Fascinating story: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/07/privacy-loophole-ring-doorbell-00084979

At first the police just wanted two hours of footage from this guy's doorbell Ring cam.

"It was just the beginning.

They asked for more footage, now from the entire day’s worth of records. And a week later, Larkin received a notice from Ring itself: The company had received a warrant, signed by a local judge. The notice informed him it was obligated to send footage from more than 20 cameras — whether or not Larkin was willing to share it himself."

The privacy loophole in your doorbell

Police were investigating his neighbor. A judge gave officers access to all his security-camera footage, including inside his home.

POLITICO

@kashhill

That piece doesn't come out and say it, but its hard not to come to the conclusion that the cops subpoenaed his indoor camera footage just to put him in his place.

That they would do that, and that their pet judge would sign-off on it, is nothing new. That Ring would choose the cops over their own paying customer and give it up without a fight is revealing though. Its another indictment of the techno-feudalism security model.

@Spicewalla @kashhill Welcome to the Internet of Shit.

I, for one, would not put an internet-enabled doorbell on my house. Can't imagine anything stupider.

@Spicewalla @kashhill Holy shit, they've made indoor cameras and people fuckin trust them?

I could understand not grasping why WAN-networked cameras by third-parties are a stupid idea for outdoor cameras (not understanding leakage, not caring about others & not understanding how much your own movements tell), but for indoor cameras?

That's a whole other tier of ignoring glaring issues.

Even outside of cooperative corposcum, what if they get pwn'd & listed on Shodan?

@Spicewalla @kashhill yet another reason I have sworn off installing mics/cameras that are plausibly under my own control.