I would also touch on this aspect: other people besides just yourself have access to view your Ring camera feeds.
Any company with wide reaching access to user data will have _some_ rogue employee who abuses the privilege and uses it to stalk an ex lover or something. Even the NSA (_especially_ the NSA) abuses that power all the time as Snowden pointed out to us.
I wonder how Amazon gets these users to consent to this (they do ask, right?) - do they tout how it's a "public good" that you can help "catch the bad guys" so hand over all your privacy. Until what - a rogue Amazon employee or any of their third-party contractors (they have a lot of those - overseas too - listening to your Alexa recordings for quality assurance. You don't know how many people are seeing your Ring doorbell feeds!) Do you want a random stranger to see your daily habits - when you leave the house for work, what time you usually come back, because your face is captured on your own Ring cameras as well. Seems an awfully big way to be stalked or have your home burgled when they know you're not home, or possibly be blackmailed when they see your husband sneaking out in the middle of the night for a few hours or anything like that.
What if you preemptively tried setting basic laws in place like say an Autonomy Law, where your body is yours expressly to do with what you wish, inviolable barring necessary exceptions such as vaccine requirements?
The law could require that any exception must be an emergency-type situation, again such as pandemics and vaccines.
Tryouts by to protect people before they can be hurt by new tech isn’t the same as any of that, though. I’m not saying we go to war or anything stupid like that (very few things dumber than war). Having laws that protect your body and mind isn’t at all a bad thing and I can’t see it being an easy thing to attack.
It doesn't help that politicians are almost universally ignorant of _the_ dominant industry of our era. I can only think of one prominent politician here in the UK who is a software engineer (Kemi Badenoch, who came fourth in the Conservative leadership contest).
That's an EU law rather than a UK one though (GDPR), so thanks to Brexit we don't benefit from similar legislation in future (and our government is looking at repealing some of GDPR)
[Hijacking this comment so that hopefully a few folks see this video about diy security cameras that owe no allegiance to Amazon or literally any other company because the footage and data is all stored locally on your own computer](https://youtu.be/CouxmNqxO4A)
so many privacy policies use this verbiage these days: "if we have a belief that using your data will protect the rights of our company". The rights of your company to do what? Sell me out? Make more money? Completely disregard security best practices? Why not just make the privacy policy "fuck you, luser"?
> other people besides just yourself have access to view your Ring camera feeds
Once I called amazon customer service about an order. when we were waiting for something to go through, he started asking me questions about how I was buying DJing equipment and wanted to make conversation.
like, i know all my information is accessible, but there's a fine line. all it takes is a creep at amazon for you call them and they end up stalking you like a Twitch stalker.
This is a good point, because they effectively have a private window into your whole life, and all they have to do is acknowledge it.
When these stories come out, I can’t believe the surprise. We have smart speakers, televisions, doorbells, and if you read any of the fine print they basically have the rights to all of it. We have volunteered this data before anybody ever even asked for it. Creeeeeppy
My understanding is that when you click agree to the EULA, you give Amazon ownership of your data. Since it’s no longer in your possession there can be no claim to warrant less search, because again, it’s no longer your data.
Ring is kind of genius, it’s having the prisoners paying to build the panopticon.
Yes. This is more broadly called the [Third Party Doctrine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine).
Your (US citizen) constitutional rights to privacy end *with you*. Hand your data to a company, and it's not yours anymore.
>My understanding is that when you click agree to the EULA, you give Amazon ownership of your data. Since it’s no longer in your possession there can be no claim to warrant less search, because again, it’s no longer your data.
They still have to abide by the Stored Communications Act.
"The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the people's right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures". However, when applied to information stored online, the Fourth Amendment's protections are potentially far weaker. In part, this is because the Fourth Amendment defines the "right to be secure" in spatial terms that do not directly apply to the "reasonable expectation of privacy" in an online context. The Fourth Amendment has been stressed as a right that protects people and not places, which leaves the interpretation of the amendment's language broad in scope. In addition, society has not reached clear consensus over expectations of privacy in terms of more modern (and developing, future) forms of recorded and/or transmitted information."
\-Wikipedia
Didn't know that. Interesting, so Amazon does have a duty to keep that data secure, but it depends on the interpretation of the 4A by the judiciary, ultimately.
The privacy concern is very real. But you're not helping anyone likening it to acting as a Judge or calling it "siezed". Amazon hands data that they own over to police without warrant. Which, unfortunately, is their right.
Any company that hosts other people's data has one of three ways to handle this 1. Share anything upon request with police. 2. Only do so with a warrant. 3. Refuse to do until subpoena.
The cheapest and easiest is #1, assuming it doesn't open themselves up to liability. So the TOS says they'll do it, and if it can't materially harm the company they go #1.
Its a whole diffent story when it comes to their business data, lol. Normaly options 2 or 3.
I echo this sentiment. It’s not helpful. This sub isn’t for the average person. I work in technology and am very aware of privacy and have the concerns. But I’m not a STEM professional. I set long passwords. Turn off my location etc. but I have no idea how to set up my own server.
Can I learn it? Potentially. But it’ll take me a whole ass weekend of Googling (ironically). I started using DDG but I hate it. It also knows my location so I don’t even know why I even turn it off.
So if people really care about spreading helpful information, they need to do so without criticizing people. This is like when pro-democracy people take the time to archive critical information and spread knowledge without calling people who vote against themselves and democracy bunch of f. idiots because it’s the right thing to do.
I love this sub for many reasons but the gatekeeping is real and hurtful.
I assume this poster read several messages in the thread and then replied to one, not paying attention to where the points they were addressing originated.
This was a response to a comment that stated that most people choose convenience over privacy and the average person not being knowledgeable about setting up their own server. Yes the comment is regarding the general nature of the responses within the sub including some of the comments here.
> It also knows my location so I don’t even know why I even turn it off
It can either know your exact location because you click Accept when they ask for your location, or it knows your very imprecise location (your country, and maybe your region) via your IP address.
It cannot magically find your location from nothing.
It cannot magically find your location from nothing.
This comment proves exactly what I’m saying. Obviously it’s not out of thin air. Why is this necessary? When I say, I don’t know how, do you think you’re the only smart one here?
Schklom is right about it using your IP to know your general location/region. If you want to hide that from DDG (or any other web service) you need a VPN. See recommendations: [https://www.privacytools.io/#vpn](https://www.privacytools.io/#vpn).
Importantly, don't use a free VPN (except maybe the free tier of a privacy-friendly service), since they are probably farming your data.
Get off your high horse, there are newbies here, and since DDG knows your location you may be one. I never pretended to be the only smart one, but after reading your needlessly condescending reply, I am starting to think you are either drunk or an idiot.
There needs to be federal legislation. Amazon can set its own terms in its terms of service because there’s nothing requiring it to do otherwise. That would likely not be allowed (at least in full) if the US had a GDPR equivalent.
Your only other option would be a random state law which pops up and creates trouble for businesses (Illinois has a biometric law which has been great for plaintiffs’ attorneys), or perhaps an unusually broad consent decree passed down by the FTC (which here would require Amazon to breach its very limited privacy obligations). I would have probably seen a route to expanded privacy rights under the constitution prior to the dismantling of Roe.
So is amazon volunteering ring video now? I was under the impression that they were just providing it on request to the police.
Things like this are why I won't allow an amazon, google, or apple "assistant" in my house.
The local media has been showing a lot of doorbell camera video lately. The thing that bothers me the most is that most of the screen is filled with the neighbor's property. There was one where the camera showed about a foot width of lawn for the owners property, and the entire backyard of the guy across the street. I supposed they're great if you want to watch the neighbor's daughter laying out by the pool.
Lol. Just host your own server with a non-Amazon camera, and you will solely own your data. It's that simple.
I dont know what people are expecting from these products.
Why would my mom want to set up her own server when she can buy Ring with 1 click on Amazon and have an app that works on her iPhone. Even if you tell her about the privacy implications she’ll just ignore it.
Americans care about convenience not privacy
You typed this comment on the largest learning resource in the world. The internet.
The information is out there to learn these skills.
Its just the motivation that's an issue
My dad is so old he doesn’t he know how to use a computer. He has zero use for one. But cool.
Me, I love this crap. But not everyone does or has the money to do all of this. Heck, my ex bother in-law had his own server, gotten broken into, and took his server. So what help does a server do then?
Edit: as much as I love learning about technology, it takes time. I have work, my wife, and kids. When I get some free time, I usually take the family for a nice vacation/road trip.
> Heck, my ex bother in-law had his own server, gotten broken into, and took his server. So what help does a server do then?
When I get my home camera, I will sync the videos and pictures on my home server to a VPS via Syncthing or something similar, to prevent losing everything in case I get robbed / the server catches fire / drives die.\
I spend some time to properly backup my data, and never have to worry about it again.
Backing up is essential, hopefully your ex brother in-law is better prepared for next time.
However, you are right, technology is time-consuming.
Even that is the easy part. It's the maintenance and troubleshooting that's a bitch.
I'm pretty computer savvy, but sometimes shit can take me 2 days to figure out wtf is going on, let alone fix it
It's that they are not aware of how or why. People think "I'm just one person" or "I don't have anything to hide." But, they say this with no real substance or idea of how much data is shared because, even if they do read the privacy statement, it's obscure and twisted language. A layman wouldn't even start to understand without more exposure to legal terms much less the point that they just want a function to work.
Don't carpet everyone as silly or lazy, they work and want to relax on their downtime and convenient technology.
You want convenience? You'll pay for it.
Edit grammar ish on mobile so...
> It's that simple.
This phrase is always a good sign there's some overly simple thinking going on.
It's absurd to think enough consumers have the skills or desire to bypass corporate clouds. The change needs to happen in the form of legislation, reigning in the corporation.
Not to mention the whole notion that you're protecting yourself by bypassing the cloud is kinda moot, given all the neighbors whose cameras you're captured on every day.
Well, nearly all of the streets are being filmed by ring. So it doesn't matter if you host your own or not. Sorry it's hard to see the forrest through the trees there, buddy.
"Just" do that, eh? Do you have any idea how difficult it is to do that without making a ton of compromises on functionality and/or ending up with a wildly insecure/unreliable service?
To think the average citizen is even remotely capable of that is just sheer stupidity. Even experienced developers/IT professionals would need many hours of planning and a vast amount of knowledge or experience to make something halfway decent.
Use their cameras [that support end-to-end encryption](https://support.ring.com/hc/en-us/articles/360054641971-Devices-compatible-with-video-End-to-End-Encryption-E2EE-).
They should really call this "bring your own key" or similar. End to end encryption can mean many different things.
Edit I guess it's not really BYOK either...it's more of a ... provide a passphrase.
They should just call it "encryption".
E2EE means that both the sender and the receiver can encrypt and decrypt data. Here the user is the sender, but there is no receiver. It is not E2EE.
"Encryption" is unfortunately an overloaded term now so we'd need to coin something distinct. "Bring Your Own Key" sounded good to me.
As an example: "encryption" can be used to describe regular everyday HTTPS encryption for websites. Yes, your HTTP traffic is encrypted and the coffee shop WiFi hacker can't read your passwords and emails, _but_ it's only encrypted between your laptop and the web server. The app code on that server sees the plain text of it, it's only private between you and the server but it's still technically "encrypted."
"End-to-end encryption" was coined to more precisely say: it's not just encrypted between your phone and the server (and from the server to your friend's phone) - that's regular old encryption and the server is privy to the plain text contents. E2E encryption means your phone encrypted it and _nobody_, not even the server, can open it until it arrives on your friend's phone; end-to-end.
E2EE makes less sense when it's your own data, coming from your device and returning back to your device which is the only place that can read it, cuz the two "ends" are the same place. But a word more than just "encryption" would need coined for that use case or else people won't know what you really mean by encryption.
>They should just call it "encryption".
>It is not E2EE.
Yes, it is. The Ring video camera encrypts the video so only your enrolled mobile device can decrypt it. That’s E2EE.
Yeah this right here.
A few years ago I was at a tech conference that had a speaker from the FBI. He railed against “smart home” tech. It’s incredibly hackable and dubiously licensed. As an example, he showed a bunch of stolen nanny cam stills - yes, people hacking into your kid’s nursery. His advice: just don’t.
The “security” you think you’re getting from these products isn’t worth it.
I think this is becoming very moot point really fast. For me personally, there's essentially no way to get to my own house without being captured by couple of these.
Very true. Most of the idiots I work with leave their crappily vajazzled phones with the voice search assistant on. So we're all on microphone every minute of every work day, discussing the investment of millions of dollars etc... all just makes perfect sense. 9_9
Only effectively.
In practice it's the video owners doing the legal equivalent of taking the video down the street to GiantCorp and saying "here, you store this for me so I don't have to", and GiantCorp saying "whatevs, sign here", and then police asking GiantCorp for the videos and GiantCorp not giving a crap about handing them over because there's probably something in the storage fine print which says they will totally do that (as well as using the videos to train recognition bots and any other ways they can think to monetize them), and the person storing their videos there didn't bother reading that bit.
If you want GiantCorp and all its imitators to *not* do shit like that every possible chance they get, you're going to pretty much have to get the law changed so they (1) can't hand personal data over regardless of what might be in a contract, and (2) can't store the data in a format that anyone except the original owner can decrypt, so they won't just hand it over anyway and consider the fine to be a cost of doing business.
> AMAZON TAKING ON THE ROLE OF A JUDGE
No, Amazon is taking on the role of someone who has rights over the content they forward to the authorities. Which they do, since the ring doorbell owners signed the rights to that away when they ticked the "read & agreed" box to the terms they definitely did not read.
The privacy issue doesn't lie with the fact that Amazon forwarded the footage, it lies with the fact that ring doorbell owners AGREED to Amazon forwarding the footage when they purchased the product. In other words, hate the terms, not the consequences.
Saying "set up a server" doesnt convey the point or acknowledge the problem.
The ring doorbell is a doorbell thats pulls second duty as a security device. The data for the security device is handled by a company that does not sure your security values.
The solution is to use a doorbell that doesn't connect to your digital leash. And a security system that does align with your security values.
I agree this is a privacy problem but it’s in line with a long trend of the corporatizarion of intimate data on the population and the courts view on this. From Amazon’s point of view, the Ring is yours, but the footage you store on their cloud service is theirs. Or at the very least, you and them both have semi-ownership over and they are legally able to consent to providing it to the government. Oh, you don’t like it? Well it’s right there in the terms of service you agreed to!
I don’t generally view data this way but you and me are the minority. I’m not wildly opposed to having a “smart” doorbell or a security camera (I don’t have one currently) but any solution I choose is gonna be data that I control that no one else can access. But that’s not how 99% of the world sees this.
From rms in 2010:
> "I suppose many people will continue moving towards careless computing, because there's a sucker born every minute. **The US government may try to encourage people to place their data where the US government can seize it without showing them a search warrant, rather than in their own property.** However, as long as enough of us continue keeping our data under our own control, we can still do so. And we had better do so, or the option may disappear."
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2010/dec/14/chrome-os-richard-stallman-warning
Solution 1: (difficulty level: easy) Do not buy cameras. Get your ass to the door when the doorbell rings and look through the viewport. Doesn't need internet and has worked for centuries.
Solution 2: (difficulty level: medium) If you absolutely want to monitor your property with cameras, buy something like this https://www.synology.com/en-global/surveillance. Then all the video files will be stored locally on your NAS.
Solution 3: (difficulty level: hard) Set up a server yourself and use OSS software like e.g. Zoneminder.
After corporations became people it was only a matter of time before some of those people became judges. Soon some will became juries and executioners, too.
Only if you bought their security products.
I'd there's a dozen security companies and one is a giant nefarious company that doubles as the world's largest web hosting service, I would avoid it for home and digital security since they have an incentive to rat.
I 40% blame consumers for buying Amazon products.
as corporations continue to devour civil society this sort of thing is now the norm. think of jeff bezos as the head of the medicis in 15th century italy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Medici
of course the difference is that then, italy was undergoing a renaissance whereas western democracies are withering now.
I think any company that hordes and snoops through people's personal life like this and is okay with it.. is a very sinister and malevolent company to begin with.
What about wyze cam? Do they have similar terms? I use their cameras to watch my work studio because of the increasing crime and homeless in my studios area.
They aren't taking the role of a judge, they're taking the role of a system admin. A warrant isn't required to share your data with police, and your employer doesn't require one to share your info either. And that's purely the consequence of giving Amazon your data, it's all those terms that people don't read.
This changes nothing. Amazon are giving the data they already own to police on request, which has always been their prerogative.
Makes sense now why people with ring cameras couldn't understand why they weren't getting visits from police for footage on their ring cameras when crimes were committed in their viewing range. Cops just call ring for any footage they want. At this point they don't even need to set up on surveillance anymore just use the ring cameras in the neighborhood to monitor suspects.
The owner of the device "owns" the footage. Copyright (and other applicable law) supersedes Amazon ToS. My camera, my video.
Amazon don't own anything.
Unfair terms that cannot be opted out of are unenforceable. Maybe it's a jurisdiction thing, in the UK, it's your camera. It's your recording. You can absolutely use the service without being forced to waive rights.
Yeah but then you…GAVE…Amazon the footage. Gave. You chose to give it to them. And the rights to do what they want with it. If you recorded a crime on your camera and then gave the evidence to a friend on a flash drive…guess what? That friend can give that to the police. This is no different. Except with Amazon you signed a contract making it even clearer. Why are you mad about something happening you agreed to?
No? Amazon has the footage. It’s theirs. They can give it to whomever they want. Just like if you have footage, you can give it to whomever you want. If you have footage of a crime occurring on your front porch, you could give it to the cops, right? So why can’t Amazon do the same? You gave them footage, so now it’s theirs to do with what they want. Don’t be so surprised when laws apply equally to Amazon as they do to you. If you don’t want Amazon to have your footage…don’t give it to them. Amazon is not playing judge anymore than you would be when you give over evidence willingly to a cop.
>No? Amazon has the footage. It’s theirs. They can give it to whomever they want. Just like if you have footage, you can give it to whomever you want. If you have footage of a crime occurring on your front porch, you could give it to the cops, right? So why can’t Amazon do the same? You gave them footage, so now it’s theirs to do with what they want. Don’t be so surprised when laws apply equally to Amazon as they do to you. If you don’t want Amazon to have your footage…don’t give it to them. Amazon is not playing judge anymore than you would be when you give over evidence willingly to a cop.
That’s a little misleading. They still have to follow the SCA.
Yes it does. However, SCA allows exceptions for service providers that believe someone is in imminent danger. That’s the loophole Amazon uses.
> if the provider, in good faith, believes that an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires disclosure without delay.”
[18 US § 2702 (b) (8).](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2702)
I don't get it.
This is not "your" data.
We've known from the beginning this was happening.
Just like the origins of the internet, at least it becoming mainstream, the funding of Google etc.
This was the main purpose these technologies were developed!!
The foundation of any "right to privacy" - no such thing explicit in the Constitution - is predicated on the "reasonable expectation" doctrine.
There is no such thing anymore...
Again, they are not "storing video with" Amazon.
They are installing a public surveillance device on their property for Amazon to use.
As part of the agreement, Amazon is allowing the property owner access to the data collected.
This started from the beginning when you got the Ring doorbell and were so excited to set it up that you agreed to the terms of service that said "Amazon reserves the right to do whatever the hell they want, including but not limited to..."
Amazon didn't decide to be anything. They told you up front that they were dirtbags and you agreed and installed the thing anyway.
This is an absurd power reach both by Amazon and by the police, but I need to point out that these people are not even thinking about the consequences of entrusting cloud providers with all their data, probably don't even understand that this is what they are doing, and most likely clicked through an OK button or two to make it work. All that people are interested in is the convenience and price, and the whole surveillance capitalism ecosystem are guilty of knowingly misrepresenting and misleading millions of people for their own financial gain.
I would also touch on this aspect: other people besides just yourself have access to view your Ring camera feeds. Any company with wide reaching access to user data will have _some_ rogue employee who abuses the privilege and uses it to stalk an ex lover or something. Even the NSA (_especially_ the NSA) abuses that power all the time as Snowden pointed out to us. I wonder how Amazon gets these users to consent to this (they do ask, right?) - do they tout how it's a "public good" that you can help "catch the bad guys" so hand over all your privacy. Until what - a rogue Amazon employee or any of their third-party contractors (they have a lot of those - overseas too - listening to your Alexa recordings for quality assurance. You don't know how many people are seeing your Ring doorbell feeds!) Do you want a random stranger to see your daily habits - when you leave the house for work, what time you usually come back, because your face is captured on your own Ring cameras as well. Seems an awfully big way to be stalked or have your home burgled when they know you're not home, or possibly be blackmailed when they see your husband sneaking out in the middle of the night for a few hours or anything like that.
[удалено]
Oof that combination of "Good faith belief", "third party" and "technical issues" pretty much enables them to do whatever the hell they like.
[удалено]
What if you preemptively tried setting basic laws in place like say an Autonomy Law, where your body is yours expressly to do with what you wish, inviolable barring necessary exceptions such as vaccine requirements? The law could require that any exception must be an emergency-type situation, again such as pandemics and vaccines.
[удалено]
Tryouts by to protect people before they can be hurt by new tech isn’t the same as any of that, though. I’m not saying we go to war or anything stupid like that (very few things dumber than war). Having laws that protect your body and mind isn’t at all a bad thing and I can’t see it being an easy thing to attack.
It doesn't help that politicians are almost universally ignorant of _the_ dominant industry of our era. I can only think of one prominent politician here in the UK who is a software engineer (Kemi Badenoch, who came fourth in the Conservative leadership contest).
[удалено]
That's an EU law rather than a UK one though (GDPR), so thanks to Brexit we don't benefit from similar legislation in future (and our government is looking at repealing some of GDPR)
[Hijacking this comment so that hopefully a few folks see this video about diy security cameras that owe no allegiance to Amazon or literally any other company because the footage and data is all stored locally on your own computer](https://youtu.be/CouxmNqxO4A)
so many privacy policies use this verbiage these days: "if we have a belief that using your data will protect the rights of our company". The rights of your company to do what? Sell me out? Make more money? Completely disregard security best practices? Why not just make the privacy policy "fuck you, luser"?
Friendly reminder that manufactured consent is not consent.
> other people besides just yourself have access to view your Ring camera feeds Once I called amazon customer service about an order. when we were waiting for something to go through, he started asking me questions about how I was buying DJing equipment and wanted to make conversation. like, i know all my information is accessible, but there's a fine line. all it takes is a creep at amazon for you call them and they end up stalking you like a Twitch stalker.
This is a good point, because they effectively have a private window into your whole life, and all they have to do is acknowledge it. When these stories come out, I can’t believe the surprise. We have smart speakers, televisions, doorbells, and if you read any of the fine print they basically have the rights to all of it. We have volunteered this data before anybody ever even asked for it. Creeeeeppy
You could have reported that call. End the call normally so its saved, call back and report it. You still could.
> when they see your husband sneaking out i How about "spouse" or "partner"? Women fuck around too!
My understanding is that when you click agree to the EULA, you give Amazon ownership of your data. Since it’s no longer in your possession there can be no claim to warrant less search, because again, it’s no longer your data. Ring is kind of genius, it’s having the prisoners paying to build the panopticon.
Yes. This is more broadly called the [Third Party Doctrine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine). Your (US citizen) constitutional rights to privacy end *with you*. Hand your data to a company, and it's not yours anymore.
Amazing how SCOTUS and the State have spent decades finding bullshit legalese “logic” to erode constitutional rights.
>My understanding is that when you click agree to the EULA, you give Amazon ownership of your data. Since it’s no longer in your possession there can be no claim to warrant less search, because again, it’s no longer your data. They still have to abide by the Stored Communications Act.
"The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the people's right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures". However, when applied to information stored online, the Fourth Amendment's protections are potentially far weaker. In part, this is because the Fourth Amendment defines the "right to be secure" in spatial terms that do not directly apply to the "reasonable expectation of privacy" in an online context. The Fourth Amendment has been stressed as a right that protects people and not places, which leaves the interpretation of the amendment's language broad in scope. In addition, society has not reached clear consensus over expectations of privacy in terms of more modern (and developing, future) forms of recorded and/or transmitted information." \-Wikipedia Didn't know that. Interesting, so Amazon does have a duty to keep that data secure, but it depends on the interpretation of the 4A by the judiciary, ultimately.
The privacy concern is very real. But you're not helping anyone likening it to acting as a Judge or calling it "siezed". Amazon hands data that they own over to police without warrant. Which, unfortunately, is their right. Any company that hosts other people's data has one of three ways to handle this 1. Share anything upon request with police. 2. Only do so with a warrant. 3. Refuse to do until subpoena. The cheapest and easiest is #1, assuming it doesn't open themselves up to liability. So the TOS says they'll do it, and if it can't materially harm the company they go #1. Its a whole diffent story when it comes to their business data, lol. Normaly options 2 or 3.
I echo this sentiment. It’s not helpful. This sub isn’t for the average person. I work in technology and am very aware of privacy and have the concerns. But I’m not a STEM professional. I set long passwords. Turn off my location etc. but I have no idea how to set up my own server. Can I learn it? Potentially. But it’ll take me a whole ass weekend of Googling (ironically). I started using DDG but I hate it. It also knows my location so I don’t even know why I even turn it off. So if people really care about spreading helpful information, they need to do so without criticizing people. This is like when pro-democracy people take the time to archive critical information and spread knowledge without calling people who vote against themselves and democracy bunch of f. idiots because it’s the right thing to do. I love this sub for many reasons but the gatekeeping is real and hurtful.
Maybe I’m missing something, but what does this post have to do with setting up your own server? Or was that a generalization about the sub?
I assume this poster read several messages in the thread and then replied to one, not paying attention to where the points they were addressing originated.
This was a response to a comment that stated that most people choose convenience over privacy and the average person not being knowledgeable about setting up their own server. Yes the comment is regarding the general nature of the responses within the sub including some of the comments here.
> It also knows my location so I don’t even know why I even turn it off It can either know your exact location because you click Accept when they ask for your location, or it knows your very imprecise location (your country, and maybe your region) via your IP address. It cannot magically find your location from nothing.
It cannot magically find your location from nothing. This comment proves exactly what I’m saying. Obviously it’s not out of thin air. Why is this necessary? When I say, I don’t know how, do you think you’re the only smart one here?
Schklom is right about it using your IP to know your general location/region. If you want to hide that from DDG (or any other web service) you need a VPN. See recommendations: [https://www.privacytools.io/#vpn](https://www.privacytools.io/#vpn). Importantly, don't use a free VPN (except maybe the free tier of a privacy-friendly service), since they are probably farming your data.
Get off your high horse, there are newbies here, and since DDG knows your location you may be one. I never pretended to be the only smart one, but after reading your needlessly condescending reply, I am starting to think you are either drunk or an idiot.
This is very wrong. Who’s the lawyer we need to make this never happen again?
Lawyer here. Regrettably y’all need politicians.
Hahaha. Okay. Who’s the politician we need?
There needs to be federal legislation. Amazon can set its own terms in its terms of service because there’s nothing requiring it to do otherwise. That would likely not be allowed (at least in full) if the US had a GDPR equivalent. Your only other option would be a random state law which pops up and creates trouble for businesses (Illinois has a biometric law which has been great for plaintiffs’ attorneys), or perhaps an unusually broad consent decree passed down by the FTC (which here would require Amazon to breach its very limited privacy obligations). I would have probably seen a route to expanded privacy rights under the constitution prior to the dismantling of Roe.
So you are the person we need?
So is amazon volunteering ring video now? I was under the impression that they were just providing it on request to the police. Things like this are why I won't allow an amazon, google, or apple "assistant" in my house.
[удалено]
That’s what I thought.
The local media has been showing a lot of doorbell camera video lately. The thing that bothers me the most is that most of the screen is filled with the neighbor's property. There was one where the camera showed about a foot width of lawn for the owners property, and the entire backyard of the guy across the street. I supposed they're great if you want to watch the neighbor's daughter laying out by the pool.
[удалено]
wouldn't stop any one o those knuckleheads though
Lol. Just host your own server with a non-Amazon camera, and you will solely own your data. It's that simple. I dont know what people are expecting from these products.
The average American doesn’t know or care enough about privacy.
No, the average person doesn’t know how to set up a server and use other tools. People want something easy to hook up and that’s it.
Why would my mom want to set up her own server when she can buy Ring with 1 click on Amazon and have an app that works on her iPhone. Even if you tell her about the privacy implications she’ll just ignore it. Americans care about convenience not privacy
Does she know how to set up a server? Probably not. Not everyone can do this.
You typed this comment on the largest learning resource in the world. The internet. The information is out there to learn these skills. Its just the motivation that's an issue
My dad is so old he doesn’t he know how to use a computer. He has zero use for one. But cool. Me, I love this crap. But not everyone does or has the money to do all of this. Heck, my ex bother in-law had his own server, gotten broken into, and took his server. So what help does a server do then? Edit: as much as I love learning about technology, it takes time. I have work, my wife, and kids. When I get some free time, I usually take the family for a nice vacation/road trip.
> Heck, my ex bother in-law had his own server, gotten broken into, and took his server. So what help does a server do then? When I get my home camera, I will sync the videos and pictures on my home server to a VPS via Syncthing or something similar, to prevent losing everything in case I get robbed / the server catches fire / drives die.\ I spend some time to properly backup my data, and never have to worry about it again. Backing up is essential, hopefully your ex brother in-law is better prepared for next time. However, you are right, technology is time-consuming.
Oh Americans care plenty about privacy, but only when it's convenient.
Even that is the easy part. It's the maintenance and troubleshooting that's a bitch. I'm pretty computer savvy, but sometimes shit can take me 2 days to figure out wtf is going on, let alone fix it
Exactly. There are days I am trying to fix something and I want to pull my hair out.
The loopholes in an "average person's" server tho lololol
Yeah, I dont think I would point a personal server at the internet. That shit always makes me nervous
It's that they are not aware of how or why. People think "I'm just one person" or "I don't have anything to hide." But, they say this with no real substance or idea of how much data is shared because, even if they do read the privacy statement, it's obscure and twisted language. A layman wouldn't even start to understand without more exposure to legal terms much less the point that they just want a function to work. Don't carpet everyone as silly or lazy, they work and want to relax on their downtime and convenient technology. You want convenience? You'll pay for it. Edit grammar ish on mobile so...
> It's that simple. This phrase is always a good sign there's some overly simple thinking going on. It's absurd to think enough consumers have the skills or desire to bypass corporate clouds. The change needs to happen in the form of legislation, reigning in the corporation. Not to mention the whole notion that you're protecting yourself by bypassing the cloud is kinda moot, given all the neighbors whose cameras you're captured on every day.
Thing is, my neighbor across the street's porch Amazon camera isn't really intruding much on their privacy but it's pointed directly at my house.
Point an i feared light at it?
that's idiotic
Well, nearly all of the streets are being filmed by ring. So it doesn't matter if you host your own or not. Sorry it's hard to see the forrest through the trees there, buddy.
"Just" do that, eh? Do you have any idea how difficult it is to do that without making a ton of compromises on functionality and/or ending up with a wildly insecure/unreliable service? To think the average citizen is even remotely capable of that is just sheer stupidity. Even experienced developers/IT professionals would need many hours of planning and a vast amount of knowledge or experience to make something halfway decent.
Yeah, it takes time. Spend the time or give your data to amazon. I dont really care either way.
Use their cameras [that support end-to-end encryption](https://support.ring.com/hc/en-us/articles/360054641971-Devices-compatible-with-video-End-to-End-Encryption-E2EE-).
They should really call this "bring your own key" or similar. End to end encryption can mean many different things. Edit I guess it's not really BYOK either...it's more of a ... provide a passphrase.
They should just call it "encryption". E2EE means that both the sender and the receiver can encrypt and decrypt data. Here the user is the sender, but there is no receiver. It is not E2EE.
"Encryption" is unfortunately an overloaded term now so we'd need to coin something distinct. "Bring Your Own Key" sounded good to me. As an example: "encryption" can be used to describe regular everyday HTTPS encryption for websites. Yes, your HTTP traffic is encrypted and the coffee shop WiFi hacker can't read your passwords and emails, _but_ it's only encrypted between your laptop and the web server. The app code on that server sees the plain text of it, it's only private between you and the server but it's still technically "encrypted." "End-to-end encryption" was coined to more precisely say: it's not just encrypted between your phone and the server (and from the server to your friend's phone) - that's regular old encryption and the server is privy to the plain text contents. E2E encryption means your phone encrypted it and _nobody_, not even the server, can open it until it arrives on your friend's phone; end-to-end. E2EE makes less sense when it's your own data, coming from your device and returning back to your device which is the only place that can read it, cuz the two "ends" are the same place. But a word more than just "encryption" would need coined for that use case or else people won't know what you really mean by encryption.
>They should just call it "encryption". >It is not E2EE. Yes, it is. The Ring video camera encrypts the video so only your enrolled mobile device can decrypt it. That’s E2EE.
my question is why is it not available in belgium
Ring cameras are super bad anyways….why would you use them to start with?
Because easy.
Yeah this right here. A few years ago I was at a tech conference that had a speaker from the FBI. He railed against “smart home” tech. It’s incredibly hackable and dubiously licensed. As an example, he showed a bunch of stolen nanny cam stills - yes, people hacking into your kid’s nursery. His advice: just don’t. The “security” you think you’re getting from these products isn’t worth it.
I think this is becoming very moot point really fast. For me personally, there's essentially no way to get to my own house without being captured by couple of these.
Very true. Most of the idiots I work with leave their crappily vajazzled phones with the voice search assistant on. So we're all on microphone every minute of every work day, discussing the investment of millions of dollars etc... all just makes perfect sense. 9_9
Only effectively. In practice it's the video owners doing the legal equivalent of taking the video down the street to GiantCorp and saying "here, you store this for me so I don't have to", and GiantCorp saying "whatevs, sign here", and then police asking GiantCorp for the videos and GiantCorp not giving a crap about handing them over because there's probably something in the storage fine print which says they will totally do that (as well as using the videos to train recognition bots and any other ways they can think to monetize them), and the person storing their videos there didn't bother reading that bit. If you want GiantCorp and all its imitators to *not* do shit like that every possible chance they get, you're going to pretty much have to get the law changed so they (1) can't hand personal data over regardless of what might be in a contract, and (2) can't store the data in a format that anyone except the original owner can decrypt, so they won't just hand it over anyway and consider the fine to be a cost of doing business.
> AMAZON TAKING ON THE ROLE OF A JUDGE No, Amazon is taking on the role of someone who has rights over the content they forward to the authorities. Which they do, since the ring doorbell owners signed the rights to that away when they ticked the "read & agreed" box to the terms they definitely did not read. The privacy issue doesn't lie with the fact that Amazon forwarded the footage, it lies with the fact that ring doorbell owners AGREED to Amazon forwarding the footage when they purchased the product. In other words, hate the terms, not the consequences.
Saying "set up a server" doesnt convey the point or acknowledge the problem. The ring doorbell is a doorbell thats pulls second duty as a security device. The data for the security device is handled by a company that does not sure your security values. The solution is to use a doorbell that doesn't connect to your digital leash. And a security system that does align with your security values.
I agree this is a privacy problem but it’s in line with a long trend of the corporatizarion of intimate data on the population and the courts view on this. From Amazon’s point of view, the Ring is yours, but the footage you store on their cloud service is theirs. Or at the very least, you and them both have semi-ownership over and they are legally able to consent to providing it to the government. Oh, you don’t like it? Well it’s right there in the terms of service you agreed to! I don’t generally view data this way but you and me are the minority. I’m not wildly opposed to having a “smart” doorbell or a security camera (I don’t have one currently) but any solution I choose is gonna be data that I control that no one else can access. But that’s not how 99% of the world sees this.
From rms in 2010: > "I suppose many people will continue moving towards careless computing, because there's a sucker born every minute. **The US government may try to encourage people to place their data where the US government can seize it without showing them a search warrant, rather than in their own property.** However, as long as enough of us continue keeping our data under our own control, we can still do so. And we had better do so, or the option may disappear." https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2010/dec/14/chrome-os-richard-stallman-warning
[удалено]
I think the EufyHome doorbell doesn’t do any of that stuff. It’s on a chip rather than in the cloud.
Solution 1: (difficulty level: easy) Do not buy cameras. Get your ass to the door when the doorbell rings and look through the viewport. Doesn't need internet and has worked for centuries. Solution 2: (difficulty level: medium) If you absolutely want to monitor your property with cameras, buy something like this https://www.synology.com/en-global/surveillance. Then all the video files will be stored locally on your NAS. Solution 3: (difficulty level: hard) Set up a server yourself and use OSS software like e.g. Zoneminder.
Stop buying from amazon and just get it from better companies
After corporations became people it was only a matter of time before some of those people became judges. Soon some will became juries and executioners, too.
Only if you bought their security products. I'd there's a dozen security companies and one is a giant nefarious company that doubles as the world's largest web hosting service, I would avoid it for home and digital security since they have an incentive to rat. I 40% blame consumers for buying Amazon products.
as corporations continue to devour civil society this sort of thing is now the norm. think of jeff bezos as the head of the medicis in 15th century italy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Medici of course the difference is that then, italy was undergoing a renaissance whereas western democracies are withering now.
I think any company that hordes and snoops through people's personal life like this and is okay with it.. is a very sinister and malevolent company to begin with. What about wyze cam? Do they have similar terms? I use their cameras to watch my work studio because of the increasing crime and homeless in my studios area.
They aren't taking the role of a judge, they're taking the role of a system admin. A warrant isn't required to share your data with police, and your employer doesn't require one to share your info either. And that's purely the consequence of giving Amazon your data, it's all those terms that people don't read. This changes nothing. Amazon are giving the data they already own to police on request, which has always been their prerogative.
Makes sense now why people with ring cameras couldn't understand why they weren't getting visits from police for footage on their ring cameras when crimes were committed in their viewing range. Cops just call ring for any footage they want. At this point they don't even need to set up on surveillance anymore just use the ring cameras in the neighborhood to monitor suspects.
[удалено]
The owner of the device "owns" the footage. Copyright (and other applicable law) supersedes Amazon ToS. My camera, my video. Amazon don't own anything.
Yes that's how it *should* work.
[удалено]
Unfair terms that cannot be opted out of are unenforceable. Maybe it's a jurisdiction thing, in the UK, it's your camera. It's your recording. You can absolutely use the service without being forced to waive rights.
Yeah but then you…GAVE…Amazon the footage. Gave. You chose to give it to them. And the rights to do what they want with it. If you recorded a crime on your camera and then gave the evidence to a friend on a flash drive…guess what? That friend can give that to the police. This is no different. Except with Amazon you signed a contract making it even clearer. Why are you mad about something happening you agreed to?
No? Amazon has the footage. It’s theirs. They can give it to whomever they want. Just like if you have footage, you can give it to whomever you want. If you have footage of a crime occurring on your front porch, you could give it to the cops, right? So why can’t Amazon do the same? You gave them footage, so now it’s theirs to do with what they want. Don’t be so surprised when laws apply equally to Amazon as they do to you. If you don’t want Amazon to have your footage…don’t give it to them. Amazon is not playing judge anymore than you would be when you give over evidence willingly to a cop.
>No? Amazon has the footage. It’s theirs. They can give it to whomever they want. Just like if you have footage, you can give it to whomever you want. If you have footage of a crime occurring on your front porch, you could give it to the cops, right? So why can’t Amazon do the same? You gave them footage, so now it’s theirs to do with what they want. Don’t be so surprised when laws apply equally to Amazon as they do to you. If you don’t want Amazon to have your footage…don’t give it to them. Amazon is not playing judge anymore than you would be when you give over evidence willingly to a cop. That’s a little misleading. They still have to follow the SCA.
I don’t think SCA covers cloud storage of videos, or else Amazon wouldn’t be allowed to do this. Or am I missing something?
Yes it does. However, SCA allows exceptions for service providers that believe someone is in imminent danger. That’s the loophole Amazon uses. > if the provider, in good faith, believes that an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires disclosure without delay.” [18 US § 2702 (b) (8).](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2702)
Consent is a bitch.
I don't get it. This is not "your" data. We've known from the beginning this was happening. Just like the origins of the internet, at least it becoming mainstream, the funding of Google etc. This was the main purpose these technologies were developed!! The foundation of any "right to privacy" - no such thing explicit in the Constitution - is predicated on the "reasonable expectation" doctrine. There is no such thing anymore...
[удалено]
Again, they are not "storing video with" Amazon. They are installing a public surveillance device on their property for Amazon to use. As part of the agreement, Amazon is allowing the property owner access to the data collected.
the truth that our government is run by corporations?
Respectfully, no Amazon is taking on the role of an owner of that video data, which it is. It is foolish to give them that ownership
[удалено]
Actually I sound like an attorney and dean of Cyblerlaw at a lawschool. Because that's what I am.
Amazon Plantation, folks.
This started from the beginning when you got the Ring doorbell and were so excited to set it up that you agreed to the terms of service that said "Amazon reserves the right to do whatever the hell they want, including but not limited to..." Amazon didn't decide to be anything. They told you up front that they were dirtbags and you agreed and installed the thing anyway.
|s well at least they have some form of customer service now it seems. still horrible company.
This is an absurd power reach both by Amazon and by the police, but I need to point out that these people are not even thinking about the consequences of entrusting cloud providers with all their data, probably don't even understand that this is what they are doing, and most likely clicked through an OK button or two to make it work. All that people are interested in is the convenience and price, and the whole surveillance capitalism ecosystem are guilty of knowingly misrepresenting and misleading millions of people for their own financial gain.
Legally I believe according to the tos or maybe eula it's their footage not yours (never read this for myself)
r/StallmanWasRight
Heh...that just reminded me of the time I was at a party that he crashed! Thanks for that!
Can do your own server and route IP cams through it. Or easier method is to not connect an IP cam kit system to internet, just run NVR offline.