3 ms·

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

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).

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).