A Super Bowl ad for Ring security cameras boasting how the company can scan neighborhoods for missing dogs has prompted some customers to remove or even destroy their cameras.

Online, videos of people removing or destroying their Ring cameras have gone viral. One video posted by Seattle-based artist Maggie Butler shows her pulling off her porch-facing camera and flipping it the middle finger.

Butler explained that she originally bought the camera to protect against package thefts, but decided the pet-tracking system raised too many concerns about government access to data.

“They aren’t just tracking lost dogs, they’re tracking you and your neighbors,” Butler said in the video that has more than 3.2 million views.

  • BanMe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    1 day ago

    They’ve backed off this and ended the partnership, claim Flock never got any footage, which I think is a total lie.

    They’ll re-partner when the heat is off, or just do it silently, Amazon shouldn’t be trusted. Explain why to your friends and neighbors.

  • MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    1 day ago

    “They aren’t just tracking lost dogs, they’re tracking you and your neighbors,”

    Uh, yeah. You didn’t get the news about them sharing with ICE?

    • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 day ago

      I think the majority of people don’t even have tech conversations with their friends and coworkers, they just talk about sports or gambling or whatever else normal people do.

      • thevoidzero@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        During Superbowl I was talking with a software guy working for a big shopping ( data) company, he was telling us how every interaction on their website is recorded for data analysis, and his own wife was shocked. It came up after I prompted for that conversation, talking about the license plate tracking in parking lots (which she didn’t know about).

        • NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          People seem suprised when they find out that they capture where their mouse moves, where their finger swipes, the duration, the speed. Everything is a metric.

      • scala@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        I don’t talk sports ball, I only talk tech. Want to be friends?

  • melfie@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 day ago

    Maybe next time they’re thinking of spending $8M on a Super Bowl ad, they can save themselves some money and pay me half that amount. I’m perfectly happy to tell everyone how Ring cameras are a privacy nightmare and recommend Reolink instead.

  • wendythedruid@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    23 hours ago

    I went with industry standard localized cameras that I could rider python on two of my servers at home for. Id love to try to hack up a ring , see if I could extract out what makes it “evil” and leave the rest, to even a relay to another server or something.

    Things I think about.

  • teft@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    336
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    I hope what really gets people to pay attention is how the FBI said they searched that news ladies’ moms’ ring camera footage even though she didn’t have an active subscription.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        2 days ago

        And the NEST camera apparently has some sort of free tier that saves a short amount (the last few hours) of video by default, so NEST users shouldn’t be surprised at all that their video feed is sent to the cloud as its one of the features of the subscription-less model.

        • spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.worksOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          2 days ago

          The problem isn’t that it’s being sent to the cloud, the problem is that it’s not being encrypted and Amazon is doing whatever they fuck they want with it, including giving it to law enforcement without a warrant.

          • WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            encryption wouldn’t solve the problem, just raise more questions. how is it encrypted, with what algorithm? was the alg implemented securely? who has the decryption keys? how were the keys generated? were they generated from a good enough entropy source? these are non-trivial questions that have to be asked in an encrypted system where encryption is not just a gimmick or a marketing buzzword.

            having encryption and “secure!” plastered all over the box and the phone app does not mean anything, especially when you need protection against the manufacturer.

            • spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.worksOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              When people in a Lemmy technology community say “encryption” it should be obvious we’re referring to effective encryption, not a marketing claim on a product box.

              • WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                yes, that would be ideal, but at any point in time we will have newcomers, for them it won’t be obvious

                • spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.worksOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 days ago

                  Your prior comment was for newcomers?

                  "How is it encrypted, with what algorithm? was the alg implemented securely? who has the decryption keys? how were the keys generated? were they generated from a good enough entropy source? "

                  This was obviously written for people with quite a bit of knowledge. Most newcomers would have absolutely no idea what any of it means.

      • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        A big exception to the rule are the HomeKit secure video cameras that work in Apple’s ecosystem. If your HomeKit compatible camera is going straight into HKSV, and isn’t paired with manufacturer’s own cloud video service, then it’s all E2EE and it can’t be accessed by Apple, even with a warrant.

        Problem is, camera offerings are limited, and scrolling clips in HomeKit is paaaainful. Also, if you’re not in Apple’s ecosystem, you can’t use it.

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            2 days ago

            They’re pointing out that HomeKit cameras are specifically end to end encrypted and claimed inaccessible. Apple has really been pushing online privacy as a feature

            You can get a camera from anywhere and either use it locally only or implement your own encryption before saving to a cloud resource if you can get one with any expectation of privacy. But you have to do all the work and it is never end to end encrypted

            • cecilkorik@piefed.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 days ago

              Depends on your precise definition of the camera “end” I suppose, but an IP camera absolutely can be and should be end to end encrypted. Even if the camera itself does not support native encryption, at worst the aggregation point/server should. Really, surveillance cameras should be on their own dedicated private IP network anyway, ideally with physical isolation on any wired connections. Besides a physical, on-site attack (which is what the cameras are for!) there really should not be any plausible method of an outside attacker breaching into the non-encrypted part of the network at all.

              And that’s the worst case, real-world scenario. Quite a few cameras do in fact support on-device encryption now so “never” is still definitely incorrect. You do have to do the work though. That’s how good security works, it doesn’t come in a box as much as many wish it would and even if it does it’s never one-size-fits-all.

    • partofthevoice@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      51
      ·
      2 days ago

      My wife and I recently moved to a home with ring cameras preinstalled, but no subscription of course. We can only access a live feed via the cloud service. I told my wife, I don’t think it matters whether we have a subscription or not… if they want to use the footage from our home cameras for any reason at all, it’s in their power to do so. They can save it, scan it, watch it, … they don’t even need to save the video, they can save results from a scan to get out the important details more efficiently.

      My wife didn’t want to hear it. She said we aren’t paying them, so there’s nothing they can do. Then this news story dropped about Google Nest. I showed my wife. We no longer have the ring cameras.

      • CosmicTurtle0 [he/him]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        I wonder if removing the cameras is the best move.

        It might be better to let them run but have them watching a TV streaming Disney movies.

        Then drop the dime to Disney that they are copying their IP.

        • partofthevoice@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          I’m half curious if I cut open the box… you think there’d be an easy way to replace the camera with a video stream of my choosing? Because I wouldn’t mind cutting out the camera and leaving the device plugged into my PC for a constant headless stream of video content.

      • krashmo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        Theoretically they wouldn’t have internet access if a previous occupant set them up unless one of your neighbors has an unsecured AP. Or maybe I’m misunderstanding you and you’re saying you set them up on your wireless network after you moved in. Still a good move to get rid of them but I wouldn’t be as concerned about them if the only AP they were set up to use was no longer present.

        • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          2 days ago

          Nope. Ring cameras are part of Amazon Sidewalk which is effectively an automatic, invisible, and not end-user-controllable wireless mesh network “meant to keep devices working during wifi outages” or in other words to ensure the data makes it back to the cloud at any cost.

          Their are more and more device manufacturers starting to use techniques like this to ensure connection regardless of owner intent.

          • krashmo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            I can’t say that’s surprising but I have only heard of smart TVs having been confirmed to do that

        • partofthevoice@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          Interesting, I didn’t think about that nor did I know about the mesh network someone else mentioned in a reply to you. In my case, I’m renting the home. The landlord pays for a very small internet package that is reserved for the cameras. He stopped paying for the subscription at some point but he still pays for the Internet it connects to, which is how we were able to access live footage in the past.

          When I said “we no longer have the ring camera.” More accurately I could have said “we stopped charging it.” The landlord would probably have a minor aneurism if we tried explaining why we want to replace the camera he mounted a case for into the stucko by the front door.

    • Dinosaur Ouija Board @lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      2 days ago

      Initially, NBC Nightly News (Savannah Guthrie’s network) stated that Ring cameras could only record 4-6 hours before the footage would start to rewrite over itself. Yet being able to uncover what they did after the fact seems hella sketchy.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        2 days ago

        Not at all, that’s tons of time.

        That was a nest and I don’t know about them, but for Ring they store snippets activated by motion or ringing the bell. Once you’re only saving snippets, 4-6 hours video could be weeks

        Ring can also save snapshots, at regular intervals, but that’s a still photo taking much less storage.

        • Midnight Wolf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          I used to have a nest doorbell. You can set it to record continuously, just FYI.

          E: that will also require a subscription, which includes 60 days of saved footage (and other stuff)

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Yet being able to uncover what they did after the fact seems hella sketchy.

        Not really if you know how this kind of computing/information technology works.

        A file consists of the data itself, and a pointer to the data location on the storage device or index record. When the computer wants to retrieve the data, it looks at the index to get the data location, then goes to that location to get the data. This is how the majority of computers/devices work. When a file is “deleted” the index is usually the only thing that goes away, not the data itself. Over the course of time, the data is eventually overwritten as its in areas marked as “free space”. So other new files will occupy some or all of that space changing it to hold the new file data.

        If you want to get rid of the data itself, that is usually considered “purge” where the data is intentionally overwritten with something else to make the data irretrievable.

        What the Google engineers were able to do was essentially go through all the areas marked as “free space” across dozens (hundreds?) of cloud servers that hold customer Nest camera data and try to find any parts that hadn’t been overwritten yet by new data. This is probably part of why it took so long to produce the video. Its like sorting through a giant dumpster to find an accidentally discarded wedding ring.

    • bitjunkie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      The subscription is ostensibly to cover the cost of bandwidth. But of course they’re uploading anyway…

  • Psythik@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    I honestly didn’t know what they were thinking with that commercial. Why would you proudly advertise that you’ve built a massive surveillance network, during one of the most-watched yearly televised events too for that matter? Did they seriously believe that there wouldn’t be a major backlash? I mean I appreciate the blunt honesty in that commercial so I’ll give them credit for that.

    • baggachipz@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 day ago

      My guess is that since Ring has a history of well-known collaborations with police and ICE, they wanted to re-frame their evil surveillance network as a way to save a puppy. Instead, lots of uninformed normies suddenly realized what those cameras are capable of, and had a huge negative reaction given the state of things.

    • Tradwench@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      2 days ago

      Tbh I think the people at the top still haven’t caught up with the rapid changing sentiments among the population. My zero-tech-savy retired mother in-law was talking to me about Palantir the other day.

    • Hanrahan@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      2 days ago

      I honestly didn’t know what they were thinking with that commercial. Why would you proudly advertise that you’ve built a massive surveillance network

      Presumably because most end users are in deep with the “if you do nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about” crowd … and besides it can find a lost dog /s.

      They brought these sorts of intrusive cameras in the first place so privacy was not top of mind, or even in 2nd or 3rd place.

      • kieron115@startrek.website
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 days ago

        I would also put a good bit of the blame on executives and marketing people being way out of touch with the average person.

      • luciferofastora@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Presumably because most end users are in deep with the “if you do nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about” crowd

        I agree with other comments that this is probably an Executive issue. Decision-makers operating with missing information can make misinformed decisions. Whether or not end users actually are in that crowd is less relevant than whether the people making such decisions think the users are in that crowd.

        In a game-theory framing, it’s a game with incomplete information. What you assume about others, including what you assume about their assumptions, influences your decisions. The sheer amount of players makes it a lot harder to model or predict.

    • groats_survivor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      Because in 3 weeks most people will forget about it. It’s brazen. They’ll still be the biggest doorbell company in America

    • FatVegan@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      People are really fucking stupid to buy their products in the forst place. So that’s what they were thinking and they were right.

    • Kilgore Trout@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      They product does exactly what their customers want. Just the latter had not realised the implications for their own privacy, before the commercial, apparently.

  • Agent641@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    2 days ago

    Imagine spending millions of dollars on an ad that costs your company millions more in lost sales

  • Buffy@libretechni.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    WiFi connected cameras were a mistake. Although, if people are going to use these mass surveillance devices, using it to find dogs is great. It needs cat detection too.

    • spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      22 hours ago

      Running cables is not possible in lots of homes and there are plenty of wired cameras that send video to corporate clouds. The mistake is allowing those corporations access to those videos. Camera output should be encrypted and only usable for the camera owner unless they choose to opt in to the corporate spy network.

    • rumba@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      WiFi connected cameras were a mistake.

      Double so, when people are doing auto thefts in neighborhoods, they’re using wifi jammers to block out the footage

  • 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    103
    ·
    2 days ago

    the problem with these fucking things is that you can’t really opt out. even if you don’t buy your own, some neighbours will happily buy and install the big brother to watch you from their porch and there is very little you can do about it.

    same as you can’t really escape the google, even if you don’t use single one of their service, there is always the other part to any communication you are having…

    • ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      2 days ago

      Exactly. I never used Gemini or gave sensitive information/photos to major AI companies, but my family has, including photos of me.

      • Pupscent@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        2 days ago

        I’ve never had a Facebook account. I’ve always hated when people posted pictures I was in and said who I was.

    • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      In Belgium, it is legally required to put a sign up if you have cameras, you can’t point them at a place including public properties IIRC, and you can force them via the local government to move the camera if they are pointing at your property (at least in theory).

      Lasers. Blue lasers are what you can do. https://www.reddit.com/r/Ring/comments/wqxkdq/what_is_this_person_doing_to_my_camera/ (hate to link to reddit but it is a good demo)

      • redsand@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        And DEAUTH attacks. Because they’re all dumb wifi cameras. You can keep them jammed and destroy them while they can’t upload footage.

      • 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        it is similar here in czechia, at least in theory, but the theory will always differ from real life.

        you first have to know there is a camera to identify the problem, then if you are in doubt… i don’t know, sue them to prove that camera does not capture your property?

        it would take few years, because the justice system here works on geological scales. and before you would get any reasonable result, billion other cameras would pop up meantime.

    • ragas@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      Where I live, you can sue if the camera films more than their own property.

      • redsand@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        DEAUTH for a couple days and shoot the lens with a laser. They’ll never figure it out.

          • bthest@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            Are you kidding? Police LOVE investigating petty vandalism. Almost as much as DAs love prosecuting them! Top priority. Clearance rates are very high. You may have to call them 2 or three times before sleepy fat ass deputy (who is too stupid to do anything else) will come and take down half a report but trust me, they really do care, and will stop at nothing to achieve justice for your spy gadget.

            Half the prison population in US are people who drew swastikas on Teslas.

            Fear not! Your doorbell will be avenged!

        • jambudz@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          2 days ago

          You can’t put a mask on and cover your distinguishing features? Weak

      • rumba@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 days ago

        At close range they’ll blind them, but the tech is getting better these days.

        What knocks out the camera is the auto exposure, they used to just take the whole sensors input, average it and set the brightness against that value. A lot of the newer surveillance cameras will just ignore the overall and compensate pixel per pixel.

        Project farm looked at a bunch

        https://youtu.be/j0GZKXWf3vg?t=749

  • devedeset@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    2 days ago

    I put Google cameras on my house years ago out of convenience and this is it, I’m spending the money on a PoE system where my footage stays on my own hardware.

  • Etterra@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    2 days ago

    My only regret is that I can’t smash one because was never stupid enough to trust these things to begin with.

      • Psythik@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Yes and I hate them cause it’s a pain in the ass having to route all my drives around them. Some trips take me 3x as long as they should cause of that stupid privacy-invading bullshit.

          • Killer_Tree@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            I clicked the link just to get a brief look at this video and ended up watching the whole thing and subscribing to Benn Jordan. Thank you for sharing!

            • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              I did the same thing. The one about ‘gifts for people who don’t trust the government’ is what got me when someone posted it here or in c/privacy. I’m glad I could pass it along!

              I like his viewpoint, he always has interesting projects and his music background adds a nice little touch to the production values of his content.

              e: Also, if you’re into math and physics check out 3Blue1Brown (Neural Networks math: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aircAruvnKk) and Art of the Problem (Explaining how energy can turn into rocks, physics explainer: https://youtu.be/f8O3XMrC8hg)

    • Paranoidfactoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Don’t buy one just so you can smash it! I know it’s satisfying to hear the plastic crack and see its tiny lens pop free like a smooshed eyeball. Yeah. That I guess would be good. But don’t.

      • bthest@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        You can just break the ones that others have bought. It’s even more satisfying.

  • mlg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    ·
    2 days ago

    My personal choice for security stuff is ubiquiti, but I’m sure someone here can find a super cheap doorbell camera that saves to an SD card and accomplishes the same thing.

    I’m really glad people didn’t just fall over for this ad, and connected the dots on what Amazon is doing

    • AspieEgg@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      2 days ago

      Reolink doorbell cameras don’t need to be connected to the cloud. They can record to an SD card or upload to an FTP server. You can connect to them with RTSP and run your own NVR if you want too.

        • AspieEgg@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          42
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          SD - Secure Digital (memory card you’d use for most things)

          FTP - File Transfer Protocol (a way to upload files to a server)

          RTSP - Real Time Streaming Protocol (a way to stream video)

          NVR - Network Video Recorder (a device that records video)

          • Atropos@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            23
            ·
            2 days ago

            I love lemmy. On the other site, you’d have 100 snarky and/or insulting replies. Here, there’s a single reply that is straightforward and helpful.

            I dunno, thanks for being a bright spot in otherwise somewhat bleak world.

        • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          I have a few Amcrest cameras and they’re pretty decent as well. Outdoor rated, PoE, 4k, UV LEDs, they have PTZ variants too and offer standard RTSP streams without any kind of vendor software hassle.

          Running a local NVR with some image segmentation and classification models is goodbut also consider adding a bit of Kismet and SDR trickery. Having a bit more awareness is always useful and the radio spectrum is increasingly full of useful information that can be relevant to home security.

          Most people are also radio beacons of some form or another due to their tech/car/flipper zero and being able to detect things like modern cars, people wearing bluetooth earbuds, wifi deauthentication attacks or new radio sources which could indicate some kind of hostile surveillance or tracking… those are all useful and relatively simple things to monitor. With a bit more money you could make some good estimates about the location and relative motion of these sources.

          You could also add some cheap SDRs and listen to your local county’s dispatch trunking system. This is perfectly legal, it’s all broadcast in the clear. CB users and scanner owners used to do this but it became harder once they switched to trunking systems because you required some kind of processor to navigate the trunking protocol. Now you can do the same thing with 2 cheap RTL-SDRs and some open source software: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9KJrtIO8_4 Language models reading transcripts of these could alert you to any major events near you, like a traffic accident (or active shooting, USA! USA! USA!).

          Obviously this is a bit more involved than ‘Press buy button on Amazon, login to camera, glue to wall.’, but the end product that you can create is better than anything that you can buy as a commercial product.

          • TunaLobster@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            The audio system in my car is broken. I use my SDR to stream the radio to my phone and play it on a Bluetooth speaker. Overkill? Yes. Learning experience? Yes.

            • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 day ago

              I had a similar experience, playing with a spectrum analyzer connected to the SDR and the first signals that I ‘found’ were the WFM broadcasts and celebrated by listening to the radio for a few hours.

              In hindsight, I didn’t realize how much the antenna size and just happened to have the right length antenna to get good WFM coverage.

  • dukemirage@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    129
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    If your stupid gadget needs a separate proprietary app that demands internet access, anticipate that all data is shared for all kinds of shady business.

    • spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Not always the case. Some cameras require a proprietary app for set up but can then be set to stream to a local server. Internet access can then be completely blocked with router settings.

      • scrion@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        Still, would you really want that? A half-baked device in your network, a device you suspect would constantly betray you, if given the chance?

        I personally can’t imagine getting used to that. I’d despise the device (and myself probably).

          • W98BSoD@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            For those that know what they’re doing, and those that know what they’re doing don’t buy ring to begin with.

            • assa123@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              some of those that know what they’re doing, do it through pihole. But a DNS sink is really not enough. Even blacklisting the MAC might not be enough. If it requires a key from a server it might even be necessary to hack the device if it’s not a SoC and you can’t defile or use M-x Butterflies

        • Linktank@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          So, what security cameras would you use or are you just back seat driving without a good suggestion?

        • spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.worksOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          I have absolutely no problem using these kinds of devices.

          I have an old phone and a generic Play account that I used for setup so the companies have nothing of consequence but my public IP address. Setup takes less than 15 minutes and after that all Internet access is completely blocked just like it would be if I unplugged my cable modem. There is no way for the cameras to override my router settings.

          My smart TV is much more of a concern.