[nullc]

Exactly this: People who respond with the benefits of having a security camera are arguing a false dichotomy.

IP security cameras are inexpensive and readily available, and support things like remote access fine. (And I say this from first hand experience)

When you narrow the counterargument to the actual differential features of ring-like solutions-- that they automatically store video offsite mitigating by default the fringe risk that a thief takes the recorder--, the argument in favor of handing this video feed to state and corporate surveillance apparatus alike is much less interesting.

It would be trivial for ring to encrypt the video with a password only known to the device and your remote client never to the server... and would avoid a lot of trouble dealing with requests for video and potential civil ligation for leaks. The primary reason these products don't is because surveilling the user is the business proposition.

Aside: I have lots of security cameras, I like security cameras. Yet at the same time people radically overestimate their usefulness in stopping crime: The positioning and lighting have to be nearly perfect to get a shot that you can identify a stranger with and it's easy for people to conceal their faces against an unmonitored camera. Even if you do get a clear face shot the police often can do nothing useful with it. With the low prices today I think cameras can well worth their price, ... but where they create mass surveillance risks, the case is far less clear.

[spamizbad]

> Yet at the same time people radically overestimate their usefulness in stopping crime: The positioning and lighting have to be nearly perfect to get a shot that you can identify a stranger with and it's easy for people to conceal their faces against an unmonitored camera. Even if you do get a clear face shot the police often can do nothing useful with it. With the low prices today I think cameras can well worth their price, ... but where they create mass surveillance risks, the case is far less clear.

If you already know who you're looking for they can be quite useful. They can be quite effective when they're used to help document violations of an order of protection or restraining order, where even a profile shot at an odd angle is sufficient.

[nullc]

Indeed. I've found cameras super useful in debugging issues with wild animals and contractors, figuring out where something outside went or how it got broken, etc.

Anyone interested in cameras should check out the forum at https://ipcamtalk.com/

One of the reoccurring points there though is actual experience with the low utility of cameras-- especially if they're not very carefully positioned and prolific-- at identifying strangers.

[chaostheory]

> It would be trivial for ring to encrypt the video with a password only known to the device and your remote client never to the server... and would avoid a lot of trouble dealing with requests for video and potential civil ligation for leaks.

That is not trivial for most people. I doubt it was even trivial for you unless it’s a built-in feature for an off the shelf system. Setting up an open source surveillance system isn’t exactly what I would call easy

[nullc]

For ring-- not the end user.

[jxramos]

I have a friend who works for the public defenders office for something like a 30 year timespan. He shared with me once during a conversation on the topic of surveillance videos how much they've transformed criminal cases. So many people are damned by evidence where the criminal is caught red handed after the fact. He even told me a comedic technique of the DA showing a zoomed in region and asking the defendant if they recognize the person in the photo. They reply no, zoom out some more, and eventually the criminal admits "that's me".