuition for what to look for on Amazon. | | https://www.vueville.com/home-security/cctv/ip- | cameras/ultim... | jszymborski wrote: | Reolink cameras are pretty affordable, can be accessed with | ONVIF, and you can just put them on a VLAN/Firewall that has | no internet access if you're afraid that it's phoning home. | | I have a Synology NAS and their free security camera software | is pretty easy to set-up and use with ONVIF cameras. | varenc wrote: | If you want a really simple and cheap local storage camera, | check out Wyze[0]. By "simple" I mean actually simple for | non-techies. It's one of the very few consumer oriented | options with support for local SD storage. | | By default it uploads short clips of motion to "the cloud" | and requires an app + wifi for setup, but you can disable | clip uploading after it's setup. | | If you don't trust it even with cloud uploading disabled, you | can just deprive it of internet access once it's setup. | (Block the device on your network, etc). It'll keep writing | video to the SD card while offline. Though with the fully | offline approach you'll need to physically take out the SD | card to access the video instead of using their app. | | There's certainly better local storage options out there. But | for local storage with a single camera it's the easiest and | cheapest setup I know. | | [0] https://www.wyze.com/products/wyze-cam | UberFly wrote: | "you can deprive it of internet access". | | Very good advice when it comes to Wyze products. Sadly | they're just the tip of the security/privacy nightmare | iceberg. | ortusdux wrote: | POE cameras paired with either an NVR or custom server. I | prefer wired cameras and local storage. | jjeaff wrote: | I am using Frigate. Simple, open source project. It streams | the cameras and can do object and motion detection and only | record for specific events (like motion). It allows me to set | how long to keep the recordings. For any additional | functionality, I have it integrated with my home assistant. | giantg2 wrote: | No actual links, but ReoLink PoE cameras, a miniPC, PoE | switch, Zoneminder, 2TB SSD, external enclosure, and backup | UPS. | liotier wrote: | A more contemporary alternative to ZoneMinder would be | Shinobi: https://shinobi.video/ | tastysandwich wrote: | How have you found Shinobi versus Zoneminder? I've been | using ZoneMinder for years. It's a bit clunky but once | it's set up it works fairly well, but I'd be open to | switching to something better. | didgetmaster wrote: | Everyone seems to be accepting at face value the government's | claim that they were investigating a real crime in the | neighborhood and not specifically targeting this guy and using | this as a lame excuse to spy on him. | | Given all the instances of government agencies abusing their | power to target political enemies of the current administration; | I wonder how reasonable such an assumption really is. | [deleted] | lrvick wrote: | This is exactly why security footage will never be available in | decrypted form except on hardware I own. | bluGill wrote: | If the courts find out you have the data they can demand you | decrypt it, and send you to prison if you do not. | [deleted] | nobody9999 wrote: | >If the courts find out you have the data they can demand you | decrypt it, and send you to prison if you do not. | | If the courts decide there's _anything_ (physical or digital) | law enforcement wants /needs, you have to turn it over or | face jail[0][3] and/or fines. That's nothing new. Nor is it | likely to change anytime soon. | | However, not being able to comply (e.g., you don't _actually_ | have such data) is a defense for contempt of court. As such, | short-term retention policies and secure deletion methods | would be preferred. | | Perhaps also with a 'canary'[2] as well, that will delete | _all_ data if some key /setting/file isn't updated within a | specific period of time. Unless one has been _ordered_ by the | court (or some law on the books to retain data), this is | perfectly legal. | | [0] Not prison. Contempt of court[1] means jail, not prison. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court#United_St | ate... | | [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary -- Not | exactly this (as it affects the retention/deletion of | personal data rather than informing others of government | involvement), but a similar idea. | | [3] https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/jail-vs- | prison... | | Edit: Corrected punctuation. | JohnFen wrote: | This. My security system incudes video, but that video stays | with me. It's not being managed by any third party service. If | the police want it, they have to ask me for it directly -- they | can't go to some company and bypass my protections. | syntaxing wrote: | I currently run frigate with Docker and the setup is pretty | straightforward if you know how to modify YAMLs. Got rid of all | my eufy stuff after the scandal. It's so nice to have an on | premise system since you can set a camera VLAN to have no | internet access. The tensorflow lite based detections is miles | ahead of motion based detection too. | oaththrowaway wrote: | I'm also running Frigate and I've helped 2 other people set it | up. Pretty slick if you have a Coral | rex_gallorum2 wrote: | Nobody seems to be asking whether/why you need cameras in the | first place. The last thing I want is surveillance cameras in my | living space, and the fact that other people have street facing | cameras casting suspicion on people lawfully using public spaces | really unnerves me. | | These companies are encouraging fear and paranoia to sell their | products, and there is no guarantee using said products will | deter criminals, or ensure that they are caught and punished even | if you have clear video evidence. | | This whole camera craze is built on a bunch of hot air. Ditch the | cameras and stop living in fear. | icelancer wrote: | > This whole camera craze is built on a bunch of hot air. Ditch | the cameras and stop living in fear. | | Living in the inner city where property crime is rampant might | make you change your mind. A dashcam was the star of a legal | case I was in, and our outdoor cameras have caught multiple | yard prowlers. Police don't do anything about it, of course, | but at least I can notify my neighbors with actual evidence. | rex_gallorum2 wrote: | It might sound a little 'out there', but I can recommend | keeping a couple of geese (if you have space in the city). | They go absolutely nuts and honk like a car alarm if | strangers come around. | icelancer wrote: | That would be far from the most ridiculous thing that | happens in my neighborhood of Seattle. Although I am not | sure that geese can be "kept" from my experiences with them | both out here and in the Midwest... | encryptluks2 wrote: | I used to think the same thing until I caught a 40 year old man | stalking my teen daughter and continually trying to peer into | her bedroom windows on camera. So while it feels good to be | ignorant, it doesn't make everything go away. Also, the people | commiting crime seem the most concerned with people having | cameras. Hmm, wonder why. | [deleted] | rex_gallorum2 wrote: | The irony is that you wouldn't know if your neighbors were | using their own cameras to observe your daughter. Or you for | that matter. | BeetleB wrote: | Your use case would have been fine with external cameras, | right? | | I believe that was the intent of the GP's question: Why have | _indoor_ cameras? | rex_gallorum2 wrote: | The indoor camera thing is pretty freaky. Setting them up | to keep an eye on things when you are gone would probably | be a good idea - but all the time? | Antelope13 wrote: | We have a few rescue cats that each have... quirks. We | have two indoor cameras set up in our basement: one on | the feeding area, and one on the potty area. | | Sometimes they fight over food (automated feeder) and one | doesn't get fed. But it's hard to tell if they're meowing | at us because they were bullied out of food, or because | they know we are softies and will feed them if they meow | enough. We can check the feeder footage and see who got | fed. | | One of them is potty-shy, and about once every 3-6 months | stops using the litter box and starts using obscure | corners of the basement until we can coax him back to | using the litter box. We check the footage every couple | days to make sure he's using litter boxes. | | For a software-oriented site, I'm baffled at how obtuse | users can be. A lot of the negativity I'm seeing is along | the lines of "I have no use for an indoor camera, | therefor anyone who uses them is dumb." There are lots of | legit uses (if you think about it for more than 2 | seconds), and not all of us want provide the police with | indoor footage of our cats shitting. | icelancer wrote: | He specifically mentioned street facing cameras, so I don't | think it's just indoor cameras. | [deleted] | ajross wrote: | > Nobody seems to be asking whether/why you need cameras in the | first place. | | Oh, come on. Go install a Nest or Ring for a week and see how | much you come to rely on it. "Do I need to answer the door or | is it just girl scouts selling cookies?" "Do I have time for | coffee or should I head home to grab the package?" You can chat | with the folks at the door! You can say thank you to the | Grubhub driver as they drop the meal. You can see what the | neighbor's cats are doing on your doorstep in the middle of the | night. You can point one into your backyard trivially and see | if it's the rabbits eating your leeks. | | I mean, no, you don't "need" this, just like you don't need a | dishwasher. But don't pretend it's just about paranoia, it's a | fun tool for the modern era. | jabroni_salad wrote: | The reason I run one is because of other people that have | access to my living area, as in the landlord, maintenance guy, | property management company etc. They seem to think that | possession of a key entitles them to whatever they want. | | At multiple locations and every area of the price spectrum, | from indies to bigcorps, I have had my rights and privacy | violated. So I keep a camera so I can know about it. | | At 2 locations now I have used footage to break my lease early | with zero penalty. Never got actual charges pressed against | anyone but just with that it has paid for itself multiple times | over. | rex_gallorum2 wrote: | That works! The other thing nobody talks about is how cameras | can be used for blackmail or for leverage. It could be a | matter of catching someone doing something out of line, or | more sinister, extorting money from a cheating neighbor. | These are some of the reasons I find ubiquitous camera | surveillance so insidious. There is infinite potential for | petty abuse and chicanery. In a residential setting, they | give busybodies and petty rule enforcers a very powerful | weapon. | rex_gallorum2 wrote: | I keep change in two (usually) unlocked cars as bait. If the | change is gone, someone has been going through the cars. A | while back the change was gone. If I had video footage of that, | would the cops pursue the case? Hell no. If I received a | notification from a camera/sensor, would I confront or possibly | shoot (legal in this jurisdiction) a petty thief? Hell no. | Anyone who is stealing loose change out of cars is desperate to | the point that they do not care anymore. | | Around the time the bait disappeared, the police were pursuing | a suspect from house to house at 2am. If it was the same | person, and I had proof, stealing from parked cars would be the | least of anyone's concern. | | What are the odds your local police are going to take your | package theft footage and actually pursue the thief? Even for | more serious crimes, it's questionable whether they will seek | (or use) camera evidence, or be successful if they do. I know | of an armed robbery attempt that occurred close to home, and to | my knowledge no inquiries were made regarding camera evidence | (I was a witness). | | I can think of plenty of concrete uses for surveillance | cameras, sure, but I'd say the costs vastly outweigh the | benefits for most people using them today. | | Check out some online social (fearmongering) sites like | Nextdoor some time - it's nothing but busybodies speculating | that the person parked on the street is casing their house or | stealing packages. Quick, report them to the cops. | | Oops. The local cops no longer accept 'suspicious person or | vehicle' reports unless there is a crime in progress. | lotsofpulp wrote: | In your scenario, the costs seem to outweigh the benefits | because police and/or the courts are dropping the ball on | prosecuting thieves. | WaitWaitWha wrote: | If this is a concern for you, consider Home Assistant[0]. Near | dummy proof (I am prime example), can bet set up to have zero | third-party involvement. My properties are not locked into any | ecosystem and I am able to do everything the closed commercial | gardens offer. | | [0]: https://www.home-assistant.io/ | rconti wrote: | From my skimming, the article doesn't explain why the police knew | to ask for the footage. | | Did he volunteer it to them initially, or to someone else? Is he | part of a ring neighborhood thing? (They have a function to offer | to share footage with your neighbors). Or did the police simply | throw out the dragnet and look to see if Ring had any customers | in the area? I suspect it's one of the first two options. | | In such a case, you're better off not offering your information | to begin with (unfortunately), and you'd likely be okay with a | Ring as long as you didn't advertise its existence online. You'd | be better off still with a non-cloud solution that, while subject | to subpoena-or-something, flies under the radar even more. | krupan wrote: | Several people questioning why you'd have cameras inside your | home. I have a story. A few years back I started discovering wet | spots on the carpet around my house. It was pretty clearly urine. | None if my kids would fess up to it, and they seemed sincere. I | set up some cameras and eventually caught a sleepwalker. At least | one of my kids would stand up, walk around the house for a bit, | and take a leak like he thought he was in the bathroom, and have | zero memory of it! It was kind of hilarious. | | Got the kid to a sleep doctor and cleaned (and eventually | replaced) the carpet. Got rid of the cameras. | | It would have been embarrassing at least if anyone got that | footage. Glad it was all local storage. | lotsofpulp wrote: | What did the sleep doctor say? I used to sleep so deep that if | I needed to go to the bathroom, in my dreams, a toilet will | appear. Even in the middle of a jungle. Peed in a trash can one | time. My solution was to just not drink anything in the hours | before going to sleep. | krupan wrote: | Basically just told the kid to stop staying up so late | reading Harry Potter. He said to try a regular sleep schedule | with an early bedtime first, and if that didn't work to come | back and there was some medication we could try. The regular | sleep schedule seemed to fix it | j45 wrote: | The cloud is always someone else's computer. | | If you put something in someone else's desk drawer, is it really | yours alone to access? | | Self hosting has become much easier than 10-20 years ago. | anonym29 wrote: | I wonder what happens if you have a DIY, FOSS, local setup with | full disk encryption on the footage storage drive, and you simply | refuse to give up your password for the footage. | | At least in some states1 in the USA, police cannot compel you to | give up a password2. | | 1 https://www.reuters.com/business/legal/us-supreme-court-nixe... | | 2 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28955830 | dfxm12 wrote: | Double check with a lawyer, but a web search suggests that at | least in some jurisdictions, you can be held in civil contempt, | for which you may be incarcerated for up to 18 months. | | https://goldsteinmehta.com/blog/limits-on-federal-civil- | cont.... | anonym29 wrote: | Absolutely. Even so, it used to be the case that judges could | detain people this way indefinitely. Outside of the US, many | countries offer no such legal protection at all, refusing to | give up a password is itself a crime, in some cases with | penalties exceeding the original charges. | | People should absolutely familiarize themselves with the laws | surrounding this in their jurisdiction even if they're doing | nothing wrong - legitimately forgetting a password and | defiantly refusing to share it are often treated the same way | by the criminal justice system. | JohnFen wrote: | In my state, you could be put in jail until you give up the | password. | duck0duck wrote: | In my current work I develop software on this area. Kind of CCTV | from scratch in .NET. We archive high performance using static | FFmpeg libraries. Right now, because of currency exchange, I'm | looking for a new job. ely at duck dot com | caseysoftware wrote: | Effectively anyone. | | Third Party Doctrine says that once you give your data to someone | else, you lose most of your rights to privacy, control, etc. It's | why law enforcement doesn't NEED a warrant to go after so many | things like cell phone records, bank account info, and so much | more. The fact that so many companies want a warrant is usually a | courtesy, not a requirement. | | Check out the book "Habeas Data" for the (US) legal reasoning on | it. | | And to be clear, I think Third Party Doctrine should be wiped out | and I should be able to say "you can't use, sell, share, etc my | data without EXPLICIT PRIOR permission from me." | | Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine | nugget wrote: | This is not as true as it used to be, at least in certain | states. | | Under CCPA/CPRA in California, you can request that personal | information is removed. There are half a dozen other laws | around the US that allow for similar requests in different | forms. | | Enforcement is still hit or miss. Lobbyists are starting to | fight back against the most effective laws, for example: | | https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-opinion... | | I'm involved in the fight to strengthen and expand these laws, | and overall I'm hopeful for the future. | nobody9999 wrote: | >Under CCPA/CPRA in California, you can request that personal | information is removed. There are half a dozen other laws | around the US that allow for similar requests in different | forms. | | CCPA/CPRA is a _minor_ start, IMHO. | | Telecoms _need_ to collect and store usage information | (including call detail) to perform billing functions. | | As with most such laws, there are loopholes big enough to | drive a column of tanks through. | | And many other corporations collect and store data both for | billing and _because they can_ [mine|analyse|sell] such data. | | Just being able to _request_ removal of "data" isn't nearly | enough. | | Unless there are unambiguous opt- _in_ data collection | /retention policies, with clear, concise language about how | such data could be used. | | What's more, such policies should apply to any and all third | parties providing services to corporations with such data. | | Further, as another comment[0] in this discussion pointed | out, the Third-Party Doctrine should be gutted and a | requirement that _all_ government agencies collect data _for | law enforcement purposes_ through the issuance of warrants by | judges that specify the "probable cause, supported by oath | or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be | searched, and the persons or things to be seized."[1] | | This is (unfortunately) a wide-ranging issue, with a growing | number of industries (autos, electronics, "cloud" services, | etc., etc., etc.) collecting, storing, using and selling all | sorts of PII. | | From a privacy perspective, this is a nightmare, the CCPA | notwithstanding -- even in California. | | [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35073264 | | [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment | JohnFen wrote: | > CCPA/CPRA is a minor start, IMHO. | | That's a real understatement. When I see how much effort is | being put into neutering even the minor protections that | has, I wonder how we'll ever get anything like reasonable | protection. | caseysoftware wrote: | There are exceptions for LEO in each of the relevant laws - | cited in the article - but thanks for fighting this battle. | | We didn't get this way overnight so while I'd love my idea to | fly immediately, I appreciate people pushing things the right | direction. | nugget wrote: | As a rule, if law enforcement has a warrant then it's going | to be difficult to prevent them from gaining access. You | can self-host and encrypt but that's difficult for | mainstream users to do, and even for experts, it limits the | tools you have access to. You can also be prosecuted for | refusal to decrypt a device since SCOTUS hasn't yet ruled | on the scope of the 5th amendment's protections with | respect to encrypted personal devices. | | I think the best solution is to set content to auto-delete | (unless flagged) after some period of time. You can't turn | over what you don't have. | giantg2 wrote: | "I think the best solution is to set content to auto- | delete (unless flagged) after some period of time." | | This is basically a necessity in on-site systems to free | up space for additonal recordings anyways. Run a few | cameras at decent resolution even at a fairly low | framerate and you're looking at a couple TB per month. | JohnFen wrote: | Most systems (I think -- at least the ones I've seen) let | you set it up so video is only recorded when the camera | sees movement. Depending on what's in the field of view, | that seriously cuts down on the memory requirement. Even | inexpensive commercial systems will also allow you to | specify areas in the field of view to ignore motion in, | so that swaying trees and the like won't constantly | trigger recording. | | I have three cameras recording at a decent resolution and | framerate, and together, about two weeks of video takes | up less than 32Gb, because most of the time nothing is | moving in the fields of view. | JohnFen wrote: | > You can self-host and encrypt but that's difficult for | mainstream users to do | | It's really not. You can buy off-the-shelf systems from | Amazon right now for around $500 that your grandmother | could set up and have running without difficulty. | | The real problem is the perception that this is a | difficult thing for non-techy people to do. | [deleted] | caseysoftware wrote: | Further.. | | If the police get a warrant to search my home, they can see | what I _HAVE_ in my physical possession at that moment not what | I _DID_ have, have _DONE_ , or _SAID_. | | With video (or audio) data, someone could review every action, | conversation, item, or facial expression my family has had | within sight (or hearing) of the camera. | | When someone can construct a _complete_ record of everything | that happened, it gets ripe for abuse. | dylan604 wrote: | I would have to ask why you have cameras recording inside the | home when you're actively at home like this? Shouldn't the | cameras only on when at night typical when you would arm the | alarm type of situation? | jjav wrote: | > Third Party Doctrine says that once you give your data to | someone else, you lose most of your rights to privacy, control, | etc. | | This is what I wish more people could understand about "the | cloud". | | The moment your private data is sent to a third party, it's | game over in terms of having any privacy control on that data | (unless it's encrypted with keys only you control and only you | can ever access, but that's rare, intentionally). | | So many people will argue "Oh but I trust company Foo" without | realizing that is completely irrelevant. Company Foo _might_ be | trustworty, today. But management can change in the blink of an | eye and they now still have your data. Or most importantly, | regardless of how honorable management is, they can receive | government orders (up to including NSLs) which force them to | leak the data no matter what. | anonymouse008 wrote: | I wish the 2nd amendment movement had a sister group with the | same vigor for the 4th amendment. What you proposed is the | sensible legislation that we need to ensure our longevity as a | "free society" | | One could almost say that aggressive opposition to this exposes | a true tyrant. | mywittyname wrote: | There's a financial component to the 2A (and 1A) that doesn't | really exist for the 4A. So the 4A will never have the same | level of financial support as the other two. | dylan604 wrote: | Is that always going to be true though. As data becomes | more valuable, being able to search&seize that data from | anywhere anytime sure seems suspect to me. | mrWiz wrote: | Firearm manufacturers have a financial motivation to | promote 2A rights. Who would have a financial motivation | for 4A? | giantg2 wrote: | Interestingly enough that group does tends to advocate for | 4th amendment protections, at least within limited scope. | Although those same concepts and case law could be applied to | other areas. So it's possible to piggyback off of it. | | Some examples are red flag laws which use the civil system to | avoid the protections of the criminal system for the | government to seize property (beyond a reasonable doubt, | right to representation, ex parte protections, etc). Police | stopping, questioning, and sometimes seizing guns (property) | without any crime being committed and with some of those guns | (property) being destroyed. There is of course pushback on | things related to data reporting such as registries (Ring is | essentially a registry that allowed police to contact the | individual in this article), new credit card merchant codes, | and data abuses of carry permit information (disclosing names | and addresses of gun owner which is basically a map for | thieves). | dpkirchner wrote: | I've never seen this, but I'll admit some ignorance. Have | there been 2A-themed protests following 4A violations (as | in, civil asset forfeitures of money, say), similar to | those we see when the 2A is challenged in some way? Google | searches show only passing references to the fourth | amendment on the NRA site. It looks like most arguments | against red flag laws rely on the 2A instead. | icelancer wrote: | 2A zealots tend to be very protective of their property | being unlawfully searched or seized. The whole Sovereign | Citizen movement is emblematic of the extremes in this | regard, but it's absolutely true overall. | | As someone else said, though, the 4A doesn't really give | companies and people much to sell to one another in that | section of society. They would seriously benefit from | password safety products, better choice of hardware, and | full-disk encryption, but this group doesn't tend to have | a lot of electronics technical chops. | | I say this as someone who recreationally shoots long arms | and works in a tech/science field. The Venn diagram | hardly overlaps. Which is a shame for both sides, I | think. | giantg2 wrote: | Yeah, like I said, it's usually within the limited scope | of 2A issues, but could be expanded to other areas. The | red flag laws are something that hasn't been addressed. | The thing about that is you can effectively circumvent | the 4th amendment by going through the civil court since | the protections are so much more limited. That's why TX | wanted that civil abortion law and CA wanted to copy it | for guns. No reason that can't be expanded to immediately | sieze other property without a crime unless the | protections are expanded. There are some limits to it's | application to civil assest forfeiture since most | firearms generally have a paper trail to prove ownership. | | One of the big problems is that many of the coverage of | the cases focuses on 2A and the 4A part gets hidden. Of | course that makes for a bigger headline for the involved | groups. Or they can be in specific industries that a | normal person doesn't care about (FFL blanket record | copies). | | Recent case with more prominent 4th amendment angle. | https://crescentcitytimes.com/supreme-court-sides-with- | goa-i... | | General stuff about searches. | https://jslawgroup.com/fourth-amendment-gun-rights/ | | ATF has been performing entire book copies when they're | only supposed to copy data related to specific | guns/individuals related to a crime or error. | | https://fflconsultinggroup.com/firearms-record-books-atf- | for... | dpkirchner wrote: | > One of the big problems is that many of the coverage of | the cases focuses on 2A and the 4A part gets hidden. | | The cynic in me thinks that the 2A gets more press | because it's easy to find commercial and foreign | government support for their organizations. 4A proponents | don't have much if anything to sell. | JohnFen wrote: | > Third Party Doctrine says that once you give your data to | someone else, you lose most of your rights to privacy, control, | etc. | | It's useful to think of this not as you losing your rights, but | you transferring your rights to that third party. The end | result is the same, but that emphasizes that someone else has | gained what you lost. | giantg2 wrote: | The real issue is that the vendors don't care. | | If they did, they could set it up like AWS where you hit a | button to spin up a pre-configured image that is considered | yours. They don't want to do it this way because they want your | data. | | Also whether they need a warrant or not seems to be moot since | it seems the judges are more than willing to sign them. We | would also have to address the lax views on "probable cause" | that seem to be rampant with warrant approval. | austinkhale wrote: | I've been using UniFi cameras for a couple of years now, writing | to a local SSD (~ 40 days of storage), stored in a UDMPro. | | The initial outlay is a bit more expensive but the setup is rock | solid, provides tons of network analytics, has smart lights | paired next to the cameras, and continues to work even when my | ISP has issues. I've _voluntarily_ given footage to the police a | couple of times but it feels much better when the entire system | is within my control, sitting in my office. | nmilo wrote: | Couldn't the police in theory get a warrant for the footage on | your SSDs? The problem with Ring is that they give data to | police without warrants, but in this case the problem seems to | be the over-invasion of privacy of the warrant system. | tptacek wrote: | They absolutely can and, in the era before widespread cloud | cameras, routinely did. | pc86 wrote: | IANAL but the short answer is yes. Slightly longest answer is | probably, but they'd have to convince a judge that _this_ | camera has something worthwhile compared to any other cameras | on that street. Somewhat paradoxically the more of your | neighbors have things like Ring the "safer" you are from | something like this. | vineyardmike wrote: | To be clear, you're safer from being the one to give up | footage, but you're not "safer". You have a street filled | with cameras, and implicitly with this argument, it's easy | for the police to gain access to some of the cameras. So | all you gain is not being the directly invaded privacy | wise, but you'll already have lost since being filmed all | the time anyways. | pc86 wrote: | Yes I just meant "safer" in the "having to give the | police _your_ data " sense and not any other (more | important) ones. | pjdesno wrote: | IANAL, but it seems that would require the equivalent of a | warrant to search your house. (among other things, they would | need to actually get physical possession of your SSDs for the | key to be useful, so they'd need a warrant for an actual | physical search) | | If judges in your area are giving those out like candy then | you've got a problem, whether you have security cameras or | not. | teachrdan wrote: | If the police aren't going into your home to seize your hard | drive, it might be a subpoena, rather than a warrant. The | advantage here is that you can fight it. For the subject of | this story, he likely could have fought to only turn over | footage of the outside of his home -- not the footage from | inside his home and store. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpoena_duces_tecum | bluGill wrote: | Note that as soon as the police inform you they are seeking | data you have to ensure you preserve it. That may mean you | have to buy additional storage while you fight it. If the | police lose the case but can prove that the data expired | before they lost they can then get you for deleting the | data! | dylan604 wrote: | Not just the police. It can be for any law suit. I had to | help someone that was in a legal battle with a | construction company, and they had cameras showing the | hours the work was being done including while the site | was red tagged. I had to download the footage to external | drives while they were away on vacation to ensure the | copies were preserved before the system rolled over the | older data. Once the lawyers knew the cameras existed, | they issued the order and it became a nightmare ever | since. I'm sure the expense of all of those drives was a | rounding error in the overall cost of the case, but it's | just another one of those things that stuck with me on | the vindictiveness of an opposing counsel and the games | they are allowed to play. | noodlesUK wrote: | I'm curious. Do you currently have Unifi remote access [1] | enabled, or is any remote access done through a VPN that you | control? I suspect that if a law enforcement agency were | sufficiently determined, they could convince Ubiquiti to give | them access to your system if you had remote access turned on. | Whether this is realistic depends on your threat model. | | [1] https://help.ui.com/hc/en-us/articles/115012240067-UniFi- | Net... | jaywalk wrote: | With a security-minded setup, Ubiquiti would not be able to | grant remote access. Whether they actually have a security- | minded setup or not is the question. As a user of their | stuff, I have remote access disabled. I can access everything | I need through Home Assistant, which is completely controlled | by me. | bigfatfrock wrote: | Great to know, as a fellow UDM owner I was ironically working | on making the switch from a NetGear camera setup a week ago | because of their awful option sets and related interface, their | increasing cloud pricing, and finally and most importantly what | happened in the OP. | izacus wrote: | You can get by much cheaper as well - e.g. occasionally I use | TP-Link Tapo cameras which record to internal SD card and can | also stream to Synology NAS Surveillance Station software (all | local). | | I'm a bit miffed that the app is trying to sell cloud storage, | but for now a full cheap local setup is still possible. | | (For a serious setup I'd of course opt for something more | serious). | ww520 wrote: | Does Synology NAS have a mobile app that can view the | recordings? | | Also what are some good 4k Wi-Fi cameras that work with | Synology? | Eumenes wrote: | Are the UniFi cameras just IP but use PoE? | Wistar wrote: | Yes. | czbond wrote: | Anyone recommend a UniFi specific model? (ideally non-wired) | jaywalk wrote: | The Flex models (G3 and G4) are the only non-wired cameras | they offer. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-03-08 23:00 UTC)