Patch Lady – 31 days of Paranoia – Day 16

Topic

New Reply

Today we live in a world where recording devices are ubiquitous.  There are recording devices on public streets, recording devices in the door bells o
[See the full post at: Patch Lady – 31 days of Paranoia – Day 16]

Susan Bradley Patch Lady/Prudent patcher

3 users thanked author for this post.

Elly, SueW, GreatAndPowerfulTech

Reply | Quote

Replies

I also work in California. I interpret the wiretapping law as applying to audio, not video. So I use video cameras that do not have microphones. Has anyone heard of someone trying to apply the wiretapping law to silent photos/videos shot either in public places or in my own private residence or place of business?

One client would like to also be able to have an audio intercom in addition to video. Here I’d assume they are okay if it is not recording audio, but just providing a way to communicate in real time with the person(s) who are on camera.

Reply | Quote

Does that mean the professional fisherman who sometimes follows my amateur fishing activity and buzzed me with a drone one day from about 2km away  was breaking the law?

Reply | Quote

AFAIK wiretapping laws apply only to recorded sound, not video.  There’s other common law / statutes on privacy.

Reply | Quote

I would check the local state statutes and how they have been interpreted by the state. What is true about CA law is not true in other states even if the concepts are broadly similar. In some states, it is legal for one party in the conversation to tape a conversation without informing the other parties. How they handle video will be all over the place.

Reply | Quote

If you have an automated home with a hub like Amazon (Alexa, Echo), Google (Google Home) or such Internet accessible networks, it is highly recommended to create a separate network for your Internet of Things devices (and the hub). If there are any cameras in use, indoors or outdoors, you probably should for your own privacy and security, place these also on a separate network.

There are various ways to configure a router or gateway to create a separate network or sub-network for IoT and camera devices. Doing the security this way is relatively cheap, but requires some skills and planning, as well as a commitment to network administration.

It is simpler, but often more expensive, to use a Unified Threat Management box, known as UTM. Relatively affordable ones run  $200.00 plus annual subscriptions (e.g., BitDefender’s Box2). More sophisticated UTM boxes run upwards of $600.00 plus subscriptions (e.g, Sophos or Fortinet’s product lines).

However you do it, it’s wise to provide isolation and security (hardware firewall) for your cams and IoT Things. Manufacturers are notorious for skimping on security, and you cannot afford to make a mistake and suffer a privacy invasion or worse. Like all security, it’s a pain and often an added expense, but it’s the price we (should) pay to have safe, secure remote access to the things which monitor and operate our automated homes.

-- rc primak

1 user thanked author for this post.

mcbsys

Reply | Quote

Good advice. One simple way to isolate wireless IoT devices would be to only connect them to your guest Wi-Fi. That should keep them off your main LAN and (depending on how guest Wi-Fi is implemented on your router) probably even keep them from talking directly to each other. I’m assuming that, for example, Alexa can still talk to the Samsung hub in the cloud. Need to do some testing here…

Oh and remember to treat your TV, Roku, etc. and any Wi-Fi connected appliances as part of your separate Internet of Things.

Reply | Quote