6 ms·
How Did the FBI Get Nancy Guthrie's Nest Doorbell Footage?
- daft_pink 8mo agoThe Nest doorbell wasn't set to save recordings, so how did the FBI get it?
- phendrenad2 8mo agoI'm not familiar with Nest, if you don't have a subscription to store video, and someone rings your doorbell, and you take 5 seconds to bring it up in the app, can you scroll back and see those 5 seconds? Or is it literally a feed from the camera to the app over bluetooth? Probably not. The video stream probably gets sent to some backend system and, while she didn't pay for storage, it probably persists for a few hours to days in cache.
- devmor 8mo agoNot set to save recordings likely means "saved in a memory buffer and never given a file handle", that is how most consumer recording devices that offer limited playback work. I recently had to attempt to piece together dash cam footage from my wife's car in the same way when she witnessed an accident but the file had been "aged out".
- doophus 8mo agoDon't they have a battery backup and a local buffer before uploading? It probably had its last footage still stored locally, using the remnants of power in its internal battery.
- JoblessWonder 8mo agoShe apparently didn't have a subscription so it shouldn't have been uploading anywhere... however things get murky with notification settings.
- burnte 8mo agoNormally we would expect no subscription means no video uploaded, but it doesn't HAVE to mean that. IF you distill it, it really only means the Ring doorbell owner doesn't get access to any video or features without paying. There's no reason they, however, won't still derive value from it without a subscription by recording and reselling that data somehow. That's probably how they got this footage. All the subscription does it help subsidize their surveillance network and let you use it a little bit.
- esalman 8mo agoI guess I don't have to renew my Ring subscription then. If things go awry I can just ask FBI to ask Amazon for the footage.
- stackskipton 8mo agoSure, if whatever case you need Ring camera footage for is important enough to get FBI involved.
- pimlottc 8mo agoDistill it?
- ezekiel68 8mo agoEh, it's not a terrible usage. I give it 7/10 for artistic license.
- kube-system 8mo agoIt's a pretty darn normal usage: https://www.merriam-webster.com/sentences/distill https://www.merriam-webster.com/sentences/distill
- burnte 8mo agoI'll take a 7 out of 10.
- jrsdav 8mo agoI'm fairly certain that Nest cameras do not allow streaming over your local network. You can still use the cameras even without a subscription, i.e. watch the live stream or get notifications. This means that yes, they are absolutely uploading data to the cloud and storing it for some undetermined window. Paying for a subscription seems to just give you access to that history.
- whycome 8mo agoThe CBC report yesterday on tv mentioned the awkward phrase the it was recovered “buried deep in servers” and I thought it was bizarre. Replay available on YouTube. CBC the national.
- 1970-01-01 8mo agoThis is correct. It has to be buried below the frost line else we would have frozen footage.
- RaftPeople 8mo agoThe guy did seem to be wearing a warm coat and gloves so obviously pretty cold where the video was, probably just below the frost line.
- natas 8mo agoThey ultimately found it sandwiched between the videos of epstein uncut jail cell footage and Jan 6's lost video exhibits.
- zdp7 8mo agoI suspect that it really might have been 'buried deep'. If you are capturing the data short term, to allow a small scroll back, then you wrote the data to some storage system. At three hours or whatever the short term storage limit is, you delete the file. Usually deleting a file leaves the data intact on the storage device. Only the file entry and a list of what low level storage blocks actually contained data. It could take awhile before the data is actually overwritten. Up until the point it is, you could scan the contents of unallocated blocks looking for the data. It could theoretically take awhile to find a customer id or something else that helps you identify the deleted data.
- 1970-01-01 8mo agoWhy are we overthinking this? It was disconnected by the kidnapper, not erased by him. All the FBI has to do is reconnect it (or even just find the MAC address) and wait for Google to provide them the footage via a request. https://policies.google.com/terms/information-requests?hl=en-US#:~:text=threats%2C%20school%20shootings%2C-,kidnappings,-%2C%20suicide%20prevention%2C%20and https://policies.google.com/terms/information-requests?hl=en...
- eigencoder 8mo agoI heard that Nancy Guthrie was not paying for the subscription that let her view her old video footage. So it's interesting that Google was still storing all that footage.
- draw_down 8mo ago[dead]
- sandworm101 8mo agoThe google/ring backbone service people are likely disconnected from google's money collecting people. It is probably just easier to collect all of it and then check for payments only when users login to get at the footage. Otherwise, every fetch of footage from a camera would trigger a query to the payment system.
- chinathrow 8mo agoIf I don't pay, they should not store footage. What is so difficult about that?
- patmorgan23 8mo agoIf you don't want them to store footage, don't buy a cloud connected camera
- 8mo ago
- kube-system 8mo agoMost of these cloud connected cameras always stream footage through their cloud service, regardless of whether you pay for a subscription. Because people don't know how to configure port forwarding, etc, in their firewall. They're not architecturally delivering the video a different way if you pay than if you don't. They're just changing the retention period. This video was probably recovered from cache somewhere.
- RobotToaster 8mo agoSome (ironically the cheap Chinese ones) use UDP hole punching for a P2P connection. Assumedly because it saves server costs.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- bsimpson 8mo agoThere was an article the other day called something like "How is Google helping the investigation?" It said she didn't have a cloud subscription, but that there are data pipelines that make these sort of devices work. (Imagine there's a thumbnail of the video in the product somewhere, so there's a pipeline that takes a video stream and generates thumbnails.) According to the article, it was a matter of having someone figure out which pipelines her videos might have touched, and then go looking to see if there were any ephemeral artifacts that hadn't been lost yet.
- xnobodyx 8mo agosaw this cnn article that discusses a similar theory. it was unclear to me whether the source of the article is purely speculation. https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/10/tech/google-video-nancy-guthrie https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/10/tech/google-video-nancy-guthr... and archived at https://archive.ph/oZyRM https://archive.ph/oZyRM
- ansk 8mo agoThe guy writing a thumbnail pipeline isn't getting petabytes (exabytes?) of storage to cache all videos from the past week in their entirety. If this quantity of data is being stored, it's being stored deliberately and at significant cost.
- hypeatei 8mo agoThis reminds me of when people were surprised that Alexa devices listen all the time. Yes, cloud connected device is uploading data to the cloud. That is not very scandalous or interesting. The FBI didn't burn zero days to do this, they simply asked Google for it.
- Aurornis 8mo ago> This reminds me of when people were surprised that Alexa devices listen all the time Alexa devices are not recording audio and uploading it all to the cloud all the time. Nest cameras are designed to upload recordings to the cloud, even without subscription. It's literally one of the selling points.
- Aurornis 8mo agoNest cameras upload video clips to the cloud without an active subscription. This fact is explained right in the Google support page linked by this article > *The 3 hours of event video previews is available without a Google Home Premium subscription for the Nest Cam (battery) and Nest Doorbell (battery). All of these articles trying to spin this as some surprise revelation are getting old.
- 1970-01-01 8mo agoBecause online journalism is journalism jr. and they can't be bothered to do basic research on their story.
- fusslo 8mo agoanecdotally i've had this conversation with 3 people (engineers) at my work today. They all thought it was crazy that without a subscription they're recording and uploading video. One person asked 'Why are we paying for a subscription if it's not for the storage and processing?' Another started talking about flock and ice right after.
- ajam1507 8mo agoThe surprise revelation is that the footage is still recoverable after 3 hours.
- drnick1 8mo ago> Should you get rid of your Nest camera over privacy concerns? Absolutely, and you shouldn't have bought and installed this garbage in the first place. Their primary purpose is not to protect you but to spy on you for Google's benefit, much like the rest of their dis-services (email, cloud storage, mobile operating systems). If you absolutely need surveillance cameras for your safety, use generic IP cameras connected to your own NVR (network video recorder), possibly with Frigate for offline AI processing and notifications. Nothing should ever leave your network; the data should be encrypted and only shared with the police when it is in your interest.
- thinkingtoilet 8mo agoThe problem is that your advice doesn't work for 99% of the customer base. Go the average person "if you absolutely need surveillance cameras for your safety, use generic IP cameras connected to your own NVR (network video recorder), possibly with Frigate for offline AI processing and notifications." and see what they say. It's important to remember if you are on this site you are an extreme minority and the average person isn't even aware enough to think about these things, let alone set up their own offline AI video processor.
- drnick1 8mo agoFair point, but security cameras, despite their name, do very little for your security as evidenced by the news. Most people don't need one, and only have Rings/Nests and other similar spyware because of a combination of fearmongering, aggressive marketing, and pricing subsidized by data collection (spyware). If you truly fear for your safety, you should purchase a shotgun, not a Nest camera. In any case, when you don't have the skills required to do something, you can hire someone who does. I pay a plumber because I don't have plumbing skills and tools, so it's not unreasonable to pay someone to set up a local camera system for you if you want one.
- kenjackson 8mo agoCameras do more than just that kind of security. Our camera has been of great use. In fact has largely made us money. We had an incident where a fire truck damaged our car in the street with its hose. We thought a kid with a bat did the damage at first. The camera though showed the real culprit. When we told the fire department they denied it and said there were no firetrucks in the area. We sent the video footage and then they sent a city lawyer with a checkbook.
- ansk 8mo agoThe other explanations here don't explain the long delay between the start of the investigation and the release of the footage. Yes, storing customer data is what we'd expect from Google and yes, the FBI can coerce Google to provide this data for their investigations. But it does not take a week for Google to find a file on their servers. My hunch is that Google initially tried to play dumb to avoid compliance, as to not reveal they do in fact retain customer data. They had a plausible excuse as well -- the owner had no subscription so they don't store the data -- and took a gamble that this explanation would suffice until the situation resolved itself. I suspect that authorities initially took Google's excuse at face value, since they parroted this explanation to the public as well. As pressure mounted on authorities to make some headway on the case, they likely formally exercised whatever legal mechanisms they have at their disposal to force Google's hand, and only then was the footage released.
- aaron695 8mo ago[dead]
- reverius42 8mo agoThis is a wild claim. I would think criminal charges for something like obstruction would be possible if Google intentionally hid this from investigators for up to a week. That could result in the difference between the victim being found alive or not.
- robomartin 8mo agoThe video was likely recovered from local flash memory on the camera itself. These kinds of devices are not uploading raw video to the cloud. There are several reasons for that. The first is that you cannot rely on connectivity 100% of the time. Second, if you can have the camera run image processing and compression locally, you don't have to dedicate a massive amount of processing resources at the data center to run the processing. Imagine ten or a hundred million cameras. Where would you want the image processing to run? Right. My guess is that they either went to Google to perhaps connect the camera to a sandboxed testing rig that could extract locally-stored video data or they removed the flash device, offloaded the raw data and then extracted video from that data. This last option could also have the advantage of having less compression (architecture dependent). Decades ago I was personally involved in recovering and helping analyze surveillance video data for the prosecution in the OJ Simpson case. Back then, it was tape. One of the techniques that was considered (I can't publicly state what was actually done) was to digitize raw data right off the read heads on the VCR's spinning drum. You could then process this data using advanced algorithms which could produce better results than the electronics in even the most expensive professional tape players of he era. Once you step away from the limitations of a product --meaning, you are not engineering a product, you are mining for information-- all kinds of interesting and creative out-of-the-box opportunities present themselves.
- natas 8mo agoWhen the Nest camera was reconnected, the camera uploaded all the cached footage. Google then handed the footage to the FBI, no warrants needed as it's part of an ongoing case and Google is usually pretty friendly with the government (and vice ver-sa)
- sandworm101 8mo ago>> no warrants needed as it's part of an ongoing case ... Thats a rather chilling interpretation of the law. Every case is ongoing until trial.
- mrguyorama 8mo agoCurrent reality is that the government does not need a warrant for evidence given freely to them. Google has a level of ownership of any video file uploaded to their servers, and are allowed to just say "Here you go" to the cops, regardless of your opinion. 3rd party doctrine is being used to eliminate your 4th amendment rights.
- RupertSalt 8mo agoThe Nest footage is conclusive and unambiguous. Nancy Guthrie was apprehended by ICE agents and deported to Australia. ======= Irishman at Sydney airport: “Greetings, here is my passport and visa” Customs agent: “G‘day sir. Have you got a criminal record?” Irishman: “M‘Lord, no! I didn’t realise that one was still required!”
- taimoorhassan 8mo agoLast sentence of the article. Unfortunately, we don't have a definitive answer at this time, even if the theory is sound
- notepad0x90 8mo agois it not possible to have these doorcams blur or obscure parts of the video that is beyond certain distance from the camera? It would great if that was made a requirement for them.
- tibbydudeza 8mo agoSurely their storage backend is not a Linux box with EXT4 but something akin to Google Spanner so there data recovery would possible days later if they looked very hard enough ?.