4 ms·

This is a step in the right direction. Everyone hates public surveillance until they become the victim of a crime, but it's critical that the surveillance is ow

by pphysch 2mo ago

This is a step in the right direction. Everyone hates public surveillance until they become the victim of a crime, but it's critical that the surveillance is owned and controlled fully on an appropriate level. You should fully own and control your home security cameras. Right now many homeowners are shipping their data to national datacenters. Municipalities should fully own and control their public security cameras, on municipal datacenter resources. Data sharing / federation should always be intentional and time-bound. It should be impossible for a small town cop to unilaterally access security records from a random city he has no jurisdiction in.

gilthelander 2mo ago
> You should fully own and control your home security cameras. Right now many homeowners are shipping their data to national datacenters. In practice it's difficult to do and offer remote access.
- asteroidburger 2mo ago
  It’s not a technical limitation. Nobody sees the need to build it that way though.
- nullsanity 2mo ago
  [dead]
- dghlsakjg 2mo ago
  Not at all. If they can get the data to their server to store it, they could just as easily not do that and instead serve it from your local device by proxy through their server. It’s t he exact same difficulty as what they are already doing. Arguably easier since you don’t have to manage file storage in the cloud.
  - gilthelander 2mo ago
    [flagged]
    - dghlsakjg 2mo ago
      Do you think they use magic to stream live video with today’s implementation? It already works. We stream HD video out of our homes all day every day, and that includes video from security cameras. If the devices can stream live video, and they all can, then they can stream stored video. As to why they would do that? Online storage costs money. Some users are not comfortable having their videos stored with Amazon. Plenty of good reasons. This isn’t some lunatic idea, local storage is literally how ALL security cameras used to work, and there are products that do exactly this. They have good reviews too.
    - tomhow 2mo ago
      Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
dghlsakjg 2mo ago
I don’t know if people hate public surveillance. Most people handle it fine when it’s traffic cameras, security cameras in malls and stores, etc. The issue is a massive unaccountable dragnet that is prone to abuse and mistakes being treated as infallible by less than competent police. People really don’t care if the local PD puts up cameras at an intersection with high accident rates, or a street with high crime rates. The issue is automated proactive alerts on incorrect license plates, tracking, nationwide data sharing, lack of judicial oversight, data in private databases, etc.

by pphysch 2mo ago

gilthelander 2mo ago

> You should fully own and control your home security cameras. Right now many homeowners are shipping their data to national datacenters. In practice it's difficult to do and offer remote access.

asteroidburger 2mo ago
It’s not a technical limitation. Nobody sees the need to build it that way though.
nullsanity 2mo ago
[dead]
dghlsakjg 2mo ago
Not at all. If they can get the data to their server to store it, they could just as easily not do that and instead serve it from your local device by proxy through their server. It’s t he exact same difficulty as what they are already doing. Arguably easier since you don’t have to manage file storage in the cloud.
- gilthelander 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - dghlsakjg 2mo ago
    Do you think they use magic to stream live video with today’s implementation? It already works. We stream HD video out of our homes all day every day, and that includes video from security cameras. If the devices can stream live video, and they all can, then they can stream stored video. As to why they would do that? Online storage costs money. Some users are not comfortable having their videos stored with Amazon. Plenty of good reasons. This isn’t some lunatic idea, local storage is literally how ALL security cameras used to work, and there are products that do exactly this. They have good reviews too.
  - tomhow 2mo ago
    Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

dghlsakjg 2mo ago

I don’t know if people hate public surveillance. Most people handle it fine when it’s traffic cameras, security cameras in malls and stores, etc. The issue is a massive unaccountable dragnet that is prone to abuse and mistakes being treated as infallible by less than competent police. People really don’t care if the local PD puts up cameras at an intersection with high accident rates, or a street with high crime rates. The issue is automated proactive alerts on incorrect license plates, tracking, nationwide data sharing, lack of judicial oversight, data in private databases, etc.