Private security footage is nothing new to criminal investigations, but two factors are rapidly changing the landscape: huge growth in the number of devices with cameras, and the fact that footage usually lands in a cloud server, rather than on a tape.

When a third party maintains the footage on the cloud, it gives police the ability to seek the images directly from the storage company, rather than from the resident or business owner who controls the recording device. In 2022, the Ring security company, owned by Amazon, admitted that it had provided audio and video from customer doorbells to police without user consent at least 11 times. The company cited “exigent circumstances.”

Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20240116132800/https://www.themarshallproject.org/2024/01/13/police-video-surveillance-california

  • FinishingDutch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    You should always assume any camera to be hostile, unless you have full and complete control over all related software and connections.

    Basically, the people who supplied the device will always have more control over it than you do. And big tech just looooves to abuse that and/or cave in to pressure from governments and police agencies.

    • DaDragon@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Sadly there’s little option for some stuff. Robot vacuums have become super useful, even if they are arguably the biggest security risk that exists. And that will never change, no matter how capable the products get

        • BearOfaTime
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          I’m trying real hard to develop advocacy for this stuff. I think there’s a genuine business to be made helping people use privacy-respecting stuff like this.

          • OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            What we need to do is organize and push for a right to privacy rather than work around the system in place.

            • BearOfaTime
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              Por que no los dos?

              The reality is tcp/IP was intentonally developed without encryption built in. So we’ll always have to look out for ourselves. And there’ll always be bad actors, with government and politicians being top of the list.

              Trust, but verify. Do you just go when a light turns green, or do you check and verify other cars running a red first?

              I’d rather look out for myself and know where my risks are, than trust that bad actors will follow the law.

        • DaDragon@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          The link doesn’t work, but I just found out it’s actually supported on mine! Although I probably won’t mess with it, since I’m not alone here

      • FinishingDutch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Why would you consider robot vacuums to be particularly dangerous in terms of security? I’m certainly more weary of things like Google Nest, Amazon Alexa, pet cams, doorbell cams, that sort of thing.

        I know that some but not all vacuums have cameras, and I’d assume some might have microphones as well. But in general it doesn’t strike me as inherently more dangerous to one’s privacy.