Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Crime Security

FBI Worried Ring and Other Doorbell Cameras Could Tip Owners Off To Police Searches (theverge.com) 128

Posted by BeauHD from the smile-you're-on-camera dept.
FBI documents warned that owners of Amazon's Ring and similar video doorbells can use the systems -- which collect video footage sometimes used to investigate crimes -- in order to watch police instead. The Verge reports: The Intercept spotted the files in the BlueLeaks data trove aggregated from law enforcement agencies. One 2019 analysis describes numerous ways police and the FBI could use Ring surveillance footage, but it also cites "new challenges" involving sensor- and camera-equipped smart home devices. Specifically, they can offer an early warning when officers are approaching a house to search it; give away officer locations in a standoff; or let the owner capture pictures of law enforcement, "presenting a risk to their present and future safety."

These are partly hypothetical concerns. The standoff issue, for instance, was noted in a report about motion-activated panoramic cameras. But the FBI points to a 2017 incident where agents approached the home of someone with a video doorbell, seeking to search the premises. The resident wasn't home but saw them approach by watching a remote video feed, then preemptively contacted his neighbor and landlord about the FBI's approach. He may also have "been able to covertly monitor law enforcement activity" with the camera. This isn't necessarily more information than a security camera would capture. But doorbells like the Ring or Google Nest Hello are pitched as more mainstream devices, and they've also created controversy around police use of the footage.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FBI Worried Ring and Other Doorbell Cameras Could Tip Owners Off To Police Searches More

FBI Worried Ring and Other Doorbell Cameras Could Tip Owners Off To Police Searches

Comments Filter:

  • Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nospam007 ( 722110 ) * on Monday August 31, 2020 @05:40PM (#60460216)

    We do. They watch us, we watch them.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      1984 4891

    • We do. They watch us, we watch them.

      But that's so unfair!! How can they get away with shit if the damn commoners are always watching?

      (Answer: They'll just do it right in front of you and then deny it later, regardless of witnesses or video or even another cop's testimony.)

      • One guy was (or is in the midst) of using surveillance footage to defend himself and sue the cops involved in a house search. Basically the cops lied through their teeth and didn't realize there was a couple cameras recording. Made big news for a little bit before being swept back under the rug because of the local DA and cops delaying things repeatedly. Basically they knew the news would fall out of the cycle if they pushed it back again and again. He's also trying to use the footage to eliminate their "qu
        • I assume the police solution is having them control the server that the cameras send video to. That lets them cut off camera feeds, and also gives them unmonitored access to all the vid feeds without needing to ask someone.

        • "I suggest getting a security system that records locally, to a hidden server, and uploads automagically to the cloud with alerts."

          I'm way ahead of you...my system does all that and more, including offloading to multiple storage locations.

  • You watch me, I watch you. (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Sauce that's good for the goose is good for the gander.

  • Worried? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kqc7011 ( 525426 ) on Monday August 31, 2020 @05:46PM (#60460232)
    Good.

    • Re:Worried? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by chispito ( 1870390 ) on Monday August 31, 2020 @06:32PM (#60460348)

      Good.

      I guess I'm worried most that law enforcement never considered criminals might have surveillance cameras before.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by kqs ( 1038910 )

        Exactly what I was thinking. Home security cameras are cheaper and more functional now then ever before, but everything they are worried about has been possible for many years already.

      • I guess I'm worried most that law enforcement never considered criminals might have surveillance cameras before.

        I assume that's meant tongue-in-cheek. Organised crime has had surveillance capabilities matching that of the FBI agents tracking them for decades, this story is just cherrypicking a line item in a memo and making it out to be a revelation.

    • Cry me an ocean.

  • Outdoor Cameras Are Nothing New (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WankerWeasel ( 875277 ) on Monday August 31, 2020 @05:47PM (#60460236)
    Folks have been able to buy outdoor cameras for years. This isn't some new groundbreaking tech that's posing a huge challenge for police. Nest and others may make it easier to install than before, but anyone wanting to use outside cameras to monitor police approach and activity certainly has had the option to do so for many years.

    • Re:Outdoor Cameras Are Nothing New (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jythie ( 914043 ) on Monday August 31, 2020 @06:29PM (#60460324)
      Don't underestimate the impact of the increased ease. They are worried about average people having access to tools that previously only fairly affluent or dedicated people would have. Harder to throw your weight around against the general population when the general population is better equipped.

      • But those people who are only installing cameras now after ring made it easy to install, are probably NOT the ones who have a need for being informed of approaching police.

        • Lets be real... 80% of police "successes" are going after the dumb criminals. The meth cooks, pot growers etc...

          • Uh ... what about the *smart* meth cooks, pot growers, etc? They're the ones the cops can't claim as successes, since the cops generally don't know about them.

            • That's my point... cops are worried about safe tech that works well enough for stupid criminals to still get away with it. It's no different than why the RIAA... wasn't concerned that music etc.. was traded on the IRC for years before napster came along. The cops aren't worried about the arms race between the smart/powerful criminals and their officers, they are worried about the stupid criminals getting enough of a leg up that there's no low hanging fruit to make it look like they can do something.

    • Re:Outdoor Cameras Are Nothing New (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Vegan Cyclist ( 1650427 ) on Monday August 31, 2020 @06:41PM (#60460370) Homepage

      Exactly, I'm not seeing what the actual issue is here, home surveillance has been a thing for decades.

      From the summary: "been able to covertly monitor law enforcement activity" ...on your own property?

      Since when is it an issue to monitor activity on your own property? I really don't understand where they're going with this.

    • Re:Outdoor Cameras Are Nothing New (Score:5, Insightful)

      by c ( 8461 ) <beauregardcp@gmail.com> on Monday August 31, 2020 @06:42PM (#60460374)

      I suspect that the real concern is that with cloud-based video services, it's so much less likely for a hard drive showing police misconduct to somehow "disappear" from the evidence locker.

      • Perhaps the next step for cops/FBI will be to call your ISP to disable your Internet for the window of time they expect to be there.

    • Re:Outdoor Cameras Are Nothing New (Score:4, Informative)

      by JeffOwl ( 2858633 ) on Monday August 31, 2020 @07:00PM (#60460410)
      One of the issues seems to be the instant alert feature. That motion detected by the camera can provide an nearly instant alert to the phone of the resident. If the resident is home, they know to prepare for the onslaught or run out the back before police are in place. If the resident is not home, they know not to go home at that time. Another issue is that if the police do raid your house, they can take the recorder to make evidence disappear or to use against the owner. If you record to the cloud they can't just take it, then need additional warrants and will have to follow procedure, such as it is. I will note a couple of cloud services I am aware of allow you to set your own phrase as the key for your encrypted video and claim that they cannot decrypt it themselves without the key.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jonwil ( 467024 )

      The difference is that these cameras are much easier to connect to a smartphone and monitor remotely (via their easy-to-use apps) than conventional outdoor CCTV cameras.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      Folks have been able to buy outdoor cameras for years. This isn't some new groundbreaking tech that's posing a huge challenge for police. Nest and others may make it easier to install than before, but anyone wanting to use outside cameras to monitor police approach and activity certainly has had the option to do so for many years.

      You could, but it's only been the past few years that it was so completely trivial that anyone could do it for a few hundred bucks.

      Cameras, yes, you could get them, but ones that s

  • jam it (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bloodhawk ( 813939 ) on Monday August 31, 2020 @05:50PM (#60460244)
    Most of these devices are wifi connected, while jammers aren't legal in most places for the general public they are usually legal and easily available for law enforcement, doesn't take much to jam/disrupt a wifi signal and render that nest/ring device a brick

  • If it's in public view . . . (Score:5, Interesting)

    by quonset ( 4839537 ) on Monday August 31, 2020 @05:50PM (#60460248)

    there is no issue. This would be no different than someone looking out the window from behind their drapes and seeing the police pull up to their house and walk toward the door. Or the neighbor across the street seeing the same.

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by spun ( 1352 )

      Didn't you know? Filming cops in public is illegal, at least according to cops, who evidently have the right to act as instantaneous judge, jury and executioner without facing any consequences.

      • Didn't you know? Filming cops in public is illegal, at least according to cops, who evidently have the right to act as instantaneous judge, jury and executioner without facing any consequences.

        Didn't you know? My porch is private property and I can film whoever the fuck I want to.

    • tThis would be no different than someone looking out the window from behind their drapes and seeing the police pull up to their house and walk toward the door.

      True, it's just harder to carry out your no-knock warrant if the door bell automatically goes off when you gather in front of it.

      If you wanted secure phone calls, you could go through the trouble of learning Esperanto or ancient Etruscan. It's a lot easier using FaceTime with end-to-end encryption. That makes it a "problem" worth worrying about.

  • Like the ones where I'm sleeping in bed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Snotnose ( 212196 ) on Monday August 31, 2020 @05:54PM (#60460260)
    And some anonymous thugs break my door down, my boyfriend shoots at them, and I die?

    Seems to me if I had a couple seconds more notice I might have damaged a thug or two more than I did, and I could have save my innocent girlfriend.

  • They just don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PsychoSlashDot ( 207849 ) on Monday August 31, 2020 @06:03PM (#60460282)

    The resident wasn't home but saw them approach by watching a remote video feed, then preemptively contacted his neighbor and landlord about the FBI's approach. He may also have "been able to covertly monitor law enforcement activity" with the camera.

    He may also have saved their lives. Knowing there are paramilitary exercises going on next door so you can put down any scary bananas, rakes, phones, chocolate bars, or scary-looking air molecules you might be carrying might just keep you from frightening anyone by surrendering enthusiastically or something.

  • read between the lines, camera = shoot first (Score:5, Insightful)

    by awwshit ( 6214476 ) on Monday August 31, 2020 @06:03PM (#60460284)

    What they are really saying is that if they decide to raid your house and you have cameras the cops will think that they are in more danger because you can see them and are even more likely to shoot you for no reason. Have cameras, get shot - that is the message I received. Cops - armed, scared, and deadly. If they lose some perceived advantage then you'd better look out, even when that advantage is not real and never was real.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I'll need to make my cameras well hidden then.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jythie ( 914043 )
      Sad thing is, I would not be surprised to see this line of reasoning in that 'warrior training' garbage. Cameras mean people might be forwarded and thus are about to ambush you so shoot first because everyone knows 99% of cops are killed every year by people who are not cops or kin!'

    • Instead of "defund the police", the leftist should have argued that we "disarm the police". It would have been more to the point and less confusing when explained in this scenario of trigger happy piglets.

      • Re: read between the lines, camera = shoot first (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Gavrielkay ( 1819320 ) on Monday August 31, 2020 @08:06PM (#60460508)
        Joe Biden and sensible Democrats want to change how the police spend their money rather than defund departments. I would love a few more community BBQs and de-escalation training classes instead of automatic weapons and tanks. I'm sure there are many more good cops than bad, but we have to stop protecting the bad ones and militarizing our civilian police force. We can't sustain a just society when the civil police are more feared than respected.

        • Re: read between the lines, camera = shoot first (Score:4, Insightful)

          by omnichad ( 1198475 ) on Monday August 31, 2020 @11:37PM (#60460730) Homepage

          a few bad apples....spoil the bunch.

          So many people quoting the first part without realizing the latter.

        • I'm sure there are many more good cops than bad, but we have to stop protecting the bad ones and militarizing our civilian police force.

          To paraphrase the old adage: Reform begins at home.

          If there are so many good cops out there, then maybe they should stop the bad cops. Otherwise we're going to have to fund a second police force to watch over the first police force. Instead of defund the police, we'll double-fund them, that's the mainstream Democrat plan I think.

          • Technically I think we already do, given the internal affairs officers in most large departments. The police forces and unions are going to have to accept eventually that the public will no longer put up with the blue wall. Bad officers must go, and not just be relocated. Qualified immunity must go. Crimes by officers must be prosecuted and convicted officers punished to the same extent a private citizen would be for similar crimes. So long as some police hold themselves to a lesser rather than higher

        • Joe Biden and sensible Democrats want to change how the police spend their money rather than defund departments.

          Are you gullible or just dumb? Biden is perfectly happy with the way the police departments work. He will not ever be their victim so what is his motivation? He might tell you what you want to hear, but he is quite happy with the way things are. Voting for Trump won't help either, but as long as you believe either party has your interests at heart, things will never change.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by smoot123 ( 1027084 )

      Cops - armed, scared, and deadly.

      And that's the core of the problem. I thought the original motivation for no-knock warrants was to prevent destruction of evidence. It's morphed into "don't give them time to shoot", which may be causing more twitchy trigger fingers.

      Personally, I'm just fine with having a few condoms filled with heroin getting flushed to avoid shooting some family pets. Or family members.

    • Have cameras, get shot

      And have footage showing no provocation, so cops go to jail.

    • You mean that if you have a camera you can also rig claymores. Then it's to whomever it might concern.

  • The cheapest of wired cameras accessible by VPN have zero need for a cloud anything. A wired security system in any neighborhood is expected. I do not see how this is new or different than the security systems that used ISDN 20+ years ago to deliver video of registers to corprate.

    The assumption is Ring has already sold out to law enforcement.

    If the police think drones, wireless cameras, listening devices, advanced optics, satellite imagery, cloud metrics, counter intel firms, facial recognit

  • The FBI worries? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PPH ( 736903 ) on Monday August 31, 2020 @06:08PM (#60460292)

    That's rich. The Seattle PD has been operating under a DOJ consent decree for almost 10 years. Thanks to its ill treatment of minorities. As a part of this, the DOJ (FBI) has been 'monitoring' police activity, both in Seattle and surrounding suburban departments (can't have Seattle PD move the bad apples to the surrounding communities). Part of this monitoring involves 'technical means'. Which I assume means the FBI is recording PD operations.

    If a local cop makes too quick a turn into the doughnut shop, there will be a chain reaction wreck of camera vans.

  • Karma (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheDarkener ( 198348 ) on Monday August 31, 2020 @06:15PM (#60460306) Homepage

    What can I say? They are fearful of the things they do to citizens, being done unto them.

    Enjoy the (justified?) paranoia. We play by the golden rule on this planet.

  • I always feel like (Score:3)

    by Revek ( 133289 ) on Monday August 31, 2020 @06:17PM (#60460312)
    Somebody's watching me!

  • You watch us, we watch you. If you have a problem with that then learn to code or take your skills to China.

  • Just wait until they figure out that I'm running LPR behind the cameras and that I've identified all of their vehicles too. Next time I'll be able to spot them a block away.

  • Yeah? So?
    What's the point? Ban all but state-sanctioned cameras?

  • Really? I have a camera system that notifies me of movement and it's not a Ring doorbell.. If you walk up my sidewalk to knock on my door, I know you are there before you can make it from the street to my porch.

    Ring Doorbells may make this more prevalent, but if the criminals want advanced warning of a "no knock" raid, they already have it.

  • The Ring and other corporate solutions aren't a problem for them. Ring already keeps a list of doorbells and cameras in a given area and tells law enforcement where they are for "safety" reasons. Amazon being the pro-cop cock gobblers they are can be convinced to sign some sort of pre-emptive countermeasure agreement.

    What the cops should be worried about are those who roll their own systems with no kill switch. For one they can't stop it from recording. And for two if shit goes wrong, they can't spike t

  • Funny How This Happens (Score:5, Interesting)

    by imperious_rex ( 845595 ) on Monday August 31, 2020 @07:24PM (#60460434)
    When the common man has a slight technological edge (weapons, communications, encryption, detection, etc.), law enforcement always goes cry-baby mode and complains loudly about being at a disadvantage (despite abusing the public's right to privacy with things like automated license plate readers and Stingray devices). To law enforcement: Tough shit.

  • If they're not doing anything wrong.... (Score:3)

    by Gavrielkay ( 1819320 ) on Monday August 31, 2020 @07:57PM (#60460492)
    If they're not doing anything wrong, they shouldn't be worried about surveillance, right? I don't wish the police any harm, but this feels like a nice case of what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

  • These are partly hypothetical concerns. The standoff issue, for instance, was noted in a report about houses with windows. But the FBI points to a 2017 incident where agents approached the home of someone with a wnidow, seeking to search the premises. The resident saw them approach by looking out a window, then preemptively contacted his neighbor and landlord about the FBI's approach. He may also have "been able to covertly monitor law enforcement activity" with the window. This isn't necessarily more infor

  • sneak and peek raids where they come in and plant listening devices, access computers, etc.

    This used to be done while you were out, but now... with cameras everywhere, it becomes neighborhood chatter.

    Ned: Soo..ho..ho... John. I noticed you had folks in a gas company truck over the other day. Looked like 2-3 of them. I thought you were out at work that day, but maybe I was wrong.
    They must have been there, what... 2-3 hours? Did you have a serious gas problem?

    John: I did? When was that?

    • This is the one good thought, since, per The Verge, the FBI is concerned. Though, none of this technology is new.

      Meh, or The Verge needed something "cop" related for some clicks.

  • you want to see when a group of armed thugs show up at your door to rob you

  • They also record police before entry (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Todd Knarr ( 15451 ) on Tuesday September 01, 2020 @12:13AM (#60460784) Homepage

    Another "threat" those camera-equipped doorbells pose to police: they record what police did before entry. The police don't want to claim to have knocked and announced themselves and gotten no response, only to be refuted in court by video showing that the "knock" was with a battering ram opening the door and the announcement came after the door was hit.

  • It looks like you're trying to run a country (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Floyd-ATC ( 2619991 ) on Tuesday September 01, 2020 @12:53AM (#60460836) Homepage
    I guess they'll introduce mandatory background checks before you can buy a new doorbell then?

  • The article mentions that they approached the premises with the intent of conducting an on-premise search, which was in no way impeded by the fact they were photographed in the act. There is nothing to suggest that the individual in question did not have the right to notify his neighbours, and to suggest so is quite a bit of overreach in terms of what a search warrant not issued by a FISA court can compel. The bigger issue is what happens with e.g. warrantless searches rubberstamped by the FISA court with s

  • if they ban... (Score:3)

    by SkonkersBeDonkers ( 6780818 ) on Tuesday September 01, 2020 @06:12AM (#60461170)

    If you ban motion activated cloud recording home security cameras then only the criminals will have motion activated cloud recording home security cameras.

  • The Police and other LEOs need to be watched closely

  • The increased availability of this technology does up the ante a bit for the FBI. A closed-circuit camera is going to have limited range and use - one would probably not run a CC camera in an apartment complex or public area. IP cameras can be installed in more clever places. The FBI absolutely will consider counter-surveillance techniques, thereby "upping the ante" a bit. It may also affect their decision as how to use parallel construction or social engineering techniques.

  • "He may also have "been able to covertly monitor law enforcement activity" with the camera."

    I love how the cops make everything sound soooooooooooo sinister.

    We non-cop people would say he was "watching people on his front lawn outside his house." Which he has every fucking right to do.

  • Like most tech, the capability is only going to get cheaper and easier to use. It will become ubiquitous if people want to use it. This is part of the landscape now.

    If your tactics don't work when observed by an adversary, then you need new tactics. Deal with it. Don't suppress valid, lawful uses of technology because you're too stupid or lazy to adapt.

    This is their job, and they're adults. If they want to whine about how hard their job is, then they can find another job.

  • Are they wanting to make it illegal for a person to surveil their own fucking private property?
  • Maybe if cops and judges didn't play so fast and loose with the 4th Amendment this wouldn't be an issue?

  • Oh, how horrid.

    Or, as it was said in cyberpunk stories 30+ years ago, five and ten years after it was military cutting edge... the street finds uses of its own.

  • Suspects != criminal. We have a right to monitor the activities of police. They don't have some sort of right to get away with efforts to be covert. They work for us not the other way around.

    This idea that agents of the state somehow outrank the citizens they work for is inherently false. It is a bogus concept that they represent the authority of all citizens while we represent only ourselves in any given encounter. The citizen they interact with carries the authority and representative weight of every citi

Slashdot Top Deals

A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson

Close