Cameras allow the HOA to monitor residents, whether or not they're technically allowed to
this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2025
115 points (98.3% liked)
Privacy
6660 readers
215 users here now
A community for Lemmy users interested in privacy
Rules:
- Be civil
- No spam posting
- Keep posts on-topic
- No trolling
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
115
I need help advocating for privacy in my HOA, which wants to set up cameras in common areas
(lemmy.dbzer0.com)
This is a good one, and perhaps, depending on your jurisdiction, it could open the HOA to potential civil litigation for privacy violations. There may also be requirements for reporting or retention if law enforcement or a court requests it, and that's additional overhead.
This is a great point. Do the cameras have microphones? Is it a two-party/all-party consent state?
Now you need to get consent from every person who might end up being recorded.
These "user-friendly" network cameras are frequently bought and set up by people who have no idea what they're doing, which leads to thousands of them being accessible to anyone on the Internet:
Bitsight Identifies Thousands of Security Cameras Openly Accessible on the Internet
Wyze cameras let some owners see into a stranger’s home — again
Security startup Verkada hack exposes 150,000 security cameras in Tesla factories, jails, and more
Somebody’s Watching: Hackers Breach Ring Home Security Cameras
Even the companies that make and distribute these cameras don't secure them properly.
In some of these cases getting access to the camera barely even qualifies as hacking. If you know the web address of the camera you can just type it into your web browser and get the live video feed because it's just being streamed to the public Internet, no authentication or encryption. That means someone on the other side of the planet or someone in the house next door can just start watching what's going on in your house.
If the HOA insists on installing cameras, you should insist that they hire a professional to install and configure them correctly and maintain them long-term to prevent security breaches. Someone has to keep the firmware/software up to date when the manufacturer releases security patches and bug fixes, not just for the cameras but also for the network they're connected to. This means you don't just need to pay for one-time installation, you need to hire an employee long-term.
I would also ask the pushy neighbor if he was specifically planning on buying Wyze cameras for this. They've had multiple security problems in recent years.
A halfway intelligent thief could just use the camera to see where things worth stealing are kept and what time of day is best for breaking in unnoticed. If this is not done properly it will make the security worse, not better.
I would also ask the pushy neighbor if he was specifically planning on buying Wyze cameras for this. They've had multiple security problems in recent years.
I have Wyze cameras and can confirm. On a handful of occasions, I've opened my app to thumbnails or livestreams of places I do not recognize. I'll probably change this up at some point when I can afford to replace them and get a better hang of Home Assistant.
Hi fellow HA user in the wild.
Whatever cams you go with, most important thing is that they support a direct rtsp connection. Frigate is an excellent add-on for recording, and for object detection if you want to do that.
We have some generic IP cameras here that have local access only, and a couple of Arduino camera PCBs in printed housings.
A coral TPU is essential if you want to get into object detection on more than one camera. Can use the CPU for testing, but it's very easy to tap it out.
IP cameras here that have local access only
This is the right way.
No proprietary SaaS portals, no cloud uploads, no apps, no external network links.
Hopefully the local connections are encrypted and the devices on the network are segmented into VLANs, otherwise anyone on the local network could just watch the video stream.
Honestly have not bothered too much on the internal security side. Everything is in a melting pot on the same subnet, with pfsense managing what's allowed out. At the very least, the cams and any other accessible internal devices do not run default/duplicated credentials.
Only two users on the network, and the occasional trusted guest. I don't see the need to go further quite yet.
Yes! Thank you so much these are great points! And yeah, they are proposing Wyze cameras
Might also be worth pointing out in an HOA meeting that if this guy buys and configures the cameras himself then he has access to watch everybody. How much does the rest of the community trust this guy to not be creeping on everyone else?
And much like video games, a lot of this type of hardware is only supported as long as the manufacturer decides that it's worth their time.
What's going to happen to all this surveillance equipment when the cheapo manufacturer declares it all obsolete? Because no HOA is going to dish out the big bucks for high quality equipment from a reputable supplier and monthly fees for maintenance by a qualified specialist.
recent thefts after someone left a garage door open
why not put a camera in the garage then?
Why not close the garage door?
Na, too simple
Okay, why not automate the garage door via IoT devices (“smart home”)?
The S in IoT stands both for "smart" and "security"
Okay, why not automate the garage door via IoT devices (“smart home”) that only communicate locally over the LAN and are isolated to a specific VLAN?
Maybe start asking for details about who will have access to them, will they be monitored, how long will footage be kept, etc. I bet most folks have a neighbor that they don't want having access.
And once the people real they don't want Karen the HOE president having full access, it means you'll have to pay a security firm. Hammer them on the costs for this vs having individuals set up their own security on their properties.
Money is better spent on (name anything around the premises that needs repair or upgrade)
Ugh I would have said this too, but the resident pushing for the cameras is offering to pay out of pocket
Sure, initially. What about upkeep and future replacements?
Go talk to your local police department. They'll likely have some suggestions on how to place to the cameras to be most useful in an investigation.
You may also be surprised to find out they'll just ignore the video evidence unless the thief holds up their driver's license and 6 other forms of valid ID in front of the camera. In other words, you might find out there will be no investigation regardless of how much video footage you present.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure this is the case. I have to believe that the police have much more pressing work than these small time thefts. I'm just trying to find some article attesting to that, not just anecdotes. But all my research turns up is stuff from camera companies pushing their products lol
I'm willing to bet that over the years, most of the theft and damage in the building has been to cars in the garage. Cameras placed there would also have caught the culprit as they entered. Rather than place them everywhere, maybe at least restrict them to the garage.
From the context of the post, I'm assuming it is personal garages attached to houses, and the theft was from specific neighbors that left the garage door open, not from a parking garage building.
Reads to me more like there's a shared garage and the new neighbor had something stolen from their vehicle when another resident left the garage door open. Or possibly the whole garage area isn't gated and someone left the building entrance door from the garage open, so the theft was from a lobby. If the "common areas" are out on the street, wouldn't the new resident have to have left his own garage open? In which case he has only himself to blame.
The neighbor leaving their own garage open and having only themself to blame is exactly how I read it. I was assuming the HOA was planning to put surveillance cameras around the entire neighborhood, partially because I've only heard HOA as referring to suburban residential communities, and usually have heard "board" or "committee" being used for building or townhome setups.
I see. Since I live in a condo, our HOA dues pay for all the common area maintenance, trash collection, insurance, and because the plumbing wasn't fully converted it covers everyone's water as well. We elect a Board and use a management company but big expensive decisions are voted on by the whole HOA. But I get your point, it could be either.
Maybe simply point out that people should remember to secure their belongings. Close and lock your garage door
Ask about retention and privacy policies: who can access them, and how can we confirm that? How often will that access policy be reviewed? Which primary and secondary person is responsible for confirming access and access lists? The risk of lawsuits could require insurance;nor will the contingency fund be paying for lawsuits brought by privacy violations that could arrive a decade after a violation? Where are the recordings stored, and for how long? Which member and secondary is responsible for reporting the status and size of held recordings, confirm they're being rotated and deleted, and confirm their storage medium is secure and private? Will passwords be rotated, and who is responsible for doing that, and who else is responsible for checking it's been changed in the atrata meetings? Is this an outsourcing thing, and which committee picks the company managing your backed up recordings, and is this the same group which will report on security compliance (advertised and tested randomly) where your likenesses will be stored?
Need more? Storing someone's likeness for any length of time requires a LOT of boxes checked, repeatedly, and this is often too much for most organizations, especially if they need to outsource the tech work. Asking periodically to have tapes remove your likeness and confirm it's removed will swamp an FTE, but suggest everyone do this to confirm their movements and ensure accuracy.
Recommend ALL this not be taken from contingency fund.
Does the HOA restrict individual residents from putting them on their own property?
If they're in shared common areas it affects all residents indiscriminately so it makes sense, to me at least, that unanimous agreement should be needed.
However, why not propose an alternative whereby this particular resident can add them to their property.
It took me 4 years but this is why I got our HOA disbanded.
Cheap cameras often have bad side effects.
Amazon cameras stream everything to Amazon. There was a story where a delivery guy heard the camera wrong and reported it to Amazon, then Amazon disabled their Amazon account and it disabled their entire smart home. Amazon also gives all the footage to police, even when nothing wrong has happened.
Arlo cameras were sold as “local” but still uploaded to their cloud, and everyone has access by guessing the URL, there was no password or anything.
Lots of these cheaper cameras have so many flaws.
I have 2 camera systems. Offline local system that just records if anything happens, no internet at all.
I have another system that I have cameras in specific places (like the driveway) and I can get notifications of any movement.
It’s really, really hard to find a good one, thats also secure. Also does it have to be online?
How is the neighbor advocating for them? Like, are they making a rational case, or is it just vibes? I'm curious what problems they think they're solving and how these cameras would solve them.
They've had property stolen, and I'm pretty sure they don't trust the rest of the residents of the HOA
Sounds good to me. Not sure what will convince HOA.
sounds like the states
I'd reinforce point one with consideration of cost/benefits. Purchase, install, maintenance, replacement, and compliance with legal requirements are all going to have a cost. Most people don't feel like they're getting their money's worth out of having an HOA in the first place, much less want to pay more for essentially no benefit. Since the primary benefit of security cameras (if not being professionally monitored) is deterrence, maybe you could get the benefit without the invasion or cost with some dummy cams. <10% of the cost for 99% of the benefit.
And if the thefts keep occurring despite dummy cameras, you know it's someone from the HOA. Maybe the new neighbour themselves!
Love this whole thread.
I would politely suggest a weekly thread like this one. Talking to {no common sense about tech} about {tech thing} in a way where they come to understand the problem, plainly and accurately.
How many places are there where you can see that in a way that real actual humans can understand, without getting yelled at by the poster? Not enough, that's how many.
Say nothing and break the cameras. Keep doing it until they decide it's too expensive.