Hacker News

How Did the FBI Get Nancy Guthrie's Nest Doorbell Footage?

2026-02-1118:4812780lifehacker.com

The FBI produced footage from Nancy Guthrie's Nest doorbell, despite it being disconnected.

Credit: CC Photo Labs/Shutterstock

Key Takeaways

  1. The FBI was able to produce footage from Nancy Guthrie's Nest doorbell, even though authorities previously said it was disconnected.
  2. FBI Director Kash Patel says the video was recovered "from residual data located in backend systems," but didn't share additional details.
  3. It is possible that Guthrie's doorbell had saved videos or video data points from its event history, which the FBI could have used to piece together the full clips.

Like millions of Americans, I've been watching the news of Nancy Guthrie's disappearance with concern—so I was somewhat relieved when the FBI announced they were releasing new footage of a suspect. Finally, the case had something to go on, even if it was only doorbell video of a masked stranger.

When I saw the footage, I assumed this was something the FBI had in their possession since the beginning, and had finally decided to release to the public. But that's not what happened at all. If you have been following this case closely, you may know that law enforcement had previously confirmed that Guthrie's Google Nest camera was disconnected (presumably by the perpetrator), and that she did not have a subscription that would store video either on the doorbell or in the cloud. Yet despite the fact the doorbell should have been a dead end, the FBI has seemingly produced this video out of thin air.

If you have a Google Nest device in or attached to your home, this might give you pause. Sure, it's one thing if law enforcement is able to obtain video from your subscription or from the device itself. But if you don't keep video records on your Nest, it seems it is still possible to retrieve the footage. How did the FBI do this, and what does it mean for the privacy of your Nest devices?

The FBI likely pieced the video together from fragments

The short answer is that we don't really know for sure how the FBI got the footage, but there are a few leads. According to FBI Director Kash Patel, the Google Nest footage was recovered "from residual data located in backend systems." That's pretty vague, though the FBI isn't necessarily known for its transparency.

According to experts that spoke to NBC News, however, it is possible to obtain data from the "complex infrastructure" of cloud-based cameras, including Google Nest devices. Retired FBI agent Timothy Gallagher told NBC News that Guthrie's Nest camera might have sent images to Google's cloud service, or at least stored data points locally throughout the hardware of the device, even though she wasn't paying for a Nest subscription. The FBI could have obtained the footage from the cloud this way, or pieced together the video from those data points.

Both possibilities track, based on how Nest cameras work without a subscription: While you need to pay Google in order to save video clips from your Nest cameras, some Nest devices record event histories and store them on-device. The third-gen wired Nest Doorbell can save up to 10 seconds of clips, while the first and second-gen wired doorbells can save up to three hours of event history, all without a subscription. They also support live video feeds when motion is detected, which could impact the video data points saved to the device or cloud.

It's entirely possible the subject walking up to the camera triggered the doorbell to save an event history. But since it took the FBI so long to produce the footage, and since the director claims it was obtained from "residual data," my guess is it wasn't readily available in Guthrie's Google Home app. Maybe the event history saved to the cloud, but it wasn't clear where it was located. Maybe it was overwritten, but the FBI was able to build it back up with recovered data points. My guess would learn toward the latter, as authorities did say the camera had been disconnected. Unfortunately, we don't have a definitive answer at this time, even if the theory is sound.

I've reached out to Google for comment, and will update this piece if I hear back.

Should you get rid of your Nest camera over privacy concerns?

Based on what we know, it doesn't really seem like your Nest doorbell or camera is a fourth amendment disaster waiting to happen—but I don't blame anyone for being concerned. After all, if you don't have a Nest subscription, you might have been comforted by the thought that none of your footage was being saved anywhere, meaning law enforcement or other authorities would have nothing to seize if you somehow popped up on their radar. That doesn't necessarily appear to be the case.

That said, without a subscription, you don't have access to a collection of all clips your Nest camera has ever recorded. You might have a limited event history saved, based on motion detection, but that will be limited to three hours of data. Your device might have data points that an organization like the FBI could theoretically use to restore footage, but that's likely true for any camera or smart doorbell system—not just Nest.

Also, this is not a Ring situation—Google hasn't partnered with organizations like Flock to help law enforcement request footage from users. Nest also lacks Ring's "Search Party" feature, which can turn a neighborhood into a kind of surveillance state, and probably not just to search for lost dogs. I'm not dismissing every security and privacy concern, of course: By putting a commercially-available smart camera on your front door, you are placing your data in the hands of companies like Google or Amazon. If you want to eliminate the risk of the FBI obtaining your doorbell footage, you simply can't have a doorbell with a camera. But barring a warrant, or a Nancy Guthrie-level situation, the chances of your Nest doorbell footage actually being used against you seem rather slim.


Read the original article

daft_pink

Karma: 3120
...
 @Hacker__News
@hacker._news

Comments

  • By ansk 2026-02-1120:272 reply

    The other explanations here don't explain the long delay between the start of the investigation and the release of the footage. Yes, storing customer data is what we'd expect from Google and yes, the FBI can coerce Google to provide this data for their investigations. But it does not take a week for Google to find a file on their servers.

    My hunch is that Google initially tried to play dumb to avoid compliance, as to not reveal they do in fact retain customer data. They had a plausible excuse as well -- the owner had no subscription so they don't store the data -- and took a gamble that this explanation would suffice until the situation resolved itself. I suspect that authorities initially took Google's excuse at face value, since they parroted this explanation to the public as well. As pressure mounted on authorities to make some headway on the case, they likely formally exercised whatever legal mechanisms they have at their disposal to force Google's hand, and only then was the footage released.

    • By reverius42 2026-02-128:25

      This is a wild claim. I would think criminal charges for something like obstruction would be possible if Google intentionally hid this from investigators for up to a week. That could result in the difference between the victim being found alive or not.

    • By aaron695 2026-02-120:29

      [dead]

  • By 1970-01-01 2026-02-1119:273 reply

    Why are we overthinking this? It was disconnected by the kidnapper, not erased by him. All the FBI has to do is reconnect it (or even just find the MAC address) and wait for Google to provide them the footage via a request.

    https://policies.google.com/terms/information-requests?hl=en...

    • By eigencoder 2026-02-1120:252 reply

      I heard that Nancy Guthrie was not paying for the subscription that let her view her old video footage. So it's interesting that Google was still storing all that footage.

      • By sandworm101 2026-02-1120:432 reply

        The google/ring backbone service people are likely disconnected from google's money collecting people. It is probably just easier to collect all of it and then check for payments only when users login to get at the footage. Otherwise, every fetch of footage from a camera would trigger a query to the payment system.

        • By 0cf8612b2e1e 2026-02-1123:571 reply

          It is easier to constantly upload video rather than check a boolean if current customer? An active customer status is not something that changes per second. Can easily be cached for multiple hours.

          • By SR2Z 2026-02-121:46

            I think that even free users get recent videos saved, but I'm not positive. If videos are constantly being uploaded, why bother checking?

        • By chinathrow 2026-02-1120:584 reply

          If I don't pay, they should not store footage. What is so difficult about that?

          • By patmorgan23 2026-02-1121:451 reply

            If you don't want them to store footage, don't buy a cloud connected camera

            • By plagiarist 2026-02-121:22

              Yes. People need to stop treating corporations as if they will honor the spirit of an agreement instead of whatever interpretation gains them the most value.

          • By yndoendo 2026-02-1122:06

            With Google, you are the product. Those that pay for their services just add more to their bank account. There is a reason they removed _Don't be Evil_. Decouple and move on from them is the only thing you can do.

          • By hoherd 2026-02-121:51

            AI training data is valuable. They're not going to just throw it away.

          • By otterley 2026-02-126:251 reply

            What does the ToS that you agree to say about the matter? That’s the controlling document.

            • By hulitu 2026-02-1214:24

              "In particular, we sometimes make legally-required updates, which are modifications that keep digital content, services, or goods in conformity with the law. We make these updates to our digital content, services, and goods for safety or security reasons, and to make sure they meet the quality standards that you expect, such as those described in the Legal guarantee section. We may automatically install updates that address significant safety or security risks. For other updates, you can choose whether you want them installed."

              "We also collect the content you create, upload, or receive from others when using our services. This includes things like email you write and receive, photos and videos you save, docs and spreadsheets you create, and comments you make on YouTube videos."

      • By draw_down 2026-02-1120:28

        [dead]

    • By mrandish 2026-02-1122:33

      I don't have a Nest but I suspect it's even simpler than that. She didn't have a subscription but the devices still store video locally up to the capacity of onboard storage. These recent local clips used to all be locally accessible but to "increase subscription value", Google started making that locally stored data inaccessible without subscription.

      However, the local storage is just a rolling buffer and the clips beyond the last 10 seconds are still there in local RAM and either not shown in the interface or deleted in the file system (but just by blanking the name in the directory, not a secure overwrite erase). Either the FBI forensic data recovery people or Google/Nest finally ran a sector-by-sector file recovery. I'm just surprised it took so long. I assume maybe because the local storage on those doorbells isn't a removable SD card so they had to gain access some other way.

      Frankly, I'm surprised how many people buy devices which are cloud-only. At this point, I generally won't consider any IOT devices if the manufacturer even offers an optional cloud subscription (unless the firmware is open source). Too many companies have now locked down previously open devices to force cloud subscription (looking at you Chamberlain/LiftMaster assholes).

      EDIT TO ADD: Saw this Verge article by someone who bothered to find out how current Nest doorbells work. It basically confirms what I thought with the nuance that some local files actually get uploaded to the cloud even without a subscription but aren't accessible until the user pays. https://www.theverge.com/tech/877235/nancy-guthrie-google-ne...

    • By krisbolton 2026-02-1120:531 reply

      The article even says "[...] some Nest devices record event histories and store them on-device. The third-gen wired Nest Doorbell can save up to 10 seconds of clips, while the first and second-gen wired doorbells can save up to three hours of event history, all without a subscription.".

      • By kbelder 2026-02-120:131 reply

        >The third-gen wired Nest Doorbell can save up to 10 seconds of clips, while the first and second-gen wired doorbells can save up to three hours of event history

        Wow, the march of progress.

        • By plagiarist 2026-02-121:261 reply

          It's like you can see the moment they started gaining market share and could deliver shittier products.

          • By lazide 2026-02-1212:02

            It’s all optimization.

  • By drnick1 2026-02-1120:225 reply

    > Should you get rid of your Nest camera over privacy concerns?

    Absolutely, and you shouldn't have bought and installed this garbage in the first place. Their primary purpose is not to protect you but to spy on you for Google's benefit, much like the rest of their dis-services (email, cloud storage, mobile operating systems).

    If you absolutely need surveillance cameras for your safety, use generic IP cameras connected to your own NVR (network video recorder), possibly with Frigate for offline AI processing and notifications. Nothing should ever leave your network; the data should be encrypted and only shared with the police when it is in your interest.

    • By thinkingtoilet 2026-02-1120:322 reply

      The problem is that your advice doesn't work for 99% of the customer base. Go the average person "if you absolutely need surveillance cameras for your safety, use generic IP cameras connected to your own NVR (network video recorder), possibly with Frigate for offline AI processing and notifications." and see what they say. It's important to remember if you are on this site you are an extreme minority and the average person isn't even aware enough to think about these things, let alone set up their own offline AI video processor.

      • By ThrowawayTestr 2026-02-120:52

        You can get camera+NVR combos at Costco.

      • By drnick1 2026-02-1120:431 reply

        Fair point, but security cameras, despite their name, do very little for your security as evidenced by the news. Most people don't need one, and only have Rings/Nests and other similar spyware because of a combination of fearmongering, aggressive marketing, and pricing subsidized by data collection (spyware). If you truly fear for your safety, you should purchase a shotgun, not a Nest camera.

        In any case, when you don't have the skills required to do something, you can hire someone who does. I pay a plumber because I don't have plumbing skills and tools, so it's not unreasonable to pay someone to set up a local camera system for you if you want one.

        • By kenjackson 2026-02-1120:561 reply

          Cameras do more than just that kind of security.

          Our camera has been of great use. In fact has largely made us money. We had an incident where a fire truck damaged our car in the street with its hose. We thought a kid with a bat did the damage at first. The camera though showed the real culprit. When we told the fire department they denied it and said there were no firetrucks in the area. We sent the video footage and then they sent a city lawyer with a checkbook.

          • By zippyman55 2026-02-120:21

            I had a situation where a tree limb fell on to an early morning garbage truck. The truck transported the limb a few hundred feet. It then Slid off and smashed thru my van window. It started to rain. I appeared shortly after trying to figure out how a 10’ heavy limb would smash thru my window, things are just starting to get wet, and there are no trees around.

    • By TheCondor 2026-02-1120:581 reply

      I have that sort of arrangement. I've been wondering though. What's the proper data access protocol? Like I want it available, easily, if the police need it and I'm not there but at the same time, I don't want anyone to just screw around with it because I've got directions and password printed on paper somewhere.

      We did have some repeated night time visitors (long story, but it was some mistaken identity that took a while to sleuth out) it wasn't difficult to export data for the police but it wasn't something I'd just ask my wife or kids to do either. Scan the footage, find the timestamps, export the data then upload the data somewhere where they can get at it. It wasn't hard but it was chores and it took time with high emotions.

      First off, it's not inexpensive. It's not a giant investment either but my cameras cost in the same range as the Nest cameras do and then there is a relatively powerful mini pc, and an accelerator for AI detection and then drives to store the data, PoE switch, network segmentation... I'm rocking home assistant and frigate and 8 8k cameras. Then the much more subtle part is I have a pretty good idea when I'd like the police to have all the data and when I don't want that. That's not so easy if I was abducted. Perhaps an off the shelf complete solution is better and has that sort of law enforcement access situation sorted out. This is sort of the 0.000001% kind of thing though. Over the years, I've replaced drives a couple times too, it's becomes a living and breathing system that needs support and love.

      • By ThrowawayTestr 2026-02-120:521 reply

        >if the police need it and I'm not there

        How often is that going to happen?

        • By sjs382 2026-02-1220:30

          If it's because you're missing and they need to investigate: every time.

    • By NeutralWanted 2026-02-1121:17

      [dead]

    • By razingeden 2026-02-1122:251 reply

      >Their primary purpose is not to protect you but to spy on you for Google's benefit, much like the rest of their dis-services (email, cloud storage, mobile operating systems).

      I know! i’d sure hate for Google and the police to be able to identify someone who has kidnapped and/or perhaps murdered me. I’ll be uninstalling all my cameras immediately. Whose with me? /s

      (Notwithstanding: My cameras thermostats etc all go through a wrt3200 router logged into expressvpn on a dedicated ssid/vlan . Amazon and Google pissed me off purchasing Ring and Nest (respectively) so they can plug that into their advertising bullshit and that was my reaction to both of those companies… they get iot devices connecting from some vultr VPS or whatever, and the other way they get you is with all the crap and trackers in their smartphone apps — at least according to Exodus Project - so THATS on a burner android piped through the same SSID too.)

      Granted some of that’s by necessity because half the apps for this kind of crap aren’t available in the Mexico iTunes Store but I’ll just shut up now.

      • By drnick1 2026-02-1123:121 reply

        > i’d sure hate for Google and the police to be able to identify someone who has kidnapped and/or perhaps murdered me.

        You seem to overlook the more likely scenario where the camera is used against you in some way, whether by a government agency or for tracking and profiling by tech companies. You also, perhaps involuntarily, enable surveillance of your neighbors, family and friends.

        • By lazide 2026-02-1212:05

          For most people, those same family and friends are often more of an (actual) risk than the gov’t, especially the current gov’t right now.

          The current gov’t is going after minorities in high profile, low effectiveness sweeps to ragebait everyone. That by definition is only going to impact a very tiny percentage of the population at once.

    • By ajross 2026-02-1120:54

      > Their primary purpose is not to protect you but to spy on you

      Here I was thinking the primary purpose was to see who's at the door and check if Doordash and packages have been delivered. We've also used them to "spy" on our cats to be sure they're using the litter box while on vacation, and even to "spy" on wildlife in our backyard.

      Not everything needs to be a conspiracy. These devices are useful and practical and have value.

      Also, lest it get lost in the chorus of voices telling us to throw these things out: the actual news here is that the device appears to have provided an actual evidentiary lead in the investigation of an actual (and horrifying) crime. That has value too, even if kidnappings are rare.

HackerNews

About