I also have only HSV cameras or Ubiquiti ones for this reason. Everything I care about is stored on-site or in the cloud with end-to-end encryption, no privacy or surveillance state enablement concerns.

There's a great HomeBridge plugin which enables HomeKit Secure Video on my UniFi Protect cameras: https://github.com/hjdhjd/homebridge-unifi-protect

+1 for both HKSV and Ubiquiti.

Used to use HKSV, but I’m running a Unifi Protect setup these days. Everything records locally to my NVR with a 30 day retention policy. No cloud. Honestly it’s been more reliable too. Downside is I spend a decent amount of time running Ethernet lines.

UI’s stuff works so well with the Apple ecosystem (mainly thinking ATV and iOS apps) that I haven’t even bothered to bridge the setup into HomeKit yet.

> It limits the choices

https://github.com/koush/scrypted extends HKSV to a lot more cameras.

I'm using it with an Amcrest AD410. I have an SD card in the AD410 to record 24/7, then anything with detected motion is also recorded by Scrypted to my NAS as well as uploaded via HKSV to Apple.

HKSV is pretty aggressive about what it's willing to keep, so I can go back to my NAS if HKSV trimmed a clip too aggressively, and if even motion wasn't detected, I've always got the SD card I can go to.

You could still be served a court order to hand over the footage, it is just a couple of steps harder than the one stop shop that is Ring / Amazon.

You mean due process? Sounds great, sign me up!

Yeah, I don't think most people object to Ring video potentially being used by LE (I'm sure there are some though). I think the biggest complaint is the complete lack of due process and even the lack of notifying anyone when their footage is used.

US law enforcement is not to be trusted. Any data to which they have access is police abuse waiting to happen.

No. The article is about a failure of that exact system. Judges just sign search warrants for just about anything; the only thing they check for generally is that it's not involving the search of hundreds of people. Invading the privacy of 1-10 innocents is just a rubber stamp.

Yes, but obtaining footage directly from 10 different people is ten times more work than obtaining the same footage from a single source. That additional work increases friction and decreases (but certainly doesn't eliminate) the level of abuse that will happen.

Great point.

As long as it's within the retention period of the video data. It's nuts for Ring to store the data for 180 days. If I had exterior cameras, I'd store the data for maybe a week?! However long I'd need to backup important snippets in case something happens, like a theft.

> If I had exterior cameras, I'd store the data for maybe a week?

Annecdata - but people I know who have cctv around their home store for as long as possible, limited only by the storage size availiable - every motion from a car / person / tree blowing through the trees - years of recordings.

People are selecting 180 days on Ring as the retention period (if they could select longer they probably would), the default is 60 days.

Thanks for correcting me on the retention period.

What realistic use case am I missing that would require 60 days let alone, 180?

I'd assume that the dominant use case for both is "self-medication of anxiety and other personality issues". Though I'm sure there are seasonal vacation homes, abuse victims with restraining orders against ex's, zealous ornithologists hoping to catch a glimpse of some extremely rare species of bird, and more.

People may go in vacation for 2-4 weeks and not even realize something happened until they return.

Or without even going on vacation I had an expensive DLSR camera stolen and didn’t realize it for 2 months when I went to take it out of its case. Assuming I had a security camera in that room 180 days would have been useful.

That means you (or someone that represents you) can fight back on unreasonable requests. That's great. Doesn't seem like Ring even gave half an ass.

Amazon does a lot of business with the government. They have very little to gain over fighting about handing over video footage like this, and a lot to lose.

I think they can order you to hand over the files, but not decrypt them first.

Indeed. A good question is why aren't there any security camera providers that store data in the cloud with only you having the encryption key?

My PC's cloud backup is like this: It is stored in their cloud, but the provider cannot decrypt the data. Only I have the key.

Why should Ring or other such companies actually require access to the video? Only I should have access to the contents.

Are there comparable Android options out there?

Seems awfully convoluted just to be able to store it in the cloud.

Just to be able to [store it in a location that's internet accessible, but that is also wholly owned and controlled by the user, rather than a separate entity]

I guess this is technically "a" cloud, but you are the owner and in control of it.