FBI Worried Ring and Other Doorbell Cameras Could Tip Owners Off To Police Searches (theverge.com) 128
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.
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.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Score:5, Insightful)
We do. They watch us, we watch them.
Re: (Score:1)
1984 4891
Re: (Score:2)
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.)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"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)
Sauce that's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Worried? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Worried? (Score:5, Insightful)
Good.
I guess I'm worried most that law enforcement never considered criminals might have surveillance cameras before.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference with Ring is that it sends an alert to your phone along with the video as soon as someone approaches. With traditional CCTV you have to be watching it all the time.
What you've never heard of a motion sensor?
Re: (Score:2)
How many people have those set up with traditional CCTV, and linked to a Raspberry Pi that can send notifications to their phone?
Re: (Score:2)
How many people have those set up with traditional CCTV, and linked to a Raspberry Pi that can send notifications to their phone?
Probably not many. Heck, I'm starting to like these criminals you describe...
Re: (Score:2)
Cry me an ocean.
Outdoor Cameras Are Nothing New (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Outdoor Cameras Are Nothing New (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Outdoor Cameras Are Nothing New (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
Since when is it an issue to monitor activity on your own property? I really don't understand where they're going with this.
It's an issue since people started recording cops committing crimes during raids and searches.
Re: (Score:2)
That's just peachy.
Re:Outdoor Cameras Are Nothing New (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
LORA
long range
low freq (sort of)
might work, but very low speed.
Re: (Score:2)
very low speed
Well, just so long as you don't try to shove video down that feed I suppose you'll be fine!
Re: (Score:3)
Cat6, 100 meter range, hard to jam, plenty of bandwidth for video.
Re: jam it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is why God, in her infinite wisdom (she is black, you know), invented these things called WIRES.
WiFi is for children.
Re: (Score:2)
You get what you pay for.
Re: (Score:2)
Generally if your device stops sending data for X minutes/hours/days, you get an email. My NAS sends me an email if anything goes wrong or backups don't happen after a certain period.
If it's in public view . . . (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, makes it much easier for the cops who killed you. He was armed so I shot him goes over much better then, he looked at me so I shot him
Re:If it's in public view . . . (Score:4, Interesting)
The American populace is armed. Those guns are disproportionately in the hands of whites who are using them to reinforce police power, not to keep it in check.
It's amazing how quickly the right wing in your country went from "I need my guns to protect against armed government tyranny" to "as long as you're tyrannising people who don't look like me, go for it". Maybe armed tyranny only counts if you try and tax rich people?
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying that the solution to self-appointed judge-jury-executioners is for more people to appoint themselves judge, jury and executioner?
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
and Breonna Taylor died to that (Score:3)
and Breonna Taylor died to that
They just don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
I'll need to make my cameras well hidden then.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: read between the lines, camera = shoot first (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
Re: read between the lines, camera = shoot first (Score:4, Insightful)
a few bad apples....spoil the bunch.
So many people quoting the first part without realizing the latter.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Have cameras, get shot
And have footage showing no provocation, so cops go to jail.
Re:read between the lines, camera = shoot first (Score:4)
I think it's become pretty evident that cops can shoot anyone without provocation and their punishment is "paid leave".
Re: read between the lines, camera = shoot first (Score:2)
You mean that if you have a camera you can also rig claymores. Then it's to whomever it might concern.
do not see how this is new or different (Score:2)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The word you are looking for is Fascist.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't you hear? Being anti-fascist is bad now.
I always feel like (Score:3)
Welcome to the 21st century (Score:2)
You watch us, we watch you. If you have a problem with that then learn to code or take your skills to China.
LPR (Score:2)
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.
Re:LPR (Score:4, Funny)
I'm running LPR
it will only be ok to break in if they are sure that printer is on fire
"we smelled smoke"
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, it really is on fire printing at 30 frames per second. I have countless copies of all of those license plates, they are going to freak out.
Yeah? (Score:2)
Yeah? So?
What's the point? Ban all but state-sanctioned cameras?
And it wasn't a problem before RING? (Score:2)
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.
LEOs are focusing on the wrong thing (Score:1)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
> it is a bit a pain in arse for the coppers trying to get the job done without adequate resources
Give me a break. What exactly do you think police are lacking?
Re: (Score:2)
Gotcha, thought we were talking about the US here. In the US it seems like the police have plenty of cash, I could be wrong and not everywhere is the same. The cops in the US seem to get lots and lots of gear if nothing else.
If they're not doing anything wrong.... (Score:3)
Or houses with windows (Score:2)
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
Maybe what they're worried about is... (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
yea that's kind of the point (Score:2)
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)
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)
Scope limitation (Score:2)
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)
If you ban motion activated cloud recording home security cameras then only the criminals will have motion activated cloud recording home security cameras.
Excellent (Score:2)
The Police and other LEOs need to be watched closely
Upping the ante (Score:2)
That's not what you call it (Score:2)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
Its legal here too. Just that we have cops with an authority/superiority complex that feel entitled to whatever they want. Its because for the most part they get whatever they want. The cops in the US think they can have everything however they want, like spoiled children. Since cops have 'qualified immunity' they can get away with any and everything, backed by the courts.
Re: (Score:2)
In the USA you can film or video anything you can see from your property or from any public vantage point or in any public space. Period.
That includes police stations, the lobbies of federal buildings, libraries, post offices, public parks and streets, etc etc etc. Further, there's no expectation of privacy in public whatsoever. Anything in public is fair game including police and anyone else.
Develop New Tactics (Score:2)
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.
No kidding, duh. (Score:2)
4th Amendment (Score:2)
What, no more surprise warrantless searches? (Score:2)
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.
Ummm... yeah (Score:2)
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
Re: Police Have Bigger Things to Worry About (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
on the subject how many police personel are killed on the job each year?
Less than 150. The real kicker is that the police only report about half of the killing they do to the FBI every year, and the rest have to be worked out through research. There's no reason not to report those deaths unless they are unlawful; if they were justified, you'd want to report them so you could get more funding, recognition for danger, etc. Assume only half of those are actually unjustified and for the rest the paperwork just got lost or some other such lame excuse and the cops are still outright