I suspect because Google and Amazon want to use the data from the video feeds for their own purposes. I think using it for CV modeling and advertising can make them more money than not using it.
Also, they can charge police for these data.
I won’t buy their products because of their decision to monetize over privacy. What I find interesting is that their products aren’t cheaper than other privacy preserving products from Wyze and Apple so this extra revenue is pure profit or gravy. This isn’t some essential need of their business model, they just don’t respect user privacy enough to avoid this extra revenue.
It’s probably because it’s somewhat more complex to implement encrypted end of end video and storage, with a slightly more complex user experience. So they cut corners, knowing most people don’t care about encryption.
Complexity is not an issue.
It a very basic thing to do in these days.
UX might be a bigger issue, as it is harder to view this data in any device and still keep keys unaccessible by Google. But still not too hard. People use Whatsapp web in daily basis.
Main problem is the ML use for video feed to trigger some stuff etc.
Has Wyze ever provided privacy guarantees on their cloud service? Their privacy policy says they will gladly share data.
> In response to a request for information if we believe disclosure is in accordance with, or required by, any applicable law or legal process, including lawful requests by public authorities to meet national security or law enforcement requirements;
IANAL but that sure sounds to me like they will provide data in cases where they aren't legally required to (as in a warrant) as long as they believe it's "in accordance with" the law. Which could mean almost anything other than a clearly illegal request.
I like Wyze and think they are acting in good faith, but I wouldn't assume they would say no to a request from government/police. They may offer local recording and RTSP, but AFAIK they are still cloud connected unless you otherwise block them or use alternate firmware and hence not private.
Probably because of the ML processing (event recognition), which is the only good reason to subscribe to Nest/Google home in the first place. Otherwise, you just have streams of video without much context. If the analysis could be done on device, then that would be a different story.
Unfortunately, either Ring or Nest is required in my neighborhood given our property crime issues.
>> either Ring or Nest is required in my neighborhood given our property crime issues
What do you do with that footage? I have a full resolution video of a dude stealing $300 worth of crabbing equipment from my porch. What’s next? Police is not going to do anything about it even though there’s probably technically a way to track him down.
The footage isn't that useful. Instead, I use it for real time intevention ("Hey! Get away from my car!") or just awareness that something is going on.
How do you expect Ring to provide live notifications that are processed server side if you enable e2e encryption? If Ring.com can decrypt the data, they can always share the feed with 3rd parties.
It's a sensible design choice given the current constraints of the hardware.
They don’t. As you note, it wouldn’t make any sense for them to do so.
It’s one of those perverse things that they are some of the few companies that actually don’t sell user data, and yet they’re the ones that are most frequently accused of it.
I don’t think it helps us in keeping big tech companies to account when we spread false information about them.
Because Apple's HomeKit stuff is significantly inferior. HN privacy nattering aside, consumers clearly want cloud-accessible home surveillance. It's what they pay for. And if you can get to it from that website using only your Amazon or Google account, so can Amazon or Google.
I have a hub (multiple actually thanks to a few HomePods and Apple TV's) for HomeKit. I can control all of my HomeKit devices remotely and I can view any video remotely.
Yet it is still end to end encrypted because the processing happens locally on device (on the hub) instead of on a cloud server.
I have the ability to detect people, animals, vehicles, and packages and set recording settings based on that. In addition to if I am home or not based on the existing detection round that built into HomeKit.
This narrative around Apple's products missing major features is no longer true and has not been for a while.
Nothing in the process requires a token/authentication/blessing be done from a pre-existing hub machine that would have to control the encryption. Apple can remotely grant your device HomeKit cloud video based on nothing more than your ability to attest ownership of your new device.
And if they can do that, they can certainly recover the video internally for anyone who wants it. They just choose not to, and you believe them (where you clearly don't for Amazon).
You can't view the video from the web but you can from the Home app on Mac, iPhone, or iPad.
Technically yeah you need to leave the Apple TV running (or a HomePod) but it just stays in standby mode anyways. But I don't know 100% how that works power wise.
When I look in my Home app at the hubs, I see all of my HomePods and Apple TV's there. The living room Apple TV is marked as "Connected" and the others "Standby". Assuming that means the Apple TV is the one processing things, it does not appear that the Apple TV is doing a ton. The light isn't on and it isn't generating really any heat.
To my knowledge Android can't use HomeKit but maybe there are third party ways to use HomeKit with an Apple hub. But I would be surprised if those third party ways could access the secure video. But I honestly don't know.
I have never used the package or the vehicle recognition.
But it seems to work decent enough. However the face recognition works off of the faces you have categorized in photos. So actually recognizing specific people will only be as good as that database is. I assume in the backend it is largely the same tech so you can get an idea of how well it will work based on that.
I can't compare it to other offerings since I have never used them, but it does what I need it to do.
I have had issues with false positives, but I also am using a not great quality camera with it so it is limited with that. I plan on getting a better camera but just have not had a need for it yet.
You can still store the data on the cloud and access it anywhere. I think the only features that probably need to be limited are video-analysis features such as who is at your door and what is moving across the lawn.
HomeKit secure video stores an encrypted video in your iCloud account so you can access it from anywhere. It does require a paid subscription and a hub (HomePod, Apple TV, or iPad) where the hub does the video analysis on device.
I was actually curious about this. I didn't realize that HomeKit-compatible doorbells existed. The product page for the Logitech Circle View Wired Doorbell (the least expensive listed on apple.com) notes "Receive rich notifications with two-way audio across all your Apple devices whenever a person or package is at the door." So maybe access via PC/web is what's missing?
Knowing the car your neighbor(s) drive and what times they come and go are very valuable marketing tools, to someone. Just like knowing what they search for and the content of their emails tells them other things about you, and your neighbor who didn't sign up for this service.
Why won’t Google Nest and Amazon Ring do this?
I have 6 Nest cameras throughout my home ( not the doorbell product)