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
Pretty sure if you read the fine print that video is not your property, but even if it was, how can you enforce that if it’s not on your own servers?

>>ses198+9f
Which in itself blows my mind. Imagine if Canon told me the pictures taken with my camera were not my property.

>>FireBe+th
The canon camera is self sufficient writing to your memory card. The ring doorbell is functionally useless without the server side components (afaik, I could be wrong). The whole issue arises because the video isn’t stored on your own servers.

Those server side components provide a lot of value and that’s why people choose to buy those products, as opposed to similar products that are just dumb wifi cameras.