to stream 24/7 live video. Big Brother gets more real every day it seems

A handful of police departments across the US are using software that lets them register the locations of people's home security cameras including Amazon Ring doorbells and get residents' permission to stream live video from the cameras.

The software is sold by Fusus — a Georgia-based tech firm with no connection to Amazon — that builds dashboards for police departments that combine feeds from public and private security cameras in one place.

https://www.businessinsider.co...police-fusus-2020-11

It's for the greater good, you know.

The city will ask people to sign waivers allowing police to access live footage from their home security camera in an attempt to fight crime, The Associated Press earlier reported. The pilot is being carried out in partnership with Fusus, a Georgia-based tech firm that sells software that lets police extract live video from private security cameras.

I think the title is a little misleading. Police aren't just hacking into the cameras and using them. They are getting permission from the homeowner so view their camera footage.

A "pilot program" and with "consent", not really all that huge. Although, if they want cameras that bad, they should install some of their own...

Sounds like a good idea, with permission of course and a right to rescind it at will

When I hear/see 'tapping into', I think of clandestine or illicit monitoring of a phone line or such without the owners knowledge or permission. In this instance, as long as the police are obtaining the consent of the owners as stated, I don't see an issue and view it as a technological adjunct to programs like neighborhood watch groups, etc.

Although technically correct, your thread headline is misleading. It implies they are "tapping in" without permission.

They ask, you can say yes or no. I'm not sure what the value of the live feed would be, unless they had someone sitting there and watching every camera which would be a huge waste of resources if not impossible to pull off. Maybe if they knew something was about to go down, it might have value, but so would eyes on the ground.

The municipalities have the ability to install cameras around town anyway, and my guess is this may be used in areas where they can not provide coverage.

If the police can access that feed, so can anyone else.

I've never understood the need to vomit up one's life online. Look everybody. Look at me. See what I'm doing.

Setting up one's home with live feed on doorbell cameras and interior and exterior feeds are not far removed.

I work with a number of people who are on the road extensively, and they like the ability to check their feeds and see what's going on at home. They're apparently okay with anyone else being able to do it, too. Like Mr. Burgle, who has the ability to see who is home and when, without any need to go case the place, and who has the ability to be inside the house and watch the front door at the same time...and with access, can also look the information to make it appear that nothing is amiss. Worst of all worlds.

One gives permission to access the camera. One rescinds the permission. How is one assured that no one is viewing the feed? One is not.

One must assume that he is not the only one with access, or who is viewing the feed, at any given time, with, or without permission granted. One would be a bloody fool not to.

quote:

Although technically correct, your thread headline is misleading.

In all fairness, the OP was just using Business Insider's headline.

I don't trust anyone enough to give them access to any camera and we all know that's exactly what would happen.

Yes if something happens in my neighborhood and they knock on the door and ask to see my footage that my ring doorbell collected to my hard drive come on in here ya go.

To have log in access anytime not a chance.

I have a security system where I work. Police occasionally ask if I have video footage when there has an accident or criminal activity in our vicinity. I would be happy to give them access to the feed.

This is not really that different from what law enforcement were already doing when it came to private security cameras, just a little more efficient. Cops typically knew which homes and businesses in an area had cameras, or were able to determine it through a neighborhood canvass, and if something happened in that area, the investigating officers would have track down each individual owner to ask permission to see their footage to determine if there was anything useful.

This is just being proactive about it, so officers can skip the step of canvassing the neighborhood to see who has cameras, then tracking down the owner and asking permission. They just already have permission and a means of access ahead of time, if needed, to help speed up that legwork aspect of the investigation.

Do you want your cops out there catching bad guys, or do you want them spending extra time looking for cameras, and then digging through property records or knocking on doors to try to track down each individual owner and get their permission and footage?


Edit: Okay, I overlooked the "live feed" part of it. I don't see how that would be all that useful, but maybe there's some legitimate law enforcement angle I'm not seeing?

Maybe following the path of a fleeing suspect in the immediate aftermath of a crime until responding officers can arrive? I know that's what government-owned live feed camera systems are often used for in big urban areas. But without some serious manpower to support it, with multiple staff pulling up multiple live feeds at one time, I don't see home camera live feed access being very useful for even that with the average law enforcement agency.

quote:

Originally posted by steve495:
Although technically correct, your thread headline is misleading. It implies they are "tapping in" without permission.

They ask, you can say yes or no. I'm not sure what the value of the live feed would be, unless they had someone sitting there and watching every camera which would be a huge waste of resources if not impossible to pull off. Maybe if they knew something was about to go down, it might have value, but so would eyes on the ground.

The municipalities have the ability to install cameras around town anyway, and my guess is this may be used in areas where they can not provide coverage.

Pretty sure that if they have a live feed they will also have the ability to record, which I believe they will be doing.

quote:

In all fairness, the OP was just using Business Insider's headline.

Which clearly shows it's click bait, Business Insider is baiting with that title.



Cops are not "tapping" into anyone's Ring without the ring user giving them permission.

I could see where you have an ex stalking a gal and showing up banging on the door at 2 am nightly to harass her, she has a RO, video, cops watch, bam he gets a night or more in the pokey....

quote:

Sounds like a good idea, with permission of course and a right to rescind it at will

With permission and the ability to revoke that consent, it sounds okay at first, but I don't think I would consent. "once the camel has his nose in your tent......"

This isn't as big of a deal as the OP's post says.

I'm currently shopping for a video doorbell and in my research this comes up somewhat frequently.

By DEFAULT, sharing is turned off and you must actively agree to do so. If you agree there are two routes this takes, the first isn't so troubling but the second might be.

1. You directly consent with the PD to share you video. You can do this as one to one sharing.

2. You can optionally share your video with the neighbors who have sharing with Five 0. The stuff you share with the neighbors can be viewed by the police if they have a consent agreement. That allows the police to see whatever is on the neighbor's system, even though you didn't consent to share your content.

It isn't as though the cops are scanning your property with live-feeds without your knowledge or consent.

My peephole is secure.

Chloe from 24 was doing it before it was cool.

I think some of you are really playing fast and loose with the term " tapping into " .