I do. DIY on-site only system.
Pretty simple really - stop using third party vendors for data storage. They're cheap and easy because your data is usually the product. Sure, you would still be forced to comply with warrants/subpoenas if they think you have data, but that's basically unescapable.
The fact that it's not on a popular cloud camera provider may make it harder for them to discover what it is they need to request, but they can still do it and you could still be compelled to comply.
In that case I would kind of rather they go to a megacorp vs. me needing to get a lawyer and figure out how to respond.
But generally I agree that it's sketchy for a third party to hold the data.
Since the likelihood is footage from your home is to investigate you or your family, knowledge of the data demand in itself is potentially invaluable, as you can begin forming a defense.
Which has pros and cons.
Cannot chase what you don't have.
That's all assuming the cops understand I'm not involved or committing crimes. As indicated in your sibling comment, that may not be the case and having my own representation would be needed.
It's shitty situations all around frankly.
In TFA they mention the possibility of complying but not giving everything that is asked for. A lawyer can probably help you craft that in a way that will satisfy a judge.
Point about Ring's lawyers (which we've seemingly gotten away from this deep into the thread) is you do not pay for them or get involved if you don't want to be. You don't get to be involved in strategy either, which may not be in your interests. Getting the best thing for your interests may require paying a lot for a lawyer and a lot of stress. It would all depend on the specifics of the case.
When you own it, you can fight back to your heart's content.
And by the way, you do pay for Ring's lawyers if you use their product.
The most important point
A subpoena for Ring is an order to produce data. A warrant for Joe's CCTV at 223 Acacia Avenue is permission to take the data.
So you're happy to give away your data, but also insistent that you should pay someone to review the request for your data. Apologies if I'm misunderstanding your comments (very possible), but I think I at least understand why some folks are confused.
You can't escape the shittiness of this problem by running your own server. It's a bad situation either way.
The root of the problem as i read it is overly zealous law enforcement and a judge that is not acting as a proper check on their power. It's a political problem. It can't be escaped with purely technical solutions like who stores the data.
But it all depends on the circumstances. As you say, the whole point of ownership is that I get to make that sort of decision.
Given it's common sense to never talk to the police without a lawyer, you would want a lawyer for this situation so you know you're not unintentionally fucking yourself over.
Obligatory IANAL.
Don't generalize and don't conclude from your point-of-view to the whole world. There are enough places where you can talk to the police without even thinking about a lawyer (and never ever even require one, even in such situations). Not everyone's country is the USA (I assume).
Obligatory IANAL.
Many of these kinds of warrants are closer to the "minor traffic ticket" side than anything else. The trouble is that you may want a lawyer to tell you that.
So wouldn't the alternative where they get the footage from someone else be just as bad as you turning it over without checking, and therefore something you should prevent if consulting a lawyer first is to your advantage?
That's one of many reasons.
Even if we aren't talking about court orders, any interactions with the police beyond small talk should be guided by a lawyer for the same reason. Arrogance has no place when interacting with the law, the complexity of which is far beyond the understanding of common men.
The problem is the side of it where you abandon in advance your ability do to that by giving a third party custody of your data and then suffer whatever consequences a lawyer might have advised you to avoid when the third party hands your data over to the government.
It doesn't matter if you're going to abide or contest court orders or whatever the hell else. I'm not talking about that.
You. Need. A. Lawyer.
Mere mortals cannot and will not understand the complexity and intricacy of law.
You. Need. A. Lawyer.
Having a lawyer do the basics is really cheap. Having a lawyer fight the warrant or craft a minimally-revealing response is expensive. You don't have to break the bank if you end up getting served a warrant.
Of course there no case law on the third to determine if one has to continue to give quarter to surveillance equipment.
You go back a year and look. Damage there? If no then go back 6 months. If the damage is there then you know it's between 6 months and a year back. Rinse and repeat, binary search.
Having said that, I wouldn't store that much. A week would be all I'd want.
The risk is that some judge doesn't appreciate your ironclad solution and so orders you to watch all the footage so they can record it over your shoulder.
I don't believe in cloud servers for home automation or home security stuff, I also think encryption and local storage is great, but all these techno-nerds are under delusions that enough geeking out on technical solutions will somehow change how law enforcement or the courts treat them. If they want to pursue you for something, it won't deter them.
If a crime occurred outside your home, but your home security cameras caught it, the police will discover this when they talk to you about the incident to collect witness statements, if you choose to share it.
If a crime occurred inside your home, and your home security cameras caught it, the police will discover this when you report the crime and you offer to share the evidence that may help you receive a cure.
There is absolutely nothing that a megacorp helps with here.
But they're not equal.
The police can acquire a warrant and serve it to a select few megacorps for ALL of the footage at a specific location for a specific time range. That's setting aside some policies where there's active cooperation between the megacorp and the police. By hosting it myself, I avoid this sort of blanket privacy violation.
In my particular situation, I'd guesss it would entirely eliminate police acquiring a warrant for my footage unless I'm a criminal suspect or there was a crime committed in my front yard. Maybe I'd be a bit more forthcoming anyway if a crime happened on my property :P
Maybe your situation is different?
In that case it'd probably be OK to hand over footage.
But the more sinister and intentional motive among law enforcement also exists. The whole thing is a crapshoot and every case is probably different. If you're lucky, a responsible cop is involved. If you're not, it can be really bad times.
In my view, there is no effective difference between having a commercial entity holding your data and having the police hold it.
No. I need a system that detects motion during scheduled times (ideally only humans) and buzzes my phone instantly, giving me a live view and saving a recording around that time. And most of all, it has to be reliable enough that I don't question whether it's working. Anyone who says this is easy is underestimating it.
Something on-prem could do all that, but nobody sells it, and most DIY systems don't have those features (does yours?). So here I am with the Ring.
And sure I'm tech-savvy, but I also don't want to deal with things. The real test is at my parents' house, where I don't live but I manage some of their stuff remotely / occasionally in person. I can't babysit whatever gets installed, and they don't understand computers. Like, whenever their internet was having problems, they'd only know how to reboot the router; eventually they automated this task with a lamp timer. But they were fine managing the Ring once I set it up.
Perhaps the solution that the tech-oriented crowd will move to now is just making things from scratch, I haven't seen the clear consensus on it yet.
My parents replaced the Ubiqitis themselves when they started having issues I wasn't there to fix, with some no-name Amazon wifi APs. MAC address manufacturer lookup just said "Shenzhen." Plugged in, and they worked.
I then have frigate[1] set up on a small fitlet (with a usb CORAL TPU), which gives me excellent control over detection (Humans vs dogs vs cars vs ...). Frigate grabs the streams from my NVR over rstp.
This is then hooked up to my Home Assistant where I have various rules to send alerts to my mobile devices based upon object detected, location of camera, and time of day.
Everything is internal. I have an always on wireguard on my family's mobile devices allowing them to access the cameras and home assistant alerts from anywhere.
It works great, but I have refused to set this up for my extended family (even though they have the same NVR and _really_ want my system), just because there are a lot of moving pieces that need to be maintained (not to mention having a server + vpn)
I have about a dozen 4k cameras I'd love to migrate to a much more capable NVR, but doing so with software typically means I go from a 30W NVR to maxing out a 8 core 200W Xeon even without object detection.
Would love to kill my Duaha NVR and toss this on the Proxmox cluster instead.
EDIT: looks like CPU still used for video decoding regardless of Coral being available: https://docs.frigate.video/frigate/hardware/#do-hwaccel-args...
It needs to be basically the same as a Ring with just one additional requirement, plugging another box into power and your network to act as the DVR/brains, with a QR code that you scan to link it. Sure that can have more customization options, but the default has to be zero config. Probably gonna need a cloud server for notifying and serving the mobile app without having keys to the video (users have to know the difference), which would cost money monthly.
The reality is that except for companies, almost no one REALLY cares about it. It's an expense they'd usually rather not have (like backups), so it always gets the short end of the stick.
People really don't understand this enough to even know that there's a problem. I have explained to a lot of people that "the cloud" just means renting someone else's computer, and they still don't get it.
Ideally, in the video(s) you can talk about how the viewer can setup the solution themselves, breaking it down into components, why each is important and how it all works.
Also introduce how the viewer can buy the entire solution from you directly, where’ll they’ll get some custom support/troubleshooting or they may just hire you for consulting.
This will function as your funnel to let your target customers find your solution as they search for ways to problems they have self-identified.
If you’d like you can also do retargeting ads on the viewers of your video, as they’d be more likely to buy your solution vs the avg joe.
For example - who was the person who approache dthe door with an umbrella today.
Frigate makes sure its a person, Frigate makes sure it in the correct area of camera. Cheap rtsp camera, standalone wifi network. Frigate is the bridge to 'normal' lan.
I bought a Synology NAS and I just added cameras on my home network in the web UI.
Does motion tracking, auto recording and the app rocks. It doesn’t ping me but I also haven’t looked for that feature.
For Wi-Fi outdoor, I've been trying Reolink. I actually have had one die and another one keeps resetting so I'm not sold.
I've heard Hikvision is good but they're more expensive and I haven't tried them yet. I also think they really care whether you buy it from an authorized retailer.
Well that's a crucial requirement. Should ping by default. Even if you can turn it on, I don't trust that they really put that feature first if it's buried in the settings.
I consider pinging a major cause of paranoia (see NextDoor), an invasion of my community’s privacy, and honestly I live in a safe area and insurance covers everything anyway.
https://www.synology.com/en-us/surveillance/feature/mobile
Synology + a cheap RTSP camera and it has all the features OP requires.
I don't have it set up that way but thought about it. Zoneminder does motion detection and can be scheduled too. I'm not sure about the human recognition part, but I think I heard there's so sort of plugin out there for that, but I could be wrong. It will also send alerts and can be visible from the web if you have a static IP or a service that provides the same functionality (forget the name).
It just detected movement, sent an email with video file attached and a link to stream.
No face detect AI but this is ancient software, and minimum effort to set up
Agreed, that's the only way to build a secure system. I have some outdoor cameras but they are on a physically separate network and can't talk to anything.
Also, they are on ethernet but because they also support wifi I physically cut the antenna connections because I'm not about to trust the manufacturer of the camera to not try to exfiltrate something.
But sadly this is, while not difficult, too much for the non-techie person to do. So people just buy Ring cameras with all the associated privacy problems.
The worst is that while my system is secure, many of the surrounding neighbors have ring cameras outside so I can't protect from those!
This is not normal - there is no other industry where the customer routinely expects to be defrauded, and everyone to get away with it.
Every try to buy event tickets?
Kinda shame we don't have more cameras running OSS software
The police can still subpoena that footage and if they do, you can’t legally destroy it.
If you’ve got the money, you can fight the subpoena and you can be sure that they can’t bypass you and get the footage while your fighting it, but you better preserve it and don’t let it age out if your NVR in case you lose the fight.
If "can't be forced to give it up by normal legal processes" is your standard for what it means to own something, there is very little in the world that you do actually own. So little, in fact that the concept doesn't mean much at all.
I think the issue, really, is a philosophical disagreement. I think that if the police are to be able to investigate crime, they need to have some invasive powers. But they also shouldn't be trusted to use them without controls. The subpoena (and warrant) process is the control we have in the US. I don't think the existence of this ability is, itself, a serious violation of rights.
Other people may legitimately disagree.
There is also a serious discussion that could be had about whether the controls are sufficient, but that's a procedural issue rather than a philosophical one.
Not if it ends there and cops make the right decisions. However it's a legitimate concern that an overly broad police investigation, even after a real crime happens, might lead bad/lazy/dishonest cops to wrongfully accuse someone unrelated.
This is true of your car too, look up civil forfeiture in the US. The bar for seizing property is much lower than for criminal conviction.
If some person you dislike got robbed in front of your house, you could be compelled to help them by supplying your video footage even if you don't want to. If you really owned your camera footage, you could say "Naa, I don't wanna help that guy, I'm not going to let you have it".
That’s why the police asked us for the data. Because we own it.
You say that like it’s a bad thing…
including your freedom and your very life.
If the government does not have power to compel then property rights are moot anyway as the biggest warlord will just take your shit.
Seems a sophmoric definition of ‘own’.
Furthermore in this circumstance you aren’t even deprived of your video. They simply want a copy.
This is not a reasonable definition of ownership.
Let me get this straight. You're so concerned about your property rights being absolutely privileged in such a way that when social institutions gathering evidence for the crime of robbery -- a crime where relevant law is meant to deter/address the violation of property rights -- come knocking at your door, you want to assume the privilege of telling them "nah, I don't like that guy, screw him and screw his property rights and nothing I own will be involved in the enforcement of laws regarding those property rights"?
I think what this highlights is that, even where rights are important, they are rarely unqualified privileges. In the reality of any sufficiently complex system, corner cases or even conflict between worthwhile values exist. A legal system that cannot obligate people to produce relevant evidence for a case will likely be without power to make judgments based on evidence or enforce its laws, including those meant to protect property rights, which are the reason you can be said to "own" things at all.
In order to have a functioning legal system, there needs to be power to compel people to do things. Not every arbitrary thing -- good legal systems have limits too -- but you'll never be able to have rule of law without some power to compel.
It’s essentially creating an attractive nuisance if you do and then want to refuse to hand them out.
If you were the victim of a crime, and some useful evidence that could lead to the identification and punishment of the perpetrator existed on someone else’s camera system, wouldn’t you want the police to be able to get hold of it?
3rd party have no motivation to only give the say front porch camera video vs "here are all of their videos from every camera everywhere".
You don't actually need to hire a lawyer to fight a subpoena. It would be smart, but not necessary. And how expensive that fight is depends entirely on how far you want to take it.
If you're broke, you can still appear before the judge and argue your case. It only really gets expensive if the judge rules against you and you want to fight it in a higher court.
Trouble is that police, prosecutors, and even judges and juries can famously get that wrong. So I find this caveat not to be especially reassuring.
The current setup is this way because of a very complex set of intertwining factors which are shifting constantly. So 'shoulds' are plentiful and never ending.
'Is', however, is right in front of us.
You can be forced to give up anything you have. If that's the deciding factor for the question of ownership, then nobody owns anything. I don't think that's a useful definition, though.
This is a pretty accurate statement.
What they can't do is say "decrypt this blob and let us look around".
If you refuse to hand it over and they get a warrant and seize your NVR, then I'm not sure if they can compel you to decrypt it, but you may already be in jail for contempt and probably are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees at this point, so most people would cave long before this and just hand it over.
The likes of Ring (it might have actually been Ring if memory serves) were recently caught sending data to whomever asked nicely.
They also wouldn't request data from cameras offsite. I mean, they could, but why would they (and would they even make the connection that these cameras are also owned by you?)
With Ring it seems to be more like selecting a box on the map and click "request".
"well, it does record only when it detect motion, and there isn't anything on that date, but here is the neighbour's cat video few minutes earlier"
Just need to shred the files instead of just removing them.
Then again if it is by police to you they need to say what they need and not just get everything automatically so IMO not really that problematic as the case where they can get inside house footage from 3rd party company coz they don't give a shit.
It's my data on my drives. Are there legal retention requirements? Lying and saying "I already deleted it" seems like a pretty simple solution.
One can walk into a local supermarket on any planet(e.g., Walkmart, Sam's Club, Carrefour, Aldi, Tesco, Auchan) and likely be able to pick up a self-managed NVR with cameras.
If it was not relatively easy, I do not believe these companies would carry them.
You are right, many are not willing.
When my AC unit broke I didn't need to know the finer decisions surrounding which unit to choose.
I have weekly visits from the pool guy for a pool and gardener for the landscaping. A yearly termite check and AC/furnace maintenance. And so on.
We won’t have that for home compute appliances until hardware/interface innovation slows down, and that’d actually been trending in the other direction for a while now. It will stabilize, even while innovation happens at other layers, but core stability plays a huge role in what you have in mind here.
Cloud stuff basically hid that that stuff on the other side of a pipe for a while, but has its own drawbacks and we’re likely seeing the start of a turn away from it.
I’ve been running more or less the same services through hardware, hypervisor, and now kubernetes migrations and revisions. It seems to me doing things “the Linux way”, sticking to open source where possible, is resistant to the fast pace of the consumer innovation market. When anything new comes along, it’s usually relatively trivial to transfer over.
I mean, I essentially provide that to my small social community with a private media tenant.
With ZTA systems in place to accommodate remote access, maybe there is an appetite for neighbor-to-neighbor network sysadmin services? Hard to compete with the sleek silos of big box brands and their infinite marketing budget, plus 5 9s of service, though.
I know it's an "out there" crazy silicon valley leftist idea but maybe something like that could work?
Okay no but for reals, the USPS could do that!
I think the incentive of a trade/artisan economy would make more sense, and justify individualized labor (house calls for NAS reconfiguration, for instance). Like a plumbing contractor vs inspector… I like the socialized idea, but I don’t see how the implementation would work under current social service labor system and organization…
Am I just totally misunderstanding the situation here?
....would you want to as sysadmin now manage them any time police comes and wants some footage ?
I think that can definitely work for stuff like internet access, but anything where "private files" and copyrighted content comes to play will be messy
Really? I installed Ubuntu after a 5 year holiday from it - Now you have some kind of Snaps, and flatpak. There is whatever is happening in wayland. To install handbrake, you need to install flatpack.
There used to be 4 different drivers for intel GPU, now there are 7, and I still can't get Quicksync to work in Handbrake. There seems to be some kind of plugin you can download from their website, but that doesn't install.
After tinkering, I realised that Quicksync works in ffmpeg and in Jellyfin, but not in Handbrake
Mind you, I have a home server that runs 20 docker contsiner for things like home assistant. I deploy applications to kubernetes in my say job.
But this shit is still frustrating
Who do I call to fix this for less than $500 an hour?
Ubuntu is slowly turning into clown fiesta.
If GE made a home security product for example, it would make sense for vendors to get certified on GE home security support. Even if the underlying tech changed a lot, if they had access to support docs and a support portal it could work.
It’s easier to certify techs at an existing HVAC repair on your specific heater than it is to convince somebody to set up shop just for your new and peculiar product. Maturity of industry matters.
What is faster and faster is anti-consumer activities and the general acceptance of it.
For software, there are strong incentives on both sides of the transaction (buyer and seller) for a system to be remotely managed.
Unless it's proof to the negative, which in most jurisdictions isn't something you'd ever need to prove, as the burden is on something occurring, after some amount of time most recordings are useless?
the classic response is "how much you got?"
My thinking is that if something happens that I need the footage for, I'll know that I need it within 48 hours.
A 32Gb flash card is able to store about 2 week's worth of video in my system.
Armchairing it here - these broad warrants are probably carry over from the days where you'd issue a single warrant for "the tapes" since every camera in the system recorded onto a single shared medium.
Like GP, I have a personal offline system with remote backups that I control. The footage all goes onto a single shared HDD for all the cameras like the old "tape" days. A warrant would likely ask for that HDD - not the footage from a specific camera.
If you get a subpoena that you believe is overly broad, you can take the matter before a judge and argue your case. As I understand it, this can be quite effective in narrowing the scope. It's not perfect, of course, but it's better than having no say whatsoever.
But, in general, if you're getting a subpoena it's because you are a bystander in an investigation, and if you're getting a warrant, it's because you are a target of an investigation. So a subpoena offers a bit more protection for you and is easier to push back against.
You can only fight a warrant after it's been executed (at least, mostly), but fighting it after the fact isn't nothing. If you win, the property seized must be returned, data collected must be deleted, and none of it can be used in court.
A is really my core objection here, the privacy violation of gathering all the camera's data is essentially unresolvable, someone will have at least looked at the footage and at best determined the camera is an interior camera and stopped reviewing it. Personally all my cameras are outward facing (though one is a ptz that could look into the office) and I have only local storage of the video. My other option would be to make an automation that deafens and turns any PTZ camera to the wall unless my alarm system is set to away.
But I don't think it's a real moral conundrum. As I said elsewhere, I think that if we as a society want to have police that can effectively investigate crime, they also need to have some invasive powers. And I think we do want to have such police, because the alternative is much worse.
The reality is that there is no such thing as an absolute right in pretty much anything, because it's rather common that exercising one right can infringe on a different right. So it's all necessarily about balance and compromise.
Since you have your own system, would you be willing to share links to info on a "roll your own" system?
I'm a big fan of this project:
It's open source, and you can hook it up to a Coral (or some other things, I think) to get crazy-fast classifications. But CPU is fine for only a few cameras.
Once you get something like that setup, it's just a matter of finding cameras that support RTSP. You get them setup however you like (but preferably wired, with PoE), point Frigate at the RTSP stream, and that's it. Now you've got home security footage that never leaves your house. You can set up a VPN to watch the feeds from elsewhere. Frigate supports MQTT as well, so you can hook it into Home Assistant to get notifications, and even pipe person events into something like Double Take to get face detection:
https://github.com/jakowenko/double-take
EDIT: Oh, and the most important part is to have your security cameras on a totally separate network that doesn't have access to your internal network or the internet. The best cameras are from China, and you don't want to give them any opportunities.
Another issue is finding all of these projects and choosing the right ones that'll receive long term support and making sure the pipeline (Camera -> NVR -> Frigate -> ? -> Home Assistant?) doesn't break and stays up to date.
A lot of moving parts, and last time I looked it was hard to find a good NVR with Linux support that also has a decent web app (and even better if it has a native mobile app)
You can use Ubiquiti's surveillance software that's part of the UniFi console (that you can manage locally, with no cloud account), or other third party local-only monitoring software such as Synology Surveillance Station, BlueIris, and open source solutions such as iSpy, Frigate, ZoneMinder, and many others.
-- -----
Unrelated to cameras, I've preferred Eve for IoT devices simply because they adopted Thread and Matter very quickly. Nothing of them I have is IP addressable, nor can directly reach the internet. They have nice apps for phones and tablets, but I also use open source software to aggregate everything into my own dashboards (and automation) that I host and manage locally.
Owning footage is only half the story, privacy is also a big issue for me, I don't want images of my home being sent to corporations even if I own all rights to it.
The only downside I can think of is that a really advanced thief might know to pull the hard drives and walk with them, but I suspect most residential thieves aren't that smart or wouldn't know what disk to pull from my rack.
The other downside for less techy people is that without the cloud it's not that simple to view your home from a remote location. I just VPN into my home network and view it, but it took some effort to set that up, especially with dynamic DNS and all.
I will not use an external server. The cameras are in an internal DMZ, and no ports are open. I have a Synology server, recording the video.
But the convenience (and well-written apps) for Ring and Nest cameras is hard to argue with. People don't care about this kind of thing, if they can pull up video of their dog taking a dump in the living room, while they are sitting at a bar with you.
Isn't there the standard work around that companies do of having scheduled deletion. As long as the deletion is scheduled and not in response to a legal request, what is gone is gone and not a crime. If you receive a warrant you might have to stop further deletion, but what they want is likely already gone.
I'm sure I could tell them to kick rocks, and they would have to write up a subpoena but there's no reason to do that.
Would they have the right to subpoena you though? Over mere suspicion that they think a vehicle at some point drove a certain direction?
Sure if it was a case involving me personally I'd probably be cooperative, but I don't fancy the idea of just letting LEOs just waltz into my property to "just to take a look"
My neighbor has fake cameras and he gets asked too but they just leave it at that and never press it.
I think making sure some decision basis should be applied (there was a break in, commotion, and a car speed chase which ended here is much different to ‘we just wanna see if this car drove past’)
[0]: https://ui.com/camera-security [1]: https://store.ui.com/collections/unifi-protect-cameras/produ... [2]: https://store.ui.com/collections/unifi-protect/products/unif...
Over the year end holidays I was traveling and set one up to monitor my front yard. There was actually an incident while I was gone and I remoted in to find the camera offline, totally missed it when it should have had perfect perspective. The police asked me for video and in this case I would have shared it, but alas could not. Sucks as I have the CloudKey box for video storage, but its very undependable in my experience.
The positives are that it pretty much just works. The mobile app is excellent, the web app on the UNVR is fine, and it has full spousal approval factor.
I have had very few issues with the system, primarily just the doorbell was unreliable until I upgraded the transformer and put an access point right next to it. I had an issue with the NVR right before it went out of warranty and I fixed it by replacing the internal USB drive with an SSD.
The negatives are that it's more costly than other options, Ubiquiti has had perennial stock problems over the last few years, and you're locked into their ecosystem. The NVR won't work with generic cameras and you can't run the software on your own hardware.
It's also possible that, if you have their remote access proxy set up (required for mobile app), you could be subject to the same warrant issues as with Ring.
My cloud key however, have killed a couple of drives over the years though.
This is a very subjective area. As I noted you can get all kinds of NVRs with notification and cameras, others have mentioned Ubiquiti, Roku is also getting into the home automation field, and of course there are open source solutions like Home Assistant.
I highly doubt it, for the fact that many of the features are incompatible with the goal of privacy and convenience.
There are plenty of on-site options that offer the bulk of the benefits, like self contained NVR systems. Once you want things like texts, web access, etc then it gets tricky. Those typically aren't offered in a secure and easy way.
Does your answer change if, instead of stolen money, the police are looking for the robber's weapon, or the victim's empty wallet, or some other "we have good reason to suspect that he ditched it somewhere around here" evidence?
Yes. And my answer would not change for the other case. It's also reasonable for the property owner to demand that the police get a warrant first.
I'm not arguing about whether or not these powers are OK. I'm just arguing that, in my view, both of the situations the OP mentioned are equivalent in that they're both searches of private property.
Can you claim protection against self-incrimination?
https://www.vueville.com/home-security/cctv/ip-cameras/ultim...
I have a Synology NAS and their free security camera software is pretty easy to set-up and use with ONVIF cameras.
By default it uploads short clips of motion to “the cloud” and requires an app + wifi for setup, but you can disable clip uploading after it’s setup.
If you don’t trust it even with cloud uploading disabled, you can just deprive it of internet access once it’s setup. (Block the device on your network, etc). It’ll keep writing video to the SD card while offline. Though with the fully offline approach you'll need to physically take out the SD card to access the video instead of using their app.
There's certainly better local storage options out there. But for local storage with a single camera it’s the easiest and cheapest setup I know.
Very good advice when it comes to Wyze products. Sadly they're just the tip of the security/privacy nightmare iceberg.
or you destroy the evidence.. sure, the regime may come after you, but they cant get what they want
The strong economic growth during the postwar period created a culture with a truly utopian outlook on how technology is applied to improving lives. There was not the recognition there is today that it is possible (indeed, common) to consume resources at an unsustainable, destructive, rate, nor to comprehend the magnitudes and qualities of the effects that our consumption and pollution could have on the quality of life of future generations.
Peopple born in the last 40 years have weathered the effects of Reaganomics on the economies of the world. People born in the past 10-20 years have felt the ramifications of a massive recession during the early years of their lives. All the above-mentioned people are by now old enough to know who is to blame for those massive failures. This has apparently engendered a more cynical, or at least skeptical, perspective on how the future might proceed based on our current trajectory, compared to the more techno-utopian visions of the mainstream boomer mindset.
From what I can see, all generations are equally likely to trade some amount of personal freedom for convenience. The exact things they're willing to trade may or may not be different, but the principle seems a constant.
Citing exceptions has little to do with the conversation at hand, for the obvious reason that different people grow up in different socioeconomic situations even within the same generation. Nonetheless, a clear pattern emerges in attitudes towards this or that "personal freedom" on the basis of what a person can imagine can be done with those freedoms. These are obviously culturally-based attitudes, and obviously cultures differ between generations.
What about this are you finding so controversial?