6 ms·

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 cos

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?
        asveikau 4y ago
        Glad your world is very simple. In TFA they mention the possibility of complying but not giving everything that is asked for. A lawyer can probably help you craft that in a way that will satisfy a judge. Point about Ring's lawyers (which we've seemingly gotten away from this deep into the thread) is you do not pay for them or get involved if you don't want to be. You don't get to be involved in strategy either, which may not be in your interests. Getting the best thing for your interests may require paying a lot for a lawyer and a lot of stress. It would all depend on the specifics of the case.
        pclmulqdq 4y ago
        Ring doesn't craft minimally-responsive answers to subpoenas and warrants either. No big tech company does. That would take money (having a staff lawyer and some help to handle those is expensive), and they don't really care that much about your data. When you own it, you can fight back to your heart's content. And by the way, you do pay for Ring's lawyers if you use their product.
        TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
        > they don't really care that much about your data. The most important point
        multjoy 4y ago
        If you're storing the data on site then they turn up with a warrant and take the hardware. A subpoena for Ring is an order to produce data. A warrant for Joe's CCTV at 223 Acacia Avenue is permission to take the data.
      - jerbearito 4y ago
        So you're saying that, in the event of owning your own data and being asked for it, you would get a lawyer because you acknowledge that there could be unforeseen conseqeuences and aspects of the request that you might not understand. But you would simultaneously prefer to let a megacorp own your data so you don't have to think about any of that? So you're happy to give away your data, but also insistent that you should pay someone to review the request for your data. Apologies if I'm misunderstanding your comments (very possible), but I think I at least understand why some folks are confused.
        asveikau 4y ago
        I did say both of these things. Because there are upshots and downsides to each. Both are true. You can't escape the shittiness of this problem by running your own server. It's a bad situation either way. The root of the problem as i read it is overly zealous law enforcement and a judge that is not acting as a proper check on their power. It's a political problem. It can't be escaped with purely technical solutions like who stores the data.
        jerbearito 4y ago
        Point taken, but I don't see enough of an upshot to giving away your data from the very start — retaining zero control so you don't have to deal with requests that may or may not ever happen.
        incompatible 4y ago
        I wouldn't be surprised if a lawyer would want to view all the footage themselves, before making any decision like that. Hopefully, you aren't keeping 6 months worth, because lawyers typically charge by the hour.
        etienne618 4y ago
        I think there may be a significant advantage to running your own server: you can controll how long you want to keep the data. For example, you can keep data from cameras recording the street/yard for longer and delete footage from inside the house daily (or choose to not even record when you are at home).
    - JohnFen 4y ago
      That's what I did, and I don't feel even a little nervous about it. I did it because it was obviously in my best interest to help them investigate a crime that I was the victim in, and because I am 100% confident that the footage is otherwise innocuous. But it all depends on the circumstances. As you say, the whole point of ownership is that I get to make that sort of decision.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  >Just hand over the data they ask for, and they will be happy. You can get a lawyer if you want to fight it. Given it's common sense to never talk to the police without a lawyer, you would want a lawyer for this situation so you know you're not unintentionally fucking yourself over. Obligatory IANAL.
  - chrisandchris 4y ago
    > [...] Given it's common sense to never talk to the police without a lawyer [...] Don't generalize and don't conclude from your point-of-view to the whole world. There are enough places where you can talk to the police without even thinking about a lawyer (and never ever even require one, even in such situations). Not everyone's country is the USA (I assume).
    - Dalewyn 4y ago
      If my interaction with the police is anything more than inconsequential small talk, I'm getting a lawyer. I would apply this common sense even to Japanese police, among the most respected of police forces in the world. Obligatory IANAL.
      - pclmulqdq 4y ago
        I think, having done this a few times, the line should be "minor traffic ticket," not "small talk." You can get out of a ticket (or get it downgraded to a warning) by being nice to the officer, and that is a much better outcome than you can get by attempting to bring in a lawyer or behave as though you are going to fight legally. Many of these kinds of warrants are closer to the "minor traffic ticket" side than anything else. The trouble is that you may want a lawyer to tell you that.
  - AnthonyMouse 4y ago
    Isn't the reason you might want a lawyer in this case that you might not have to turn over the footage, and doing so when you don't have to could be used against you? So wouldn't the alternative where they get the footage from someone else be just as bad as you turning it over without checking, and therefore something you should prevent if consulting a lawyer first is to your advantage?
- deafpolygon 4y ago
  You ALWAYS need a lawyer, and don't hand over any recordings without a lawyer. Otherwise, you may be liable for crimes NOT covered by their initial request. Crimes you may not even think are crimes! Cops do this, to pressure more information out of you.
giantg2 4y ago
I still don't see why you think it's a negative to have your own data. If you think you need a lawyer for on-site data, they you should think you need one for off-site data as well. There's really no difference here. Where the data exists has no bearing on needing a lawyer. What the the data contains would be the primary driver of needing a lawyer, which applies equally regardless of it being on-site or off-site.

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?
      - asveikau 4y ago
        Glad your world is very simple. In TFA they mention the possibility of complying but not giving everything that is asked for. A lawyer can probably help you craft that in a way that will satisfy a judge. Point about Ring's lawyers (which we've seemingly gotten away from this deep into the thread) is you do not pay for them or get involved if you don't want to be. You don't get to be involved in strategy either, which may not be in your interests. Getting the best thing for your interests may require paying a lot for a lawyer and a lot of stress. It would all depend on the specifics of the case.
        pclmulqdq 4y ago
        Ring doesn't craft minimally-responsive answers to subpoenas and warrants either. No big tech company does. That would take money (having a staff lawyer and some help to handle those is expensive), and they don't really care that much about your data. When you own it, you can fight back to your heart's content. And by the way, you do pay for Ring's lawyers if you use their product.
        TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
        > they don't really care that much about your data. The most important point
        multjoy 4y ago
        If you're storing the data on site then they turn up with a warrant and take the hardware. A subpoena for Ring is an order to produce data. A warrant for Joe's CCTV at 223 Acacia Avenue is permission to take the data.
    - jerbearito 4y ago
      So you're saying that, in the event of owning your own data and being asked for it, you would get a lawyer because you acknowledge that there could be unforeseen conseqeuences and aspects of the request that you might not understand. But you would simultaneously prefer to let a megacorp own your data so you don't have to think about any of that? So you're happy to give away your data, but also insistent that you should pay someone to review the request for your data. Apologies if I'm misunderstanding your comments (very possible), but I think I at least understand why some folks are confused.
      - asveikau 4y ago
        I did say both of these things. Because there are upshots and downsides to each. Both are true. You can't escape the shittiness of this problem by running your own server. It's a bad situation either way. The root of the problem as i read it is overly zealous law enforcement and a judge that is not acting as a proper check on their power. It's a political problem. It can't be escaped with purely technical solutions like who stores the data.
        jerbearito 4y ago
        Point taken, but I don't see enough of an upshot to giving away your data from the very start — retaining zero control so you don't have to deal with requests that may or may not ever happen.
        incompatible 4y ago
        I wouldn't be surprised if a lawyer would want to view all the footage themselves, before making any decision like that. Hopefully, you aren't keeping 6 months worth, because lawyers typically charge by the hour.
        etienne618 4y ago
        I think there may be a significant advantage to running your own server: you can controll how long you want to keep the data. For example, you can keep data from cameras recording the street/yard for longer and delete footage from inside the house daily (or choose to not even record when you are at home).
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    That's what I did, and I don't feel even a little nervous about it. I did it because it was obviously in my best interest to help them investigate a crime that I was the victim in, and because I am 100% confident that the footage is otherwise innocuous. But it all depends on the circumstances. As you say, the whole point of ownership is that I get to make that sort of decision.
Dalewyn 4y ago
>Just hand over the data they ask for, and they will be happy. You can get a lawyer if you want to fight it. Given it's common sense to never talk to the police without a lawyer, you would want a lawyer for this situation so you know you're not unintentionally fucking yourself over. Obligatory IANAL.
- chrisandchris 4y ago
  > [...] Given it's common sense to never talk to the police without a lawyer [...] Don't generalize and don't conclude from your point-of-view to the whole world. There are enough places where you can talk to the police without even thinking about a lawyer (and never ever even require one, even in such situations). Not everyone's country is the USA (I assume).
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    If my interaction with the police is anything more than inconsequential small talk, I'm getting a lawyer. I would apply this common sense even to Japanese police, among the most respected of police forces in the world. Obligatory IANAL.
    - pclmulqdq 4y ago
      I think, having done this a few times, the line should be "minor traffic ticket," not "small talk." You can get out of a ticket (or get it downgraded to a warning) by being nice to the officer, and that is a much better outcome than you can get by attempting to bring in a lawyer or behave as though you are going to fight legally. Many of these kinds of warrants are closer to the "minor traffic ticket" side than anything else. The trouble is that you may want a lawyer to tell you that.
- AnthonyMouse 4y ago
  Isn't the reason you might want a lawyer in this case that you might not have to turn over the footage, and doing so when you don't have to could be used against you? So wouldn't the alternative where they get the footage from someone else be just as bad as you turning it over without checking, and therefore something you should prevent if consulting a lawyer first is to your advantage?
deafpolygon 4y ago
You ALWAYS need a lawyer, and don't hand over any recordings without a lawyer. Otherwise, you may be liable for crimes NOT covered by their initial request. Crimes you may not even think are crimes! Cops do this, to pressure more information out of you.

giantg2 4y ago

I still don't see why you think it's a negative to have your own data. If you think you need a lawyer for on-site data, they you should think you need one for off-site data as well. There's really no difference here. Where the data exists has no bearing on needing a lawyer. What the the data contains would be the primary driver of needing a lawyer, which applies equally regardless of it being on-site or off-site.