Investigators working with the high-profile abduction of Nancy Guthrie have released video from Guthrie’s Nest doorbell camera—video that was believed to have been deleted because Guthrie wasn’t paying for the service.
Nancy Guthrie was abducted from her home in the early hours of February 1, and at first, investigators said there was no video of the crime because the doorbell camera was not on a paid account. Yet, video showing a masked individual fiddling with the camera was published on February 10.
The first video shows the masked assailant approaching the door and noticing the doorbell camera. They place their hand over the lens and appear to pull on the mounting bracket. Nest doorbell cameras have a small security screw that makes it difficult to remove them without causing damage.
That's because like most cloud-enabled home security cameras, Google’s Nest products don’t provide long-term storage unless you pay a monthly fee. That video may not vanish into the digital dust though.
In the second video, the individual seems to try to drape a plant over the camera to block its view. Both videos are short, which is what you’d expect from an “event” as identified by the Google Home system.
In statements made by investigators, the video was apparently “recovered from residual data located in backend systems.” It’s unclear how long such data is retained or how easy it is for Google to access it. Some reports claim that it took several days for Google to recover the data.
In large-scale enterprise storage solutions, “deleted” for the user doesn’t always mean that the data is gone. Data that is no longer needed is often compressed and overwritten only as needed. In the meantime, it may be possible to recover the data. That’s something a company like Google could decide to do on its own, or it could be compelled to perform the recovery by a court order. In the Guthrie case, Google was voluntarily cooperating with the investigation, which makes sense. Publishing video of the alleged perpetrator could be a major breakthrough as investigators seek help from the public.
In statements made by investigators, the video was apparently “recovered from residual data located in backend systems.” It’s unclear how long such data is retained or how easy it is for Google to access it. Some reports claim that it took several days for Google to recover the data.
In large-scale enterprise storage solutions, “deleted” for the user doesn’t always mean that the data is gone. Data that is no longer needed is often compressed and overwritten only as needed. In the meantime, it may be possible to recover the data. That’s something a company like Google could decide to do on its own, or it could be compelled to perform the recovery by a court order. In the Guthrie case, Google was voluntarily cooperating with the investigation, which makes sense. Publishing video of the alleged perpetrator could be a major breakthrough as investigators seek help from the public.