zlacker

>>nickth+(OP)
I'm completely ok with the police asking me for video from my doorbell. I'm not ok with the police using the third party doctrine and asking the hosting service for my video without asking me. That video is every bit my property as the files in my desk drawer and should be subject to the same protections.

>>indymi+79
I think it's important to consider any data being held on someone else's server as being effectively publicly available. That's one of the main reasons why I don't use cloud services and would never use a device that required someone else's server to hold or process sensitive data.

>>JohnFe+4j
Do you have some recommended devices that follow that rule?

>>tlb+ij
For doorbell cameras specifically? No, it's not a product category that I'm interested in and so haven't looked into it. For surveillance cameras generally, the market is full of non-cloudy ones. It's hard to give recommendations without knowing what your needs are, and even then I'd hesitate because I don't maintain a mental list of what's current on the market.

I know that's not helpful, and I'm sorry. My process is to research options when the time comes that I am actively trying to solve a problem and just buy the one that fits best. For surveillance cameras, for me, this means "dumb" ones that I feed into a control unit that manages multiple cameras and applies any smarts I may want.