[RIMR]

I run a couple local wired cameras with a week of onboard storage that stream to a VPS running DVR software with months of storage.

Hardly uses my gigabit connection, and the cloud video is impossible to destroy by anyone with access to the cameras.

And it's my own Linux server. Nobody is going to hand anything over to the authorities behind my back.

[Thorentis]

> VPS

> nobody will hand anything over

Uh, there's these things called subpoenas...

[anonym29]

There's this thing called the internet, it's an interconnected network that allows people in one jurisdiction, say, the United States, to access servers in another jurisdiction, say, Russia, who is well-known to not cooperate with international law enforcement.

Get an American court to issue a subpoena for the data on my Russian dedi. The judge and prosecutor will die of old age before they get so much as a boilerplate response in a Cyrillic alphabet.

[chatmasta]

You gotta find a Russian dedi that is unwilling to respond to subpoenas but also secure enough not to be compromised by the NSA, who presumably has an ongoing operation to monitor “sketchy hosts” and poke holes in them by signing up, testing the internal management infrastructure, etc…

[anonym29]

NSA is not a law enforcement organization, and the national security need to keep NSA processess, techniques, tools, and practices as secret as possible is a powerful motivator to keep any traces of NSA capabilities far away from the legal discovery process of a courtroom. Parallel discovery is possible, but do you think the NSA is eager to risk tipping their hand to Russia just over some nobody's CCTV footage?

I'm not that important.

[chatmasta]

Yeah, you’re not wrong about that. Although I guess it depends what they think is on your security recordings, or what’s inside the building.

Epstein had some wired cameras at his house…

[gamblor956]

The courts can also issue a subpoena to you and jail you if you refuse to comply.

[anonym29]

While this is true, the Fifth Amendment protects witnesses from being forced to incriminate themselves, and there is currently no law compelling key (or password) disclosure in the United States.

Your choice of jurisdiction matters.

[gamblor956]

That's partially true. Self incrimination refers to testimonial acts, and turning over data on a hard drive (or a physical key) is not a testimonial act.

[anonym29]

The idea of a physical key, or even a physical hard drive being in play is a moot point for me, as the server and the storage drive aren't even in my possession.

Even though the laws may facilitate a corrupt judge ordering me to provide a password, or even chaining back-to-back "contempt of court" charges just because I forgot my password, or my Russian provider locked me out, that doesn't make the judge's abuse of authority in that hypothetical scenario legitimate or just.