4 ms·

… I’m confused why this would be objectionable. If you were the victim of a crime, and some useful evidence that could lead to the identification and punishmen

… I’m confused why this would be objectionable. If you were the victim of a crime, and some useful evidence that could lead to the identification and punishment of the perpetrator existed on someone else’s camera system, wouldn’t you want the police to be able to get hold of it?

Johnny555 4y ago
I'm not arguing for or against the police being able to subpoena video, I'm just questioning the real ownership value of storing the video on your own hardware vs cloud storage. It doesn't keep the police from subpoenaing and obtaining the video. It makes it a little easier to fight the subpoena since you can hold onto the video while it works its way through the courts, but that's an expensive process that I think few would undertake so it's more of a theoretical advantage rather than a practical one.
- jrumbut 4y ago
  It doesn't keep the police from using it, it does keep some cloud company (and a possibly limitless network of 3rd parties, regardless of what is publicly known) from using it.
- ilyt 4y ago
  > I'm just questioning the real ownership value of storing the video on your own hardware vs cloud storage. 3rd party have no motivation to only give the say front porch camera video vs "here are all of their videos from every camera everywhere".
- JohnFen 4y ago
  > that's an expensive process that I think few would undertake so it's more of a theoretical advantage rather than a practical one. You don't actually need to hire a lawyer to fight a subpoena. It would be smart, but not necessary. And how expensive that fight is depends entirely on how far you want to take it. If you're broke, you can still appear before the judge and argue your case. It only really gets expensive if the judge rules against you and you want to fight it in a higher court.

4 ms·

… I’m confused why this would be objectionable. If you were the victim of a crime, and some useful evidence that could lead to the identification and punishmen

by jameshart 4y ago

Johnny555 4y ago
I'm not arguing for or against the police being able to subpoena video, I'm just questioning the real ownership value of storing the video on your own hardware vs cloud storage. It doesn't keep the police from subpoenaing and obtaining the video. It makes it a little easier to fight the subpoena since you can hold onto the video while it works its way through the courts, but that's an expensive process that I think few would undertake so it's more of a theoretical advantage rather than a practical one.
- jrumbut 4y ago
  It doesn't keep the police from using it, it does keep some cloud company (and a possibly limitless network of 3rd parties, regardless of what is publicly known) from using it.
- ilyt 4y ago
  > I'm just questioning the real ownership value of storing the video on your own hardware vs cloud storage. 3rd party have no motivation to only give the say front porch camera video vs "here are all of their videos from every camera everywhere".
- JohnFen 4y ago
  > that's an expensive process that I think few would undertake so it's more of a theoretical advantage rather than a practical one. You don't actually need to hire a lawyer to fight a subpoena. It would be smart, but not necessary. And how expensive that fight is depends entirely on how far you want to take it. If you're broke, you can still appear before the judge and argue your case. It only really gets expensive if the judge rules against you and you want to fight it in a higher court.