This makes things interesting in terms of GDPR-related CCTV legislation, where generally there's an appointed person recognised in law (terminology varies between countries) who's the controller of the system, in principle the person who controls the footage and who can access it. Even on a cloud-based system, for something like Ring, this would generally be the homeowner who'd installed it. However, if Amazon are able to access footage directly, by design, then this arguably makes them the system controller/data custodian, which brings with it many legal obligations, shifting them away from the homeowner. Whether Amazon would meet those obligations is another question, of course.
Yes, there are systems that are intended for domestic use, so legislation may not be quite as applicable as it is for commercial CCTV systems, but even where it isn't, guidance by the likes of the ICO in the UK is that the spirit of the same principals apply, even if they're not likely to be actively enforced. However, there's nothing to prevent someone taking action against a homeowner; most legislation doesn't specifically exclude private/domestic systems.
And as for dashcams...
Biting the hand that feeds IT
