8 ms·

If they get a warrant like the story in this article you'll still have to hand it over. The fact that it's not on a popular cloud camera provider may make it h

If they get a warrant like the story in this article you'll still have to hand it over. The fact that it's not on a popular cloud camera provider may make it harder for them to discover what it is they need to request, but they can still do it and you could still be compelled to comply. In that case I would kind of rather they go to a megacorp vs. me needing to get a lawyer and figure out how to respond. But generally I agree that it's sketchy for a third party to hold the data.

ocdtrekkie 4y ago
I strongly disagree. If they have to serve you a warrant for the data, you know they've requested it. This is rarely true if they can serve a warrant to a cloud provider for your data. Since the likelihood is footage from your home is to investigate you or your family, knowledge of the data demand in itself is potentially invaluable, as you can begin forming a defense.
- lazide 4y ago
  Also, not that anyone would do it, but 'oops, it caught on fire' is much more doable when it's all under your control and they don't even know what you have, rather than in some audited cloud providers backend. Which has pros and cons.
- egberts1 4y ago
  You claim 24-hour deletion policy for liability reason. Cannot chase what you don't have.
giantg2 4y ago
You shouldn't really need a lawyer. The megacorp will just hand over all the data, in which case you could too to avoid the legal fees. The benefit is like you said, less likely they go to you since they don't know you have anything, vs them seeing a map of all the Ring users.
- asveikau 4y ago
  That's what I'm saying, if they want footage on my hard drive they need to approach me and i need a lawyer, if they go after Ring then I don't need to incur costs and life stress of dealing with that bullshit. That's all assuming the cops understand I'm not involved or committing crimes. As indicated in your sibling comment, that may not be the case and having my own representation would be needed. It's shitty situations all around frankly.
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    You don't need a lawyer. Just hand over the data they ask for, and they will be happy. You can get a lawyer if you want to fight it. If you're paranoid about police impersonators, you can ask your local strip mall lawyer if the document is legit before handing over the data, and it will cost you less than $100.
    - asveikau 4y ago
      I think even getting as far as you've concluded may require a lawyer. I wouldn't follow legal advice on HN saying don't get a lawyer.
      - kortilla 4y ago
        Wtf are you talking about? If you want to give them footage, go for it. It’s yours.
        asveikau 4y ago
        Deciding whether or not to comply and how would depend on knowing what it means and the likely consequences of several actions. It would also probably depend on the specifics.
        jeremyjh 4y ago
        Dude, it’s not complicated. If they have a warrant, they get what warrant says. How does Ring’s lawyer help you?
sbaiddn 4y ago
They can produce a warrant to turn over what is already there. They cant force one to continue proving that service. Thats a violation of the third amendment. Of course there no case law on the third to determine if one has to continue to give quarter to surveillance equipment.
emodendroket 4y ago
There's also the possibility that the same event that leaves me wanting the data leaves me without my on-prem recording, I would think.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  It's pretty easy to stash the recording device somewhere that it would take an intentional and time-consuming search to find it. No common criminal will engage in that sort of search. If you need to be worried about uncommonly competent and driven intruders, then your security needs are such that any simple surveillance system won't do. You have special needs that require special solutions.
  - emodendroket 4y ago
    You could say the same about your valuables but it turns out most of us aren't that creative.
    - JohnFen 4y ago
      Recording devices can be very small. My valuables take up much more space, and are correspondingly harder to find a good spot for.
lutorm 4y ago
At least in that case I'm the one deciding how long to keep the data. They can't get a warrant for data I don't have. I frankly don't understand why anyone would keep weeks of security camera footage around.
- XCSme 4y ago
  Maybe you realize something is missing 6 months later? Or you notice some damage on your property and want to see how it happened? That being said, it would be really hard to go through the footage and find what you are looking for.
  - brokenmachine 4y ago
    Not really hard, if the damage is visible on the camera. You go back a year and look. Damage there? If no then go back 6 months. If the damage is there then you know it's between 6 months and a year back. Rinse and repeat, binary search. Having said that, I wouldn't store that much. A week would be all I'd want.
    - XCSme 4y ago
      You are right, as soon as I posted the comment I thought of binary search. Funny how people frequenting HN think alike, maybe we have to get out more often out of our bubble.
jszymborski 4y ago
The concern is less that the cops show up to your cloud provider with a signed warrant, but more so that they just hand it over when asked. There's also concerns about jurisdiction.
mLuby 4y ago
What if the video is encrypted such that it can only be watched by certain faces? The risk is that some judge doesn't appreciate your ironclad solution and so orders you to watch all the footage so they can record it over your shoulder.
coding123 4y ago
If it helps you, it exists, if not, it never existed in the first place. - "oh those, they aren't hooked up to anything after I bought the house, the previous owner took the computer."
Helmut10001 4y ago
It is not feasible in reality that requests to decrypt your personal data stored on-site through warrants. If my server is powered off, everything sits in several encrypted ZFS datasets. No one can prove that I am recording stuff at all. The camera could be there for deterrence only.
- rlpb 4y ago
  That's not how the legal system works. The other party would claim that you are, the courts would believe them, and it'd be on you to deal with it. "It's not feasible" won't wash - especially if you don't spend tens of thousands on your defense.
  - Helmut10001 4y ago
    Well, of course it depends which legal system we are speaking, but where I live (Germany), there is a presumption of innocence until proof beyond a reasonable doubt establishes.
    - asveikau 4y ago
      We theoretically have that in the United States, but occasionally the spirit or letter of that is not respected by authorities and juries.
  - asveikau 4y ago
    This. I don't believe in cloud servers for home automation or home security stuff, I also think encryption and local storage is great, but all these techno-nerds are under delusions that enough geeking out on technical solutions will somehow change how law enforcement or the courts treat them. If they want to pursue you for something, it won't deter them.
geocar 4y ago
> In that case I would kind of rather they go to a megacorp vs. me needing to get a lawyer and figure out how to respond. If a crime occurred outside your home, but your home security cameras caught it, the police will discover this when they talk to you about the incident to collect witness statements, if you choose to share it. If a crime occurred inside your home, and your home security cameras caught it, the police will discover this when you report the crime and you offer to share the evidence that may help you receive a cure. There is absolutely nothing that a megacorp helps with here.
igneo676 4y ago
All things being equal, you're right. I'd want to avoid the issue of wanting a lawyer and prefer the resources of a larger corporation making those decisions But they're not equal. The police can acquire a warrant and serve it to a select few megacorps for ALL of the footage at a specific location for a specific time range. That's setting aside some policies where there's active cooperation between the megacorp and the police. By hosting it myself, I avoid this sort of blanket privacy violation. In my particular situation, I'd guesss it would entirely eliminate police acquiring a warrant for my footage unless I'm a criminal suspect or there was a crime committed in my front yard. Maybe I'd be a bit more forthcoming anyway if a crime happened on my property :P Maybe your situation is different?
- asveikau 4y ago
  I kind of read this article as the cops being lazy and requesting literal everything, not because they'll use it but because it's easier than understanding the job they actually need to do. In that case it'd probably be OK to hand over footage. But the more sinister and intentional motive among law enforcement also exists. The whole thing is a crapshoot and every case is probably different. If you're lucky, a responsible cop is involved. If you're not, it can be really bad times.
JohnFen 4y ago
> In that case I would kind of rather they go to a megacorp vs. me needing to get a lawyer and figure out how to respond. In my view, there is no effective difference between having a commercial entity holding your data and having the police hold it.
egberts1 4y ago
Thats why your file system is encrypted with an HSM USB key.

ocdtrekkie 4y ago

I strongly disagree. If they have to serve you a warrant for the data, you know they've requested it. This is rarely true if they can serve a warrant to a cloud provider for your data. Since the likelihood is footage from your home is to investigate you or your family, knowledge of the data demand in itself is potentially invaluable, as you can begin forming a defense.

lazide 4y ago
Also, not that anyone would do it, but 'oops, it caught on fire' is much more doable when it's all under your control and they don't even know what you have, rather than in some audited cloud providers backend. Which has pros and cons.
egberts1 4y ago
You claim 24-hour deletion policy for liability reason. Cannot chase what you don't have.

giantg2 4y ago

You shouldn't really need a lawyer. The megacorp will just hand over all the data, in which case you could too to avoid the legal fees. The benefit is like you said, less likely they go to you since they don't know you have anything, vs them seeing a map of all the Ring users.

asveikau 4y ago
That's what I'm saying, if they want footage on my hard drive they need to approach me and i need a lawyer, if they go after Ring then I don't need to incur costs and life stress of dealing with that bullshit. That's all assuming the cops understand I'm not involved or committing crimes. As indicated in your sibling comment, that may not be the case and having my own representation would be needed. It's shitty situations all around frankly.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  You don't need a lawyer. Just hand over the data they ask for, and they will be happy. You can get a lawyer if you want to fight it. If you're paranoid about police impersonators, you can ask your local strip mall lawyer if the document is legit before handing over the data, and it will cost you less than $100.
  - asveikau 4y ago
    I think even getting as far as you've concluded may require a lawyer. I wouldn't follow legal advice on HN saying don't get a lawyer.
    - kortilla 4y ago
      Wtf are you talking about? If you want to give them footage, go for it. It’s yours.
      - asveikau 4y ago
        Deciding whether or not to comply and how would depend on knowing what it means and the likely consequences of several actions. It would also probably depend on the specifics.
        jeremyjh 4y ago
        Dude, it’s not complicated. If they have a warrant, they get what warrant says. How does Ring’s lawyer help you?

sbaiddn 4y ago

They can produce a warrant to turn over what is already there. They cant force one to continue proving that service. Thats a violation of the third amendment. Of course there no case law on the third to determine if one has to continue to give quarter to surveillance equipment.

emodendroket 4y ago

There's also the possibility that the same event that leaves me wanting the data leaves me without my on-prem recording, I would think.

JohnFen 4y ago
It's pretty easy to stash the recording device somewhere that it would take an intentional and time-consuming search to find it. No common criminal will engage in that sort of search. If you need to be worried about uncommonly competent and driven intruders, then your security needs are such that any simple surveillance system won't do. You have special needs that require special solutions.
- emodendroket 4y ago
  You could say the same about your valuables but it turns out most of us aren't that creative.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    Recording devices can be very small. My valuables take up much more space, and are correspondingly harder to find a good spot for.

lutorm 4y ago

At least in that case I'm the one deciding how long to keep the data. They can't get a warrant for data I don't have. I frankly don't understand why anyone would keep weeks of security camera footage around.

XCSme 4y ago
Maybe you realize something is missing 6 months later? Or you notice some damage on your property and want to see how it happened? That being said, it would be really hard to go through the footage and find what you are looking for.
- brokenmachine 4y ago
  Not really hard, if the damage is visible on the camera. You go back a year and look. Damage there? If no then go back 6 months. If the damage is there then you know it's between 6 months and a year back. Rinse and repeat, binary search. Having said that, I wouldn't store that much. A week would be all I'd want.
  - XCSme 4y ago
    You are right, as soon as I posted the comment I thought of binary search. Funny how people frequenting HN think alike, maybe we have to get out more often out of our bubble.

jszymborski 4y ago

The concern is less that the cops show up to your cloud provider with a signed warrant, but more so that they just hand it over when asked. There's also concerns about jurisdiction.

mLuby 4y ago

What if the video is encrypted such that it can only be watched by certain faces? The risk is that some judge doesn't appreciate your ironclad solution and so orders you to watch all the footage so they can record it over your shoulder.

coding123 4y ago

If it helps you, it exists, if not, it never existed in the first place. - "oh those, they aren't hooked up to anything after I bought the house, the previous owner took the computer."

Helmut10001 4y ago

It is not feasible in reality that requests to decrypt your personal data stored on-site through warrants. If my server is powered off, everything sits in several encrypted ZFS datasets. No one can prove that I am recording stuff at all. The camera could be there for deterrence only.

rlpb 4y ago
That's not how the legal system works. The other party would claim that you are, the courts would believe them, and it'd be on you to deal with it. "It's not feasible" won't wash - especially if you don't spend tens of thousands on your defense.
- Helmut10001 4y ago
  Well, of course it depends which legal system we are speaking, but where I live (Germany), there is a presumption of innocence until proof beyond a reasonable doubt establishes.
  - asveikau 4y ago
    We theoretically have that in the United States, but occasionally the spirit or letter of that is not respected by authorities and juries.
- asveikau 4y ago
  This. I don't believe in cloud servers for home automation or home security stuff, I also think encryption and local storage is great, but all these techno-nerds are under delusions that enough geeking out on technical solutions will somehow change how law enforcement or the courts treat them. If they want to pursue you for something, it won't deter them.

geocar 4y ago

> In that case I would kind of rather they go to a megacorp vs. me needing to get a lawyer and figure out how to respond. If a crime occurred outside your home, but your home security cameras caught it, the police will discover this when they talk to you about the incident to collect witness statements, if you choose to share it. If a crime occurred inside your home, and your home security cameras caught it, the police will discover this when you report the crime and you offer to share the evidence that may help you receive a cure. There is absolutely nothing that a megacorp helps with here.

igneo676 4y ago

All things being equal, you're right. I'd want to avoid the issue of wanting a lawyer and prefer the resources of a larger corporation making those decisions But they're not equal. The police can acquire a warrant and serve it to a select few megacorps for ALL of the footage at a specific location for a specific time range. That's setting aside some policies where there's active cooperation between the megacorp and the police. By hosting it myself, I avoid this sort of blanket privacy violation. In my particular situation, I'd guesss it would entirely eliminate police acquiring a warrant for my footage unless I'm a criminal suspect or there was a crime committed in my front yard. Maybe I'd be a bit more forthcoming anyway if a crime happened on my property :P Maybe your situation is different?

asveikau 4y ago
I kind of read this article as the cops being lazy and requesting literal everything, not because they'll use it but because it's easier than understanding the job they actually need to do. In that case it'd probably be OK to hand over footage. But the more sinister and intentional motive among law enforcement also exists. The whole thing is a crapshoot and every case is probably different. If you're lucky, a responsible cop is involved. If you're not, it can be really bad times.

JohnFen 4y ago

> In that case I would kind of rather they go to a megacorp vs. me needing to get a lawyer and figure out how to respond. In my view, there is no effective difference between having a commercial entity holding your data and having the police hold it.

egberts1 4y ago

Thats why your file system is encrypted with an HSM USB key.