Let me guess "opt-in" means checked by default and hidden 12 menus deep.
Or worse-yet, opt-in means "Hey our rates are going up, but not if you agree to this" (something comcast did recently).
Or opt-in is stored in some database somewhere and might "accidentally be misread" due to a "bug".
If they want real-opt-in then it should be a SMS message at the time they want to know, and a phone-number you can reach out to for more information. This would give an audit trail at the very least.
Barbing · 32m ago
Good bet.
What’s the Comcast story? (just did a quick search)
haunter · 2h ago
The feature exist and that guarantees the law enforcement will abuse this sooner or later. Opt-in doesn’t mean anything.
You have to be total naive if you still believe that this is a “safe” feature to enable.
xoa · 2h ago
Yes, this is my take as well, and I think it's the correct one from both a technical and legal POV. It's one thing for the government to try to compel an organization or person to create a feature they want from scratch. They have made noises in that direction in the past (like the FBI vs Apple trying to invoke the All Writs Act) but it's been on very shaky ground, on both 1st and 13th Amendment grounds as well as others. But the government can be a lot more aggressive and courts a lot more permissive when it comes to merely making use of functionality that already exists. Even putting aside all the massive numbers of perverse incentives, but the thing is of course those shouldn't be put aside, we've seen this movie before over and over and over again. Once a feature exists that can generate a lot of direct revenue for a company and the only thing that keeps them from turning the knob up is "we're totally not evil cross our hearts!". Like holy shit, in 2025 who really goes "oh well it's opt-in!"
I think this particular one is pretty important to know about because a lot of people deploy Ring stuff almost by default, and some HNers (including me as it happens) have some level of influence or even control over it. I always meant to put some effort into updating my self-hosted security system efforts but this is a major kick in the butt. Have to know this exists and be able to offer solid credible alternatives.
Edit: to add a direct pertinent example, WE LITERALLY JUST HAD 5 DAYS AGO ON HN A 500+ COMMENT HUGE THREAD ON "Oakland cops gave ICE license plate data; SFPD also illegally shared with feds" [0]. And there are people really claiming "nothing to see here, move along, local and feds would totally never conspire to abuse anything in violation of the law let alone not in violation of the law"!?
I am less worried about local law enforcement. They will have little ability to strong arm Amazon and have oversight and regulation, as well as judicial review, even if it’s not always effective it’s always there.
DHS has become lawless, and they are eager to strong arm and over reach after having dismantled their own oversight and ignoring their own regulations. They are working hard to move fast and break the law faster than the law can keep up and the Supreme Court has made it very difficult to seek remedy. Because they are not doing criminal justice but instead civil administrative enforcement the web of oversight and review and stronger civil rights for criminal justice don’t apply. They have become the largest police force, militarized, and with enormous budget, latitude, and blank check support from the highest levels of political government.
They absolutely can strong arm Amazon into doing what they want, and absolutely will use Ring camera against their owners and neighbors.
In six months we created a secret police rivaling the KGB, gestapo, State Security Police, and SSD.
leptons · 1h ago
You have to be totally naive to buy a Ring camera in the first place. Of course it will be used in ways you can't control, it uploads everything to "the cloud".
smotched · 10m ago
That doesn't matter when all your neighbors have one, and the one in front of you has theirs pointed directly at your house.
mousethatroared · 29m ago
Obviously i don't have Ring.
But everyone else does, so what's the point? My privacy is always compromised because tech junkies (as opposed to techies) insist on indulging in stupid things like 21 and me, Gmail, or Ring and I get swept along with it.
thephyber · 16m ago
> 21 and me
The company sequences human DNA. The number in the name of the corp is the number of chromosomes in human DNA. I hope you and I both have more than 21 chromosomes…
mousethatroared · 7m ago
Shows you how little I care about knowing my genome.
thephyber · 14m ago
As if privacy-minded users needed any more reason to avoid Ring…
georgeburdell · 3h ago
I’d be interested to know if anyone has a moderate cost system that doesn’t force you to use a company’s cloud (and thus making them prone to abuse like this). I personally have a POE setup with some commercial grade cameras ($400 a pop), with attached NAS on a private network, and home-rolled a means to access the cameras remotely, but it’s not exactly economical or practical
userbinator · 54s ago
There's lot's of generic NVRs and cameras for relatively cheap at the usual far-East retailers.
jwrallie · 2h ago
Trying to find an affordable camera / baby monitor that was both secure and offline was a tough one for me, it seems every single consumer oriented camera has a remote access functionality (= a backdoor) nowadays, and the baby monitors that don’t use wifi are only secure through obscurity with some of them being as easy to hack as buying the same model.
I ended up with an Amcrest IP2M-841 and Tinycam on Android (as I understand using RTSP), and blocking internet access of the camera through the router. As I found out, just connecting it to the internet will automatically connect to servers for allowing “easy setup” of the remote access feature.
skirmish · 32m ago
Synology Surveilance Station [1], it supports 2 cameras per NAS for free, extra cameras $50 per device. I use an old 2 HDD NAS with 2 cameras for a few years already, it works perfectly well. (One Reolink camera, another Amcrest, both record video in h264).
I'm full Unifi. With all of Ubiquiti's faults considered. I still feel 10000000x better about it than Ring.
BLKNSLVR · 2h ago
I use a local NVR containing a couple of hard drives totalling maybe 8TB of storage attached to same-branded cameras (ranging between $80 and $150 each) that I can access locally, and remotely via Wireguard.
I'd say it's economical in comparison to cloud options, but, yes, not all that practical to the less technical crowd.
I specifically block the camera and NVR local IP addresses from accessing the internet. I don't really want the possibility of an private company accessing live (or recorded) video of where I live.
Brand is Reolink. I've been slowly building up the system over five-ish years and have not yet found any reason to kick myself for choosing that brand. I also have some TP-Link Tapo cameras for more temporary things, like monitoring pets.
I've also setup Frigate as an alternative system, both for my own interest and as a way to aggregate different camera brands to a single interface. Frigate can be a bit complex.
hypercube33 · 1h ago
Is there anything that runs for a decent amount of time, wifi and essentially all-wireless? Blink somewhat works on its own local hub, but honestly its crap for detecting when things happen so I wont be upgrading from my used 2-pack + hub even though it does integrate well with HA.
I'd really like something that'd be apartment friendly so no drilling holes.
vrosas · 2h ago
I also recently installed a Reolink system. I have 6 cameras (4 PoE and 2 WiFi) inside and outside my house. It’s amazing. I just set up a raspberry pi to act as an FTP server to backup files to cloud storage.
ryandrake · 3h ago
I've got a bunch of POE Reolink cameras and their doorbell cam. LAN only, no centralized cloud server. So far happy with them.
ImaCake · 3h ago
+1 for Reolink. We have a reolink camera hooked into home assistant, the whole setup is local and reolink's API exposes every single feature in home assistant with no additional setup needed.
My house also came with an existing NVR camera network which I can view in home assistant over my router without it ever going to the cloud as well.
amelius · 2h ago
> LAN only, no centralized cloud server.
Until one day they auto-update ...
VTimofeenko · 1h ago
Cameras (like other iot devices) should be forbidden from going outside LAN.
halfcat · 1h ago
Can you use the app to talk to someone at the door if it’s LAN only?
Aachen · 41m ago
My grandparents solved that by putting their mobile phone number on their door. They're slow to come down and open the door so it makes sense for the post person or visitor to know they're on their way
Relatively low tech compared to somehow hooking up a camera livestream system to ring your phone via the internet in some way but it works
ryandrake · 1h ago
As far as I've tried, it's fully functional if you VPN into your LAN.
ActorNightly · 3h ago
>home-rolled a means to access the cameras remotely, but it’s not exactly economical or practical
Cloudfare tunnels are free. You just pay for your domain name. Ngrok is also an option.
If you want to be extra secure, you can do ssh port forwarding through the cloudfar
RunningDroid · 3h ago
Personally I'd look through the brands listed in the Home Assistant integrations, either Local Push or Local Polling :
The documentation for setting up the integrations should also indicate whether there's any cloud involved.
SoftTalker · 3h ago
If you have cameras the police can get a subpoena to force you to provide what you have saved. If you don’t have cameras, you can’t give what you don’t have.
cybrexalpha · 3h ago
Yes, but they have to subpoena you. That means process, that means getting a judge to sign it, and it means you can limit scope (i.e., if the incident under investigation occurred outside your home, you're not going to need to provide any footage from inside).
eurleif · 3h ago
While the OP doesn't emphasize this detail, it says this is a tool that will allow police to request access from the camera owners. Police can, of course, also request footage from the owners of non-cloud cameras, so the legal basis of disclosure -- consent -- can exist in either case, cloud or non-cloud camera.
BriggyDwiggs42 · 3h ago
You don’t have to keep your recordings for a long time. It’d be pretty easy to set up a system that only keeps records for a few days.
F7F7F7 · 43m ago
Good luck unencrypting my drives.
nick__m · 17m ago
With a subopena you would be the one unencrypting your disk. Being in comptent of the court usually means imprisonment or daily fine until you comply with the court order.
nsxwolf · 2h ago
The TP Link Tapo ecosystem is really good and can record directly onto SD cards. Seamlessly works with Google Home, I can access my cameras outside of the house without signing up for their cloud option.
rudedogg · 3h ago
They're a little pricey but https://www.ui.com is nice. It's what I want to replace my Ring with
mikeyouse · 1h ago
Recently replaced my Eufy system with UI ones - I’m a big fan so far. Picked up a few new 4k ones for important areas and got the rest used on marketplace via a 4-pack of 2k ones for $150 from a hair salon that had changed systems.
delfinom · 1h ago
Ubiquiti's ecosystem. You own the NVR, it stores locally and they have a doorbell w/ camera.
humanfromearth9 · 3h ago
Eufy Security?
mosura · 2h ago
Sounds oxymoronic.
ActorNightly · 3h ago
Key point is police can request, they can't just log in to your cloud and take footage
Then again, doesn't seem like the law matters anymore at least on a federal level.
josephcsible · 3h ago
This is way overblown, since it's strictly opt-in and always requires the owner's explicit consent. It would only be a privacy issue if either of those things weren't true.
vidarh · 2h ago
The owner isn't the only party whose privacy is being affected unless you believe these cameras will never capture anything other than the owners.
josephcsible · 1h ago
You could also invite a police officer over to your house to watch recordings from a completely offline air-gapped camera pointed at the street.
cma · 57m ago
There is a major qualitative difference if it becomes something like police AI systems analyzing it all continuously.
amelius · 2h ago
They could use dark patterns. E.g. make you click yes in an inattentive moment.
Or use a checkbox that mysteriously takes on the checked state while you are sure you didn't check it.
josephcsible · 2h ago
If they do those things, then it would indeed be a privacy issue, but right now they're not.
_DeadFred_ · 21m ago
I mean people complained so Amazon stopped giving police access. Now as soon at Amazon thought they could get away with it, Amazon started giving access again. That's pretty shady behavior in my book.
IAmGraydon · 1h ago
You’re missing the point. The last report in 2021 stated that they sold 1.7 million units in that year alone. The effect is that nearly every square inch of any populated area now has a camera pointed at it that police can access. Please tell me how you opt out of that.
drannex · 1h ago
Fuck the police state, and all the technology companies and executives trying to cash in on fascism in the name of "security"
This will be abused by the government, by the police, and every othet nefarious organizations and individuals possible.
matt3210 · 2h ago
Opt in means nothing in the face of a legal subpoena
xoa · 2h ago
>Opt in means nothing in the face of a legal subpoena
Or scarier, a National Security Letter the government claims the company can't even talk about except maybe in secret court. Or perhaps scariest, a """"National Security Letter ;^)"""", ie, the company absolutely wants to gleefully cooperate with the government and give it whatever it wants for the right price, but also wants to maintain a veneer of "we totally care" and the government obligingly produces some demand and the company then goes "oh geez we totally place customers first and privacy is our highest priority ....but we had to because of terrorist pedo murder rioter jaywalkers, the government ORDERED us to not our fault nothing we could do!" while facilitating it without any challenge at all.
aerostable_slug · 3h ago
It seems like people are missing the fact that it's opt-in from the police to the consumer. It's within the end consumer's control to allow the access or not, so by that standard it's not in any way abuse.
It's not Orwellian overreach or, as the EFF claims a breach of Ring's customers' trust, if the customer gives up the data willingly and knowingly.
And lots and lots of people will.
bsder · 2h ago
> It seems like people are missing the fact that it's opt-in from the police to the consumer.
There is no such thing short of a physical switch. To believe otherwise is the absolute height of naïveté.
iJohnDoe · 2h ago
This has been in Ring for years and police have their own dashboard. Most importantly, it was already found Ring or Police have enabled access on their own.
Based on the articles, do you really think Ring and police cannot just get whatever they want?
I cannot imagine installing surveillance devices in my home but if I did set up cameras they would be on a private network and saving to devices I control.
mindslight · 19m ago
So if I enable this, will the police at least use the feeds to only summarily execute me for exercising my 2nd amendment right to night time home defense, and let the rest of my family live?
Beestie · 1h ago
Reason #37 why I went with Eufy instead.
conartist6 · 2h ago
"Show proof that you use AI to get promoted." Yep that company won't last too much longer. Managers managing managers managing lemmings.
skirmish · 24m ago
Google added exactly this to SWE role attributes, to be checked each performance review cycle. Managers managing managers, directors managing directors. Are you shorting GOOG right now?
Havoc · 1h ago
Don’t think anyone vaguely tech savvy is buying these anymore
sergiotapia · 2h ago
What's a good dumb way to check on pets via camera/talk to them while you're on vacation? I have ring cameras at home specifically for this use case. but I now want to get rid of them.
greenie_beans · 14m ago
fuck this bullshit
IAmGraydon · 1h ago
Why don’t we call this by its true name - Amazon? You guys do realize that Amazon intentionally keeps its name off the product for a reason, right? They have Amazon batteries, web hosting, makeup, and every other thing you could possibly imagine. This product though? It’s just “Ring” so that Amazon can avoid the brand damage that comes from facilitating a police state. That is their intention, and they are keeping it at arms length for that reason. The headline of this article should read “Amazon Ring introducing new feature…” not just “Ring”. If we want it to stop, we need to hold the company responsible for what they’re doing.
Or worse-yet, opt-in means "Hey our rates are going up, but not if you agree to this" (something comcast did recently).
Or opt-in is stored in some database somewhere and might "accidentally be misread" due to a "bug".
If they want real-opt-in then it should be a SMS message at the time they want to know, and a phone-number you can reach out to for more information. This would give an audit trail at the very least.
What’s the Comcast story? (just did a quick search)
You have to be total naive if you still believe that this is a “safe” feature to enable.
I think this particular one is pretty important to know about because a lot of people deploy Ring stuff almost by default, and some HNers (including me as it happens) have some level of influence or even control over it. I always meant to put some effort into updating my self-hosted security system efforts but this is a major kick in the butt. Have to know this exists and be able to offer solid credible alternatives.
Edit: to add a direct pertinent example, WE LITERALLY JUST HAD 5 DAYS AGO ON HN A 500+ COMMENT HUGE THREAD ON "Oakland cops gave ICE license plate data; SFPD also illegally shared with feds" [0]. And there are people really claiming "nothing to see here, move along, local and feds would totally never conspire to abuse anything in violation of the law let alone not in violation of the law"!?
----
0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44561716
DHS has become lawless, and they are eager to strong arm and over reach after having dismantled their own oversight and ignoring their own regulations. They are working hard to move fast and break the law faster than the law can keep up and the Supreme Court has made it very difficult to seek remedy. Because they are not doing criminal justice but instead civil administrative enforcement the web of oversight and review and stronger civil rights for criminal justice don’t apply. They have become the largest police force, militarized, and with enormous budget, latitude, and blank check support from the highest levels of political government.
They absolutely can strong arm Amazon into doing what they want, and absolutely will use Ring camera against their owners and neighbors.
In six months we created a secret police rivaling the KGB, gestapo, State Security Police, and SSD.
But everyone else does, so what's the point? My privacy is always compromised because tech junkies (as opposed to techies) insist on indulging in stupid things like 21 and me, Gmail, or Ring and I get swept along with it.
The company sequences human DNA. The number in the name of the corp is the number of chromosomes in human DNA. I hope you and I both have more than 21 chromosomes…
I ended up with an Amcrest IP2M-841 and Tinycam on Android (as I understand using RTSP), and blocking internet access of the camera through the router. As I found out, just connecting it to the internet will automatically connect to servers for allowing “easy setup” of the remote access feature.
[1] https://www.synology.com/en-global/surveillance
I'd say it's economical in comparison to cloud options, but, yes, not all that practical to the less technical crowd.
I specifically block the camera and NVR local IP addresses from accessing the internet. I don't really want the possibility of an private company accessing live (or recorded) video of where I live.
Brand is Reolink. I've been slowly building up the system over five-ish years and have not yet found any reason to kick myself for choosing that brand. I also have some TP-Link Tapo cameras for more temporary things, like monitoring pets.
I've also setup Frigate as an alternative system, both for my own interest and as a way to aggregate different camera brands to a single interface. Frigate can be a bit complex.
I'd really like something that'd be apartment friendly so no drilling holes.
My house also came with an existing NVR camera network which I can view in home assistant over my router without it ever going to the cloud as well.
Until one day they auto-update ...
Relatively low tech compared to somehow hooking up a camera livestream system to ring your phone via the internet in some way but it works
Cloudfare tunnels are free. You just pay for your domain name. Ngrok is also an option.
If you want to be extra secure, you can do ssh port forwarding through the cloudfar
https://www.home-assistant.io/integrations/?cat=camera&iot_c...
https://www.home-assistant.io/integrations/?cat=camera&iot_c...
The documentation for setting up the integrations should also indicate whether there's any cloud involved.
Then again, doesn't seem like the law matters anymore at least on a federal level.
Or use a checkbox that mysteriously takes on the checked state while you are sure you didn't check it.
This will be abused by the government, by the police, and every othet nefarious organizations and individuals possible.
Or scarier, a National Security Letter the government claims the company can't even talk about except maybe in secret court. Or perhaps scariest, a """"National Security Letter ;^)"""", ie, the company absolutely wants to gleefully cooperate with the government and give it whatever it wants for the right price, but also wants to maintain a veneer of "we totally care" and the government obligingly produces some demand and the company then goes "oh geez we totally place customers first and privacy is our highest priority ....but we had to because of terrorist pedo murder rioter jaywalkers, the government ORDERED us to not our fault nothing we could do!" while facilitating it without any challenge at all.
It's not Orwellian overreach or, as the EFF claims a breach of Ring's customers' trust, if the customer gives up the data willingly and knowingly.
And lots and lots of people will.
There is no such thing short of a physical switch. To believe otherwise is the absolute height of naïveté.
Based on the articles, do you really think Ring and police cannot just get whatever they want?
https://consumer.ftc.gov/consumer-alerts/2023/05/rings-priva...
https://www.reviewed.com/smarthome/features/ring-changes-pol...
https://www.silicon.co.uk/e-regulation/surveillance/amazon-r...
https://theintercept.com/2019/01/10/amazon-ring-security-cam...