8 ms·

> 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 figh

> 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.

pixl97 4y ago
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 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    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 4y ago
      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 4y ago
        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 4y ago
        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.
        JohnFen 4y ago
        Yes, I understand. I think the issue, really, is a philosophical disagreement. I think that if the police are to be able to investigate crime, they need to have some invasive powers. But they also shouldn't be trusted to use them without controls. The subpoena (and warrant) process is the control we have in the US. I don't think the existence of this ability is, itself, a serious violation of rights. Other people may legitimately disagree. There is also a serious discussion that could be had about whether the controls are sufficient, but that's a procedural issue rather than a philosophical one.
        asveikau 4y ago
        > This is not corruption or a violation of the subpoena safeguard process Not if it ends there and cops make the right decisions. However it's a legitimate concern that an overly broad police investigation, even after a real crime happens, might lead bad/lazy/dishonest cops to wrongfully accuse someone unrelated.
      - Thrymr 4y ago
        > 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.
    - asveikau 4y ago
      > if I violate certain laws Trouble is that police, prosecutors, and even judges and juries can famously get that wrong. So I find this caveat not to be especially reassuring.
      - lazide 4y ago
        Welcome to society?
        asveikau 4y ago
        We can get the society we ask for, though. IMO this is one reason why we should favor policy that doesn't have overly aggressive law enforcement or prosecution.
        lazide 4y ago
        In my experience, we don't get the society we ask for (though asking is the first step). We get the society we make happen, and that has pros and cons. The current setup is this way because of a very complex set of intertwining factors which are shifting constantly. So 'shoulds' are plentiful and never ending. 'Is', however, is right in front of us.
        asveikau 4y ago
        "We" is an awful lot of us with many different opinions. I accept for instance that my views on criminal justice are not a majority in the United States, especially with the "tough on crime" bullshit from the last election cycle, which they are still pumping. So, I try to make awareness for what I consider to be the good parts of my views, and that's the best I can do. I also try my best to be respectful of those who don't share the views and aren't receptive to changing, even though I feel pretty strongly on this topic.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    > 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 4y ago
      > nobody owns anything This is a pretty accurate statement.
Agrue8u 4y ago
If the footage is encrypted, are you legally required to unencrypt it for the police?
- AdrianB1 4y ago
  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.
  - NegativeK 4y ago
    To the extend that I've read, they can demand that they hand over data/documents that they know exist, regardless of whether they're encrypted. It's akin to being forced to open a safe if they have a search warrant for a specific document. What they can't do is say "decrypt this blob and let us look around".
- Johnny555 4y ago
  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.
- giantg2 4y ago
  It depends. If it's against another party they can compel you to decrypt it. If it's against yourself they may respect a 5th amendment claim, or they might not.
zamalek 4y ago
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.
outworlder 4y ago
> you can be sure that they can’t bypass you and get the footage while your fighting it They also wouldn't request data from cameras offsite. I mean, they could, but why would they (and would they even make the connection that these cameras are also owned by you?)
jojobas 4y ago
For the police to subpoena the footage they at least have to know you have cameras. They'll have much tougher time figuring out you have indoors cameras and requesting data from them. With Ring it seems to be more like selecting a box on the map and click "request".
giantg2 4y ago
You're less likely to have them come to you for video if they're looking at a map of Ring users. Of course they will go to them first.
ilyt 4y ago
"I set autoremove to 7 days ago and I got your notice on 8th day, sorry". "well, it does record only when it detect motion, and there isn't anything on that date, but here is the neighbour's cat video few minutes earlier" Just need to shred the files instead of just removing them. Then again if it is by police to you they need to say what they need and not just get everything automatically so IMO not really that problematic as the case where they can get inside house footage from 3rd party company coz they don't give a shit.
at_a_remove 4y ago
I think that's why encryption must play a role if this is a concern. Apparently passwords are "testimonial" level speech and cannot be compelled.
TheHappyOddish 4y ago
"Sorry, I deleted it the day before you issued the subpoena. No, I don't keep deletion logs." It's my data on my drives. Are there legal retention requirements? Lying and saying "I already deleted it" seems like a pretty simple solution.

pixl97 4y ago

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 4y ago
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 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    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 4y ago
      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 4y ago
        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.
        JohnFen 4y ago
        Yes, I understand. I think the issue, really, is a philosophical disagreement. I think that if the police are to be able to investigate crime, they need to have some invasive powers. But they also shouldn't be trusted to use them without controls. The subpoena (and warrant) process is the control we have in the US. I don't think the existence of this ability is, itself, a serious violation of rights. Other people may legitimately disagree. There is also a serious discussion that could be had about whether the controls are sufficient, but that's a procedural issue rather than a philosophical one.
        asveikau 4y ago
        > This is not corruption or a violation of the subpoena safeguard process Not if it ends there and cops make the right decisions. However it's a legitimate concern that an overly broad police investigation, even after a real crime happens, might lead bad/lazy/dishonest cops to wrongfully accuse someone unrelated.
    - Thrymr 4y ago
      > 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.
  - asveikau 4y ago
    > if I violate certain laws Trouble is that police, prosecutors, and even judges and juries can famously get that wrong. So I find this caveat not to be especially reassuring.
    - lazide 4y ago
      Welcome to society?
      - asveikau 4y ago
        We can get the society we ask for, though. IMO this is one reason why we should favor policy that doesn't have overly aggressive law enforcement or prosecution.
        lazide 4y ago
        In my experience, we don't get the society we ask for (though asking is the first step). We get the society we make happen, and that has pros and cons. The current setup is this way because of a very complex set of intertwining factors which are shifting constantly. So 'shoulds' are plentiful and never ending. 'Is', however, is right in front of us.
        asveikau 4y ago
        "We" is an awful lot of us with many different opinions. I accept for instance that my views on criminal justice are not a majority in the United States, especially with the "tough on crime" bullshit from the last election cycle, which they are still pumping. So, I try to make awareness for what I consider to be the good parts of my views, and that's the best I can do. I also try my best to be respectful of those who don't share the views and aren't receptive to changing, even though I feel pretty strongly on this topic.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  > 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 4y ago
    > nobody owns anything This is a pretty accurate statement.

Agrue8u 4y ago

If the footage is encrypted, are you legally required to unencrypt it for the police?

AdrianB1 4y ago
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.
- NegativeK 4y ago
  To the extend that I've read, they can demand that they hand over data/documents that they know exist, regardless of whether they're encrypted. It's akin to being forced to open a safe if they have a search warrant for a specific document. What they can't do is say "decrypt this blob and let us look around".
Johnny555 4y ago
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.
giantg2 4y ago
It depends. If it's against another party they can compel you to decrypt it. If it's against yourself they may respect a 5th amendment claim, or they might not.

zamalek 4y ago

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.

outworlder 4y ago

> you can be sure that they can’t bypass you and get the footage while your fighting it They also wouldn't request data from cameras offsite. I mean, they could, but why would they (and would they even make the connection that these cameras are also owned by you?)

jojobas 4y ago

For the police to subpoena the footage they at least have to know you have cameras. They'll have much tougher time figuring out you have indoors cameras and requesting data from them. With Ring it seems to be more like selecting a box on the map and click "request".

giantg2 4y ago

You're less likely to have them come to you for video if they're looking at a map of Ring users. Of course they will go to them first.

ilyt 4y ago

"I set autoremove to 7 days ago and I got your notice on 8th day, sorry". "well, it does record only when it detect motion, and there isn't anything on that date, but here is the neighbour's cat video few minutes earlier" Just need to shred the files instead of just removing them. Then again if it is by police to you they need to say what they need and not just get everything automatically so IMO not really that problematic as the case where they can get inside house footage from 3rd party company coz they don't give a shit.

at_a_remove 4y ago

I think that's why encryption must play a role if this is a concern. Apparently passwords are "testimonial" level speech and cannot be compelled.

TheHappyOddish 4y ago

"Sorry, I deleted it the day before you issued the subpoena. No, I don't keep deletion logs." It's my data on my drives. Are there legal retention requirements? Lying and saying "I already deleted it" seems like a pretty simple solution.