5 ms·

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 c

by nmilo 4y ago

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.

pc86 4y ago
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 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    Yes I just meant "safer" in the "having to give the police your data" sense and not any other (more important) ones.
pjdesno 4y ago
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 4y ago
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpoena_duces_tecum
- bluGill 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    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.
tptacek 4y ago
They absolutely can and, in the era before widespread cloud cameras, routinely did.

by nmilo 4y ago

pc86 4y ago

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 4y ago
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 4y ago
  Yes I just meant "safer" in the "having to give the police your data" sense and not any other (more important) ones.

pjdesno 4y ago

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 4y ago

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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpoena_duces_tecum

bluGill 4y ago
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 4y ago
  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.

tptacek 4y ago

They absolutely can and, in the era before widespread cloud cameras, routinely did.