The police haven’t heard of trespassing? Lmfao wild.

Yes, don’t just “give up” if you don’t resist then you’re complacent in the surveillance overload. Sooner or later companies will get savvy and start marketing camera-busting equipment to those who want it. It’s possible now to make wearable hats and such that defeat cameras with different spectrums of light or straight up are designed to fry them EMP-style. Most of those are DIY but it’s possible and beating them is getting as commercially available as the cameras themselves.

What’s important is gets laws and policies in place to reel in Amazon and Google. They are the worst spy hubs. The have insane amounts of data stored, and have been found guilty numerous times of breaking the law to collect data on people.

Just keep up the fight and don’t welcome the criminals right into your home.
Home security systems on private offline networks are way way more secure anyway.
You know some of the most private and high level government operations, like nuclear launch code level stuff, is now kept on decades old computer equipment. It’s really impossible to hack some old reel to reel tapes and such lol

No matter who made the erroneous claim - the exactly wording from Amazon is cut and dry. They don't do what you claimed.

And to your new expose.. Obviously Amazon has 'access' to the video - they are the ones hosting it and it's not privacy encrypted to yourself. There is no expectation of anything otherwise. Newsflash.. your ISPs have access to your mail too.. (unless you are doing things like e2e encryption like good ol pgpmail)

Firing people for abusing legitimate access is exactly what you want the company to do.

Its like the idiots who go 'OMG, amazon has people who listen to alexa recordings!!!' -- duh, how do you think you tune and fix algorithms? You listen to the source and compare it to the outputs and feed in corrections.

These are legitimate uses of the content. The problem is not 'they have access' - the problem is when there is nefarious, illegitimate, or uses inconsistent with the user's wishes or best intent.

I also read a report that Amazon delivery people look in your windows so I replaced them all with plywood! So many conspiracy people living in fear. Sad really.

pfft. Informed or uninformed? Fear has nothing to do with it.

If it is hooked to the 'net its spying on you, I can rattle of dozens of examples. Name one company that has had a CEO sent to jail for doing so? It will continue till someone does.

Fines? cost of doing business, far as I can tell one that does not slow them down a bit.

Download a network monitor for your computer and examine the stream of information that goes in and out, you would be shocked. Stuff that is not installed or "shut off" really isn't.

Keep working on that “informed” goal...

It’s also kinda hard to goto jail for things that don’t have criminal punishments...

Just asking. You think the government has a basement full of aliens don’t you? If you hunt for a conspiracy hard enough you will most certainly find one. Good luck with your crusade.

As the owner of a green crv I just have to clear this up. This is more in line with the behavior of a suzuki xl7 owner. Don’t put this evil on honda owners.

Also the dude got five bucks for your battery on recycle. I actually find it convenient that I can throw old batts in my alley driveway and they disappear by morning.... tweakers...

2E44488E-BC52-4EBA-87DC-77BFFD412D2D (resized).jpeg

BD4B54AB-F3F0-4602-908C-DDF7343DA054 (resized).jpeg

32162D0F-F18F-4529-AC0F-F34B2F475D35 (resized).jpeg

Whatever.

No shortage of tech sites that cover the rampant misuse of tech (which is against the law in a number of states) or simply head over to:

https://www.eff.org/

As I already pointed out, feel free to download and install a network monitor on your computer and see for yourself.

If you choose not to, well then you are choosing not to know.

Speaking of the Ring camera...

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/01/ring-doorbell-app-packed-third-party-trackers

Ring isn't just a product that allows users to surveil their neighbors. The company also uses it to surveil its customers.

An investigation by EFF of the Ring doorbell app for Android found it to be packed with third-party trackers sending out a plethora of customers’ personally identifiable information (PII). Four main analytics and marketing companies were discovered to be receiving information such as the names, private IP addresses, mobile network carriers, persistent identifiers, and sensor data on the devices of paying customers.

Good luck in your fight. I personally wave at the satellite over our home each morning as I haven’t done a thing to worry about. Life’s to short.

What a low life and these damn porch pirates need to be hit very hard with harsh penalties.

This is like the contrails conspiracy theorist. Yes, you see contrails... but just because they exist doesn't mean what you think it means!

Just seeing traffic on the wire w/o interpreting it or understanding what the payload and usage is.. is just a misuse of facts to draw incorrect conclusions.

That article by the EFF is just as bad. It postulates that because the app sends data to non-Ring sites it is therefore sharing data with 3rd parties and using 'tracking'. Where as, the reality is probably more like Ring is using those software platforms as 3rd party components in their product to deliver their service. Using them for analytics capturing, crash reporting, SDKs for features, etc.

This is common in modern internet connected software. Back in the day, you'd take a 3rd party software library and compile/include it with your software to implement some functionality. Now.. you use commonly refer to APIs on cloud services to facilitate similar things. The facebook mention for instance is common for providing an authentication service. The simple use of 3rd party services does not automatically mean the company is sharing your data, selling it, or letting others 'track' you.

This is most common in analytics.. countless companies port their log streams to companies like Splunk as they provide the big data and elastic search capabilities to crunch the data... vs building it yourself. Yes, these companies must protect their data... but the use of 3rd party does not infer 'sharing' or selling.

It's just more paranoia

When I see contrails, I see exhaust from an engine. Nothing more nothing less just like the car in front of me on the way to work.

I can see regular traffic to google, even though no google applications are on my computer nor is any web applications running.. well color me suspicious considering google's long track history of flouting people's privacy. Just have to search "google track history of privacy violations" to get a taste.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_and_privacy_issues

That is no conspiracy theory regarding google, it is a fact.

Do what you will.

suspicious (resized).jpg

I used to think that. But I listened to an interview with a guy that designed jet engines for the military. He said contrails were gone in the 60s when engines were created that were a lot more efficient

I have to say that I guess it depends on where you live. In my area, both times my cameras caught video of thieves, the police were able to catch the perpetrators, rather rapidly. My neighbors were extremely happy and so was I. Police were at my house to get the recorded video in record time and I was glad that they came by. Having cameras at my house was one of the best decisions that I ever made.

Lol if you really wanna believe that “data theft” and companies building personal profiles on you is “just a conspiracy theory” it’s not. It’s come out plenty of times and the illusion that you have “nothing to hide” it’s extremely dangerous lol. It’s not about breaking the law. It’s the scientific fact that people and society does not behave the same when observed under constant inescapable surveillance. It’s dangerous and damaging to the sustainability of our country.
Just because everyone has sex does that mean you’re okay with Jeff Bezos listening in every time you do the nasty?
No, because privacy is essential to the human identity.

Really now that’s a stretch

What is it called when Google's Android platform was compromised with the adware in that flashlight app the people were installing on their android phones?

It is probably not a conspiracy but does illustrate that it is not, IMO, wise to trust very much.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/android-security-flashlight-apps-on-google-play-infested-with-adware-were-downloaded-by-1-5m-people/

How about that weknow virus that hijacks your browser?

Maybe I am way off base in my "limited internet knowledge base", but if it is electronic, and it connects to the internet, other than my computer and smart phone, it is not coming into my house. Well, I do have a smart TV--and hopefully no one has figured out how to hack it, but that is about that "smart" I want in my house.

Screw Alexa; If I want to adjust the thermostat, i'll get off my duff and walk over and adjust it. Amazon does business in so many of what I call underhanded ways that there is no way any of Amazon's electronic products will come into my house.

None of that had anything to do with the post quoted. Which is about how software is built today using interconnected services... not simply isolated islands.

Just seeing noise doesnt mean ‘ah ha!’ - you have to understand what the traffic is and its intent.

When did i say trust something? What i pointed out that that the usage is not only one thing, and its presence is not confirmation of nefarious things. It can mean many things. And making a distinction is important because as evidenced here, people use lack of detail as a tool to make things into what they want them to be.

People using information they don’t understand is dangerous stuff.

This is actually one of the reasons I don't and won't ever own a ring camera.
The main reason is that you can't keep local copies of the video and it requires a monthly service fee.
I'd rather roll my own IP camera and store the videos on a hidden NAS box so I can review later. Avoids the whole "service fee" and privacy concerns.

Why do you give Google the benefit of the doubt when their long track record indicates they are not to be trusted? Again you don't have to take my word on it you just have to use a search engine of your choice to verify this.

Again... contrails. Just because people say it on the internet doesn't make it true. This thread is the shining example of that... people make claims, even link to cites and speak authoritatively.. and everything said was bullshit.

I'm not giving Google any benefit of the doubt. I'm pointing out that just because you see X, it doesn't mean you get to claim Y. You seeing traffic coming from your computer is not defacto evidence of tracking and other claims. Google has had other issues no doubt.. but the things laid out here 'why' are nothing but misinformation.

The Google example mentioned here isn't even Google's actions! It was 3rd party apps that had embedded annoy-ware. GooglePlay should have a better vetting process to prevent such apps from being distributed, but that was a Google failure to vet, not a Google conspiracy to participate.

Once again.. people take a fact and completely distort and try to use it to support something completely different.

Just installed a Ring system at my place, doorbell, front and back building. System is great.

So the Reuters is lying?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-privacy-google-dutch-idUSKBN0JT1TG20141215

New York Times & Federal Trade Commission lying?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/technology/google-youtube-fine-ftc.html

CNN is lying?

https://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/technology/google-privacy-settlement/index.html

The European Union is lying?

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/privacy-and-data-security/big-google-privacy-fine-may-set-bar-for-eu-privacy-penalties

The preponderance of evidence is Google is not to be trusted, indeed if someone called for them to be broken up like Ma Bell I'd be the first to sign on the line.

Again... none of those apply to what was specifically being discussed. It's just a typical bullshit technique to try to make something sound right, because something completely separate is right.

So on one hand you are saying only an article on network packet dissection in regards to Google is acceptable proof and on the other hand, if it is on the internet its bunk.

OK THEN.

Google is not trustworthy, full stop.

No.. you clearly cant stay on point. Your insistence on using logical fallacies to try to make equivalencies is tiring. Instead of looking over the fence to find equivalencies... stick to the point under inspection.

What google does in privacy issues for search or youtube has nothing to do with concluding what a packet capture shows and what that traffic is doing. And google’s privacy issues with their own policies has nothing to do with what a 3rd party was sticking into apps on the google play store.

But please... keep using the “same name, same thing”... logic... so convincing and concrete.

There is only a service fee if you choose to use the Ring cloud service and pay for it.
There is a memory card on the camera, which can store video locally.
A lot of video...
I think you can replace the card and use a larger one if you want to, but I do not see the need.
You give the device (camera) a password and no one else knows it, unless you give it to them.
So, no one else is going to "hack" your doorbell camera, unless you offer up your videos to the cloud or give them your password.

That's interesting; but again - I don't know that the Ring system/Camera is any better than a standard IP camera at this point. I get why they locked the system up so it can't be configured as a standard IP camera … but it doesn't mean I have to vote for that system with my dollars.

Like I said; I know there are competitors which don't lock the system up in that way... admittedly the last time I checked; they were all more expensive.

Just like Batman

IMG_20200204_205341 (resized).jpg

I agree but add 1 or two at the mailbox/end of driveway so you can get clear view of vehicle license plates from both directions of street travel.

765BB5AB-FDC4-4BA1-B17C-4DE7E8C41AEC (resized).jpeg

Your system looks nearly identical to mine. My experience is that you will not be able to read license plates, no matter how good your camera is. A special, very expensive camera is normally required for that... They have those at toll gates on the interstate, for instance. You can get pretty good video otherwise though...

That's what "zoom enhance" is for. Haven't you watched CSI

e037b07f7ee3f1bef0ef1b4f9138418a--miami-memes (resized).jpg

Theft is theft. Stealing someone's property is theft. Insurance fraud is theft. Falsification of a police report is also illegal too. If you can't see that, then you're the problem.

Our Ring doorbell is horrible. On the off chance that when the doorbell rings, I pull out my phone, get the app fired up on my slow as hell Samsung S7, look to see my door and the person is actually still there... the intercom part of it has never worked right. The visitor can usually hear me but I can never hear them.

Almost always when I get a notification on my phone and finally get the live view up, the people are long gone. Usually driving away or walking away near the end of the long driveway.

The only people who stick around long enough for my Ring to actually work the way its advertised are the people I don't want to see or hear from anyway! The damned church people and the solicitors.

I also hate that my doorbell has a monthly (or annual) fee. I'm sure someone will figure out a way to tack on a monthly fee to my toaster and coffee maker soon. Yes, I can opt out of that recording function but then the ring is just a very expensive doorbell that doesn't work well. At least if I pay the annual fee, I can ALMOST see who came to my house while I was away.

So you have a 4 year old phone but you're blaming ring? Seems legit.

I don't think you spend that much time around a network monitor. I spend a stupid amount of time analyzing network traffic. As technology has "evolved" it has often dumbed itself down so anyone can be an administrator. The problem with that is that they often put loads of authentication tools and other fun stuff into these IOT devices so anyone can set them up. Don't want to create a separate account to setup your camera? No problem, just use your Facebook authentication. So is Facebook tracking what you are doing now, or did you just their server to auth your account on your new camera? All of that traffic has to be accounted for, and if you don't see it everyday, you don't know exactly where it is going. Even if you do see it everyday, it often changes, so you need to figure where it is going and what it's purpose is.

I don't disagree that there are some bad actors out there utilizing your info for data gathering purposes, but a large majority of this traffic on these devices are for legit services by third parties.

I doubt it is your doorbell, and most likely your internet connection at your house. If your upload speed isn't up to snuff, your video feed is going to struggle to do anything, let alone transmit traffic in real time.

flynnibus , How do the police know to make a request to get the Ring owners video? How would they know you have a Ring doorbell? Serious question - I don't know how this stuff works. I can't imaging them going door-to-door looking to see who has a Ring.

Never had a cell phone. Don't use Facebook anymore & don't need Plenty of Fish. I have a couple Chromecasts that I stream YouTube to. I also use a HTPC & don't have any smart devices. I have an over priced landline & sometimes I go for a week or more with no phone calls, not even telemarketers.

I work very closely with a smaller PD (14k residents). They don't have a Ring database for LEO to do random requests. It very much is a door to door. But, even faster and more often, it is usually someone posting to social media, and then LEO respond based on Social Media.

Theft is theft.

That's exactly why the system exists as it does... because to do otherwise is incredibly inefficient (and why amazon and others can market the potential to law enforcement). The concept is the police have an incident at a specific location and date. The police can contact amazon and say "we'd like to request any videos people will share within this XYZ area around this ABC date". Amazon/Ring knows where it's customers are and already has a means to contact their customers... so Ring can take that set area, find all the customers in it, and send them a notice that equates to "hey, the police are asking for assistance for any relevant videos around ABC date - if you want to share any of your videos.. do 123.. or you can do nothing, or can also opt out of these requests"

I have no smart devices in my home of any sort, just a wired network, no installed google apps and the majority of executables on the tested program actually pre-date Google.

Still rocking Photoshop 4.0 for example which I think came out in 1996 or 1997. It works for me so feel no need to replace.

Swapped over to Linux now at home and learning how to work with Gimp, anything legacy is on the Windows partition which I'll dual boot over too as needed but that is less and less frequent.

I went with Canary a year or so before Amazon bought Ring.

Privacy concerns aside, if I were getting a system now, I would be more likely to go with Ring due to the ease of having one more Amazon service (prime, prime video, prime music, amazon photos, fire tv, echo, etc.) vs. a separate vendor.

One thing that REALLY MAKES ME HAPPY about consumers having multiple options for affordable (8 canary cams w/30 days of storage only costs me $24.99 a month) and reliable "view on demand" home security systems is that ADT's days are numbered.

I can't wait until ADT goes bankrupt

They will probably be fine as far as the commercial market goes, but there are multiple superior and more user-friendly options for residential customers now.

Although I have always had good experiences with ADT technicians inside my home, the cost of the monitoring service, endless price increases, near impossibility of cancelling one's account, and infuriating offers to restore service at a far more reasonable "teaser" price after doing so only to have them start jacking the rate up and need to go through the process all over again (as opposed to rewarding long-term customers with competitive rates from the get go) really has me looking forward to their eventual demise.

On a related note, after a lifetime of crappy experiences with cabs, every article about some long established cab company going under due to UBER and/or people losing their asses trying to recoup the obscene cost of their NY cab medallion has me cackling with glee.

Evil I know, but I really can't read enough "bad news" about the implosion of the taxi industry and ADT's business model.

Its crazy how technology changes the landscape. Charter just went belly up on their home security services, seeing the writing on the wall as well. The real kick in the nuts though is that a lot of the Charter devices used for home security are actually 3rd party hardware locked down by Charter firmware. So even if people wanted to use them as standalone or with a different service that uses those same devices with normal firmware, they can't do it. So they have all of this money into hardware that they should be able to use and they can't use it.

Ha ha ha, I've never heard that term before. I hope they at least talk like pirates "Aye Matey, I've spotted a package o' doubloons 'or here!"

https://robertheaton.com/2020/02/05/wacom-drawing-tablets-track-name-of-every-application-you-open/

Glorified mouse sends information to Google Analytics.

"Some of the events that Wacom were recording were arguably within their purview, such as “driver started” and “driver shutdown”. I still don’t want them to take this information because there’s nothing in it for me, but their attempt to do so feels broadly justifiable. What requires more explanation is why Wacom think it’s acceptable to record every time I open a new application, including the time, a string that presumably uniquely identifies me, and the application’s name."