[LazyMans]

None of these agencies get your video data without your consent. The feature was designed so they have an easy way to present you the request for footage.

Unfortunately a portion of the information getting circulated is the complete opposite.

[drnick1]

> None of these agencies get your video data without your consent.

You certainly can't be sure of that. In fact, it is almost certain that these companies provide the data they collect to the police and government agencies data, often without warrant.

[wat10000]

I'm certain they get your video data without your consent when the agencies have a warrant. I think it's very likely that they won't necessarily require a warrant, either.

Consider the Nancy Guthrie case. The owner wasn't around to give consent, and the camera didn't even have an active subscription, yet law enforcement was still able to recover video from Google's systems.

The only way it could be as you say is if the video was only stored locally without any remote access, or if the video was encrypted with keys only you control. Google clearly is not doing this. I really, really doubt Amazon is.

[LazyMans]

Personally I store locally with a unifi system. Can’t they collect that footage with a warrant too?

[wat10000]

Depends on how good your security is. They can seize your equipment but they can’t force you to provide your password.

[i_love_retros]

Doesn't matter, unless you're an asshole you shouldn't continue to give money to companies like Ring that partner with ICE or Flock.

I'm not an asshole so I cancelled my subscription.

[array_key_first]

Yes, for now. But ultimately you have no control or say over these features because you do not own the software or data. You must have pure blind faith that this will be the way it continues to work.

If other people are cool with doing things without any reasons and based on pure trust, that's on them. But that's not gonna be me

[SoftTalker]

If you don't own the entire stack you don't decide who does what with the data.