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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Of course there no case law on the third to determine if one has to continue to give quarter to surveillance equipment.
In my view, there is no effective difference between having a commercial entity holding your data and having the police hold it.
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.