this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2024
308 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

73792 readers
3036 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Private security footage is nothing new to criminal investigations, but two factors are rapidly changing the landscape: huge growth in the number of devices with cameras, and the fact that footage usually lands in a cloud server, rather than on a tape.

When a third party maintains the footage on the cloud, it gives police the ability to seek the images directly from the storage company, rather than from the resident or business owner who controls the recording device. In 2022, the Ring security company, owned by Amazon, admitted that it had provided audio and video from customer doorbells to police without user consent at least 11 times. The company cited “exigent circumstances.”

Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20240116132800/https://www.themarshallproject.org/2024/01/13/police-video-surveillance-california

all 39 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] perviouslyiner@lemmy.world 51 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Obligatory reminder that just getting into a car (or walking past one) is considered by pretty much every car manufacturer to be acceptance of their privacy policy:

https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/blog/privacy-nightmare-on-wheels-every-car-brand-reviewed-by-mozilla-including-ford-volkswagen-and-toyota-flunks-privacy-test/

[–] Plopp@lemmy.world 39 points 2 years ago

It's supported by the famous first principle of Descartes: I think, therefore I accept the terms of service

[–] guyinachair@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Should there be an expectation of privacy in public? Definitely wrong for footage to be able to wirelessly, without the owners consent, leave a car.

[–] sir_reginald@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Should there be an expectation of privacy in public?

No, but there should be an expectation of not being recorded by every car you come across.

[–] piecat@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

Again, the expectation in public is that you don't have privacy.

The expectation I would have is that your own car isn't going to collect evidence that could be used against you. And that it won't collect data in your own garage or on your property.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 10 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Said it in the other thread but: that isn’t legal.

[–] BobGnarley@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You're right but it reminds me of that cop that killed that fumigator guy in Arizona. Total cold blood murder and that was illegal as well. I used to always tell me dad "no they can't do that" and he would look at me serious as fuck and say "They are the government they can do whatever the fuck they want" its the same idea with rich companies they steal wages and kill workers through incompetence or lax safety practices all the time and sure its illegal but that doesnt matter when you can do it and face no repurcusions anyway.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 3 points 2 years ago

Yep.

Legality is on paper.

[–] TimeSquirrel@kbin.social 41 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

The perks of being an electronic security installer and wiring up your own house with a real system with a dozen PoE cameras and a local NVR under your control only...😋

Stay away from the Harry Homeowner cloud-connected lick-and-stick BestBuy bullshit.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Gimmie some brands then...

[–] blueeggsandyam@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

I use unifi. I have their dream machine (router/firewall/vpn) a POE switch, two access points, 5 cameras and their doorbell. I rarely have any issues.

[–] XeroxCool@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (5 children)

Do you have particular recommendations? I somehow landed on Reolink as the option I'm going to buy in a few months

[–] EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

If you want something easy but not necessarily the cheapest, UniFi will do.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I like UniFi but they aren't inexpensive and to really make them work you have to go balls deep into the UniFi ecosystem. I HAVE that ecosystem and still went with Reolink for my cameras.

[–] EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Yeah they’re not crazy expensive but not cheap either, and I’m not a fan of Ubiquiti as a company. There are definitely better alternatives, I just don’t know anything that somebody who’s only used shitty cloud connected garbage could jump right into

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Reolink is perfectly fine. They can be setup with or without internet, just remember to put them on their own VLAN that doesn't have Internet access. If you don't want to use the Reolink NVR then build yourself a frigrate box or similar.

Mine don't have internet access and I can watch their feeds directly when I'm home and through my Home Assistant rig when I'm away.

[–] TimeSquirrel@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Probably avoid anything by Hikvision if you don't want to risk having Chinese backdoors in it. My own system is just a hodgepodge of different used cams I pulled off job sites. Just need to make sure they can do ONVIF and they should be compatible with any NVR out there.

[–] soysauce@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 2 years ago

If the cameras are on a private network with no routes to the Internet a backdoor doesn't really matter. I would still avoid untrustworthy manufacturers.

[–] USSEthernet@startrek.website 5 points 2 years ago

Bit expensive, but I run all Ubiquiti network and camera equipment.

[–] SocialEngineer56@notdigg.com 2 points 2 years ago

I’m using Reolink and highly recommend it. Without a doubt the best bang for your buck. I bought a bundle on Black Friday a couple years ago with the 2TB NVR and 4 cameras (5MP POE) for a couple hundred dollars, and I’ve since expanded to 6 cameras.

I’m in the process of setting up a NAS, so hoping I can get reolink backed up on it for easy access.

[–] cyberpunk007@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Ubiquiti used to be the only one I knew about that I could host and block internet access. Is there anything else these days? Ubiquiti stuff is kinda shit these days.

[–] FerociousPea@lemmy.ml 34 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Someone set off a bomb close to my house. Police asked me questions about it (time, what it sounded like, etc). They noticed I had security cameras and inquired what I had. The dumbfounded look when I said Ubiquiti (they've never heard of it) and that all footage was recorded locally on a hard drive. Like they didn't understand what that meant - obviously they were looking for an answer such as "google" or "amazon" so they could just circumvent me.

[–] MintyAnt@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

I have their routers and stuff! It's way overkill but I was having such major issues with the all in one routers one usually gets.

[–] yamanii@lemmy.world 28 points 2 years ago

But they still won't catch the delivery packages thieves.

[–] FinishingDutch@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You should always assume any camera to be hostile, unless you have full and complete control over all related software and connections.

Basically, the people who supplied the device will always have more control over it than you do. And big tech just looooves to abuse that and/or cave in to pressure from governments and police agencies.

[–] DaDragon@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Sadly there’s little option for some stuff. Robot vacuums have become super useful, even if they are arguably the biggest security risk that exists. And that will never change, no matter how capable the products get

[–] FinishingDutch@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Why would you consider robot vacuums to be particularly dangerous in terms of security? I’m certainly more weary of things like Google Nest, Amazon Alexa, pet cams, doorbell cams, that sort of thing.

I know that some but not all vacuums have cameras, and I’d assume some might have microphones as well. But in general it doesn’t strike me as inherently more dangerous to one’s privacy.

[–] Asudox@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago (3 children)

A lesson for people that think proprietary internet connected cameras are a good idea. You can literally make open source cameras with a SBC like raspberry pi as the controller. And then using a VPN, you can connect to it from the outside.

[–] RootBeerGuy@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 2 years ago

Sadly the average person buying such proprietary cameras does not possess the technical know how for that. Also the average person buying those ultimately also does not care about privacy, unfortunately. They definitely should, but they usually don't.

[–] tiramichu@lemm.ee 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You can also use proprietary cameras but put them on a separate network segment or otherwise restrict their access so they can't get out of your local network.

Not ideal to use proprietary cameras at all, but if you are doing then that's the way to do it.

[–] sir_reginald@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

yeah, if you can't find FOSS cameras, I'd recommend getting a good old CCTV connected to a device that does not have internet access.

[–] PlantJam@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

Compare this to the setup for a Google camera: Plug it in, scan a QR code from the Home app, and that's it. I understand there are security implications, but I'm not particular concerned about privacy in my backyard.

[–] Suburbanl3g3nd@lemmings.world 12 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Does anyone have a rec for something you can buy and selfhost beyond a pi setup?

[–] disheveledWallaby@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Any closed circuit security systems, ones that aren't cloud based will come with an NVR (like a DVR) that hosts your recordings locally. Most are wired but some support wireless as well. Generally more expensive but in my opinion worth it.

My mom bought a simple setup for I think 3 or 400 dollars at Costco.

INAL but law enforcement can still request or subpoena your video if they suspect a crime has been witnessed by your cameras AFAIK. But at least you'll know about it.

[–] Suburbanl3g3nd@lemmings.world 2 points 2 years ago

Thanks! Very helpful to start looking!

[–] BrownianMotion@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

For "commercial but free" There is AxxonOne (was AxxonNext) But free only allows 4 cameras. However this is better than all the FOSS choices in terms of what it can do (and so it should, more than 4 cameras or face detection, fire etc costs money).

For FOSS there is:

  • Frigate
  • Shinobi
  • Zoneminder
  • iSpy
  • Viseron
  • Moonfire NVR
  • motionEyeOS

Lots of options but you will need some baremetal or a decently powered server and hypervisor to run in a VM.

[–] notannpc@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago

Sadly, since our country is governed by dinosaurs, the responsibility falls on us to help our friends and family avoid sketchy cameras that force the use of their cloud services.

At least until we can convince them to elect people who weren’t born before computers were invented.