They don’t recommend them because of what the homeowners can do with them?
I’m much more worried about the fact that they’re a constant feed of activity accessible by anyone who can bypass or be let through Amazon’s access controls.
Or shut them down, given the recent debacle with Amazon shutting down someone's account, disabling their devices in the process.
And here I am with my Eufy cameras...
In fairness is JUST bought the damned things right as all the drama was happening.
Saying this as an ethnically Chinese person who is not being racist... I had a eufy robovac and when I discovered it was Chinese-owned and had a video camera installed on it... I immediately got rid of that thing. I don't trust any technology company owned by China to be able to see into my home.
knowing nothing about the Eufy cameras, pros/cons?
It allows local hosting; however, thumbnails are sent through an unprotected, cloud based server where they were also cached. It was easily hacked a while ago, when someone figured out the file names, and their patch was to make the file names more obscure so they cannot be guessed.
I bought them a couple of years before the hack, and shit hit the fan. All my cams are external, so the privacy aspect isn’t as high as those with them inside a child’s room or elsewhere inside.
not just sent through, but indefinitely stored on the cloud server, despite advertising that it was not cloud-connected. It also generated facial-recognition based IDs for people which was also stored, and every single device could be connected to through an non-authorized connection request from VLC player.
Why is Wired writing about wireless cameras? Stay in your area of expertise!
Of course they are against anything that threatens the dominance of wires.
Read a publisher called Wired
Look inside
No wires…
Tired: wired cameras
Wired: wireless cameras
No matter where you go, everybody's connected.
But it also allows Ring owners to send videos they've captured with their Ring video doorbell cameras and outdoor security cameras to law enforcement. (...) If a crime has been committed, law enforcement should obtain a warrant to access civilian video footage.
This is utter nonsense... Anyone is free to voluntarily provide their own pictures and video to the police. A warrant is so that police can come and take it from you against your will.
That's great, right up until Ring unilaterally decides to give the police access to your videos without a warrant, or when the police use a warrant to grab video from ALL of your cameras, even if you've already complied with their request, and the video is not relevant to their investigation.
That’s great, right up until Ring unilaterally decides to...
Which is a completely different topic than the one I quoted. The article said that equipment owners shouldn't be able to provide their videos to the police without the police first getting a warrant, which is an utterly ridiculous position to take.
OBVIOUSLY the police should have a warrant to get the video without the equipment owner's permission, but that's not what the author said.
Absolutely fair response. I'm sorry that I came across as attacking your point. I just meant to provide another reason why the cameras shouldn't be recommended, using the context of your quote from the article. I'm sorry that I wasn't clear about that.
Got it, my misunderstanding...
And I do agree with your added concern.
Exactly. There are legitimate concerns about whether law enforcement should be able to subpoena "third party" records (including video recordings) with a process less than a full blown warrant supported by probable cause, as determined by a neutral judge, or whether government should be able to compel the retention of records for a later after-the-fact search. That's a discussion worth having.
But voluntarily recording and retaining video means that the person who controls those records can choose to do what they want with it. Imagine if some homeowner had these cameras, and had their own home burglarized, and tried to turn over the video evidence of the crime, but the courts were like "whoa wait did you get a warrant for that?" It doesn't really change anything to have it be cloud hosted, or easily shared with a button, because that "share" functionality works for non-police recipients, too. Doorbell camera footage gets shared all the time on social media, sometimes because it's funny or interesting or otherwise worth viewing.
Reading only the headline I assumed "not recommended because of the invasive Amazon tracking", instead it was "because some owners become vigilantes"...
I am searching also for a camera but I'm not finding it, can someone help me?
What it must be:
Not battery powered
100% offline
No cloud support at all
No subscription
To replace the door peephole
Onvif support or similar so I can use a generic NVR in my own network for recording
A screen on the inside of the door so I can see who's outside (because now the door peephole is replaced by the camera)
Seems impossible to find
I just grabbef a generic IP camera, connected it over ethernet, and firewalled it so it could not make connections out to my home network or the internet. Turns out it just uses an mpeg stream for the video, so recording it is just a matter of running curl on a server. Any network camera that does not depend on a server should work fine for this type of stuff.
Yeah, this. I do the same with my Reolink cameras - block all external access and I use a Frigate docker container to record footage to my storage. Bonus is I have Frigate using a Coral TPU, so it's got some really accurate, and fast, inferencing/recognition baked in.
Could I do this with an RPi 4 B 4GB, I wonder? I’m just About to have mine arrive and I would love to have a couple CCTV cameras in my place.
As long as you are just doing capture and aren't attempting to do anything where a re-encode of the video stream is needed then absolutely. You'll need something other than a microSD card though to write the video too.
Sounds like a job for a raspberry pi.
I’m looking at Ubiquiti’s UniFi doorbell. It’s not cheap, nor really intended for home installation (it’s more like office grade stuff), but I already use their networking kit and run their software.
nice, main drawback is the price (and that's not in stock in my country)
I heard some people on Lemmy talking about foscam for non-cloud cameras. They support onvif. Not sure if they have any in a "door monitor" form factor, though.
Look up the brand Intelbras they have a few residential intercoms that might work for you, I don't know where you are , but i know they exist the US and some parts of Europe and they might be cheaper there since they're a brazillian company (they're the best one we have I think?)
I have their regular câmeras and they fit all our criteria. Ours are online, buy ots by choice it's not a system requirement. At least a few years back a few of those intercoms with screens were compatible with the nvrs i believe.
Besides the privacy aspect of it all, I just know in 5 years they will declare the camera a security problem and shut it off. I want a porch camera that lasts for 20 years.
To be fair, they are a security problem.
What’s the alternative? Some China based brand? I mean seriously they did not name ANY alternatives. I’m an American and would rather be spied on by the home team.
Edit: a user corrected me that there’s a link at the bottom for recommended devices. Thank you.
As an American, surely you should be much more concerned about what the US government can do with your information than what the Chinese government can do with your information.
After Snowden's efforts at showing what America was capable of nearly 10 years ago, I'm not at all interested in letting that country have my data
Ubiquiti, an American company.
Appreciate the response. Checking their privacy settings on the app, Ubiquity seems to be the most privacy conscious.
Ubiquity stuff is entirely on-premises, their (optional) cloud service is strictly for auth and remote access. Highly recommended, not just for the privacy conscious. Their ecosystem is also relatively affordable (compared to Aruba and Ruckus) and a joy to setup and maintain. No subscriptions or recurring fees.
Your footage is also stored locally
Can you reliably make it work without buying their router though?
I've been looking at them for a while but I don't want to be forced into their ecosystem.
You can run UniFi Protect on your own server, or use one of their appliances with it, just not as a router, akin to a Eufy HomeBase.
There is a link in the last paragraph to a whole article about which video doorbells they recommend if you want that.
Appreciate the response and am checking it out.
I have a Reolink doorbell. PoE or wired power, SD card local storage, onvif and rtsp support. There's a cloud (no subscription) but you can disable it if you want. I run it fully local with Home Assistant and Frigate NVR. Works like a charm.
If you’re in the Apple ecosystem, a HomeKit camera would get you nearly all the way. Everything processed locally, no need to turn on iCloud if you don’t want. Your phone would be your peephole.
So what is a good camera system to own? I currently have ADT and I'm really not happy with it. It's expensive and the cameras only record 30 second clips. It can detect motion, it records 30 seconds and that's it, regardless of how long the motion event actually takes.
Example: someone drops off a package and they hang out on my porch - I have no idea what happens after the 30 second mark! It's insane. No way to change this either. The only option is for how long to wait between 30 second clips, and the lowest option is 2 minutes.
As a live DIY system we use Jami (free), laptops, and webcams to monitor our property. We haven't tried recording for extended periods but with enough disk space extended recording could be accomplished.
Reolink or Amcrest or any other Ethernet hardwired ones with NVR that you can host in your house. No WiFi and no third-party/cloud storage ones like Ring or Nest.
ADT sucks for a ton of reasons. Fuck them.
I have Kuna cameras (previous owners installed them) and I hate them. They require a subscription to use security cameras in the way you'd normally use them. For no subscription, any recording only stays for 2 hours then gets deleted. What is the point of cameras if my recording is gone by the time I realize I have that notification? I refuse to pay a subscription to cameras I allegedly bought with the home.
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.