zlacker

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+(OP)
Which in itself blows my mind. Imagine if Canon told me the pictures taken with my camera were not my property.

>>ses198+(OP)
He's not asking about how to enforce it, I don't think.

He's wishing that things like your e-mail, videos in the cloud, etc, required a warrant for the police to search, instead of just a subpoena to a third party.

The article falsely implies that a warrant is required, but in practice police can just subpoena the information.

>>ses198+(OP)
Encryption. Anyone org than can side step it doesn't matter anyway.

>>mlyle+W3
They don’t even have to subpoena they can just ask.

>>FireBe+k2
At one point one of the big camera manufacturers tried using DRM to force use of their software to process image. I cannot recall when one or exactly what the restrictions were. I think it was with RAW image.

>>mlyle+W3
If you don’t have a way to enforce it then you pretty much have to assume that law enforcement will come after it sooner or later.

>>FireBe+k2
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.