Disclaimer: Apple employee, but not working on anything related to this.
You can achieve a privacy focused solution by doing the processing localy. I am looking forward to more HomeKit Secure Video compatible hardware becoming available. The idea is to process the video feed locally on an Apple TV or iPad, and then send notifications to your iPhone. An encrypted video can be uploaded to iCloud upon detecting some motion.
Also... with the photo library available on the Apple TV, I guess face detection in the video feed might be possible in the future.
Processing on local devices is slightly better but ultimately it’s cold comfort when those devices are locked down, closed source, and opaque to anyone but hackers.
From the end customer perspective, the only protection was Apple’s customer-focused business model, which is now slowly tilting from “sell slick technology products” to “monetize the user base.”
Another solution is needed. Since I created Dropcam (Nest cam), I am working on fixing this: send us a message at https://duffy.org if you want to learn more.
Hmm... this is interesting. I would like to learn more about how this works, given apple's history, my guess is they won't advertise such solutions until they have either developed their own camera, or have struck some deal with a 3rd party. I'd still likely plunk down the inflated price if their privacy model was actually proven.
I've looked into flashing a CFW on a cheap Xaomi ip camera, running ZoneMinder and a NAS for storage and backups and whatnot, and while setting all this up is pretty trivial, I feel like I'd be better off just paying for a commercial system rather than administering my own. But then you look into the security practices in such systems and well, lets just say, off the shelf isn't really a great option either.
I am seeing increasing numbers of these types of articles, but I don't know how I feel. First of all, many of them, like this one, seem to conflate two separate issues: poor security practices and then the dystopic, surveillance concerns. I don't see the two being particularly related.
I absolutely agree that Ring products should have better security features like required 2FA. But I'm not sold on the idea of our society becoming a surveillance state because people have video doorbells. It seems like a stretch and one that is born out of a tendency for people to see all technology as "the thing" that will be what ends our society and ushers in a 1984-esque dystopia. I'm skeptical.
I don't have to be convinced that I shouldn't be trusting Amazon or Google with my best interests. But I don't see how security cameras, or at least the video doorbells, are more dangerous than all of the other things we've just already accepted, like constant tracking of our positions via smartphones and our online browsing habits.
"First of all, many of them, like this one, seem to conflate two separate issues: poor security practices and then the dystopic, surveillance concerns. I don't see the two being particularly related."
Since the poor security practices have led to people getting spied upon and harassed, those poor security practices are clearly related to dystopic surveillance concerns.
The article also directly addresses larger issues than poor security practices. Two examples:
"And Amazon's surveillance doorbell cameras are just the start: The company is selling a multitude of other gadgets equipped with microphones, cameras and sensors, all designed to gather enormous amounts of data, which Amazon refines -- like crude oil -- into power and profit. Alexa, the company's "home assistant," is constantly listening and explosive investigations revealed that Amazon employees have also listened, via Alexa, not just to private conversations, but also to deeply intimate moments such as couples having sex or kids singing in the shower. Amazon even marketed its microphone-enabled Echo Dot Kids directly to children."
"Amazon devices aren't just giving hackers and Amazon employees an eye or an ear into our homes. The company has also partnered with more than 600 police departments across the country to tap into the surveillance network its customers are creating for them, developing a seamless process for government agents to request footage from tens of thousands of Ring cameras without warrants or any judicial oversight."
Sounds like there’s a logical fallacy in there somewhere. Death by 1000 cuts? Isn’t that how we got into the current situation — by slowly giving up privacy one step at a time?
With a phone, I can at least make the choice whether to track myself or not (by using the phone). With a doorbell cam, now you’re involving everyone in your neighborhood. They don’t have a choice.
I have no doubt someone is going to say that those people are in a public space, but there there is a huge difference between the theoretical concept of being in public, and the actual reality of public spaces being under video surveillance 24x7.
Have you not heard that Amazon has been partnering with local law enforcement to give them access to a bunch of cameras? It’s not about just giving your data to Amazon or Google anymore.
Also, in the US, there is the Third Party Doctrine. Any data you give to a third party can be given to the government without any Fourth Amendment protections. By using these services you are giving up your Constitutional rights.
People don't really grok the problems of things like web access or location privacy because they don't understand what that kind of privacy means.
They've seldom had access to their own data at all (or at least a clear view of it), nor have most suffered with snoopy busybodies with access to it... nor have they had that data about other people.
But for Cameras that record video (and maybe sound) people have a much more visceral understanding of the privacy consequences even though audio/video is often _less_ of a wide scale privacy problem than web access data, location, or phone/email metadata (because of the logistics about manipulating and analyzing that data).
But whatever. Just because people should care a lot more about their other (web/geo/meta)data than they do, doesn't mean that A/V privacy isn't a huge deal. If we, as technologists and experts, can manage to motivate the public on this issue we should do so. Advancement on this front will make success easier on others. Failure on this front-- where people do have an innate understanding of the privacy problems will bode very poorly for areas where they do not.
Consider two scenarios:
1. Your neighbor buys an Alexa for their house. Now Amazon gets to learn all about your neighbor's private conversations. Your neighbor is presumably OK with this, or possibly unaware, but either way their decisions only affect them.
2. Your neighbor buys a Ring. Now it's you who are being monitored. Amazon will learn details about you and anyone who comes to visit you, and they will profit from it. (Also they will share the details with law enforcement.)
The current big tech companies have established a new business model based on two important facts: your time/attention/data are valuable to them, and you are encouraged to give them your time/attention/data for free. You should have the right to not do business with Amazon, in exactly the same way that you should have the right to not do business with, for example, a fast-food place you don't like. But anyone who lives near a Ring owner is going to be contributing to Amazon's business, whether they want to or not.
None of my neighbors have Rings yet. I'm going to have a talk with them the first time I see one get put up.
> not sold on the idea of our society becoming a surveillance state
If the police can access them without warrant and even promote the devices on their twitter accounts? I am completely sold on it.
I am more skeptical about calling door bells with cameras a technological innovation or progress.
> things we've just already accepted, like constant tracking of our positions via smartphones and our online browsing habits.
I don't think people have accepted being tracked 24/7. I know plenty of people that actively use guards against these practices and that isn't restricted to technically inclinded personalities. It is just that legislative powers seem to be sleeping. But accepting invasions of privacy as inevitable is certainly a dystopian development.
>> But I don't see how security cameras, or at least the video doorbells, are more dangerous than all of the other things we've just already accepted, like constant tracking of our positions via smartphones and our online browsing habits.
Nothing personal, but I can't fathom such naive viewpoints in this day & age, specially as a parent. One of the many stories: "Man hacks Ring camera in 8-year-old girl's bedroom, taunts her: 'I'm Santa Claus' " https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/man-hacks-ring-camera-8...
I was pretty unconcerned until I saw https://www.insecam.org/ which really disturbed me. The dystopia might just arise from cheap cameras, fast networks, and no commercial interest in security.
Privacy isn’t a huge concern in a free society, which is likely why none of us really care. But imagine having those systems in a country where having a specific opinion, or sexuality could result in a death penalty.
You wouldn’t want to be filmed sneaking into your lovers house in such an area, and you really wouldn’t want to be overheard.
In the west, it’s much more a question of what you want companies to know about you, than what you have to hide. But we haven’t always been free. Imagine planning a revolution to overthrow a despot with the current level of surveillance.
> But I don't see how security cameras, or at least the video doorbells, are more dangerous than all of the other things we've just already accepted, like constant tracking of our positions via smartphones and our online browsing habits.
Things add up, that's all.
Before, you had the danger to personally be tracked in an area around you and listened to.
Now you add a device that can get sound, image and movement of anybody in a zone, and possibly extrapolate their position and potentially face recognition.
The phone story is bad, very bad. But at least we can switch it off, not take it with us, etc. When you walk in the street in front of those camera, you have no choice but to be spied on.
The sum of all the phones + smart speakers + e-health devices + Ring-like products has a deadly potential for democracy. Their coverage is monumental.
Right now we feel like the benefits are huge, and the cost minimal: most people are not affected in their daily life by the surveillance, or at least not in a way that is annoying enough. So we accept it.
But the issue is not about what it does right no. Just like climate change, it's about what it can do in the future.
I just find it bizarre that it's people's doorbells that somehow seems to have been the triggering point, and not the billion or so closed-circuit surveillance cameras already deployed. Of all the cameras to complain about, seeing who is at your front door is, IMO, the least possibly offensive.
People seem all too willing to trade their privacy for inexpensive convenience and novelty. Although they probably don't view it that way.
In any case, Google, Amazon and the like are chipping away at peoples desire for privacy and soon, I imagine privacy will be viewed as a quaint notion from the past. All this just to sell us more stuff.
Folks spend countless hours manually entering their private data into sites like Facebook and LinkedIn too. In the myopic vein of “just to sell is more stuff” they’re doing it just to look at ads.
I’m not saying I endorse either (I personally do neither), but folks to seem to get more out of these cameras and social media sites than just the return the companies providing them get.
> I imagine privacy will be viewed as a quaint notion from the past
This has been going on for some time. Do you imagine a respectable person from the past allow his wife to be groped by a stranger before entering the train? Yet, this is totally acceptable with airplanes.
I own a couple of Arlo cameras that I bought 3 years ago. They still offer free cloud storage because I'm an old customer, so it's kind of a good deal. I only turn them on when I'm out of town. They have a separate router, so it's a little bit harder to hack than Ring.
I wish, however, there was an affordable DIY solution to home cameras. And yet, I still couldn't find a setup that is completely open-source and/or provides me enough freedom. Has anyone started digging into this?
"Because it's convenient" is the main excuse I hear for excessive plastic packaging, disposable everything, taking a 3 hr drive instead of a 4 hr train/transit ride, posting to Facebook instead of your own blog, placing voice-"activated" spy devices in your home.
I do many "inconvenient" things these days. It takes more time to make better and more informed decisions about products you use/buy or organizations you support rather than simply buy by habit.
It can be more expensive to buy locally produced and environmentally friendly products rather than something mass-produced or coming from the other side of the world.
It is more inconvenient to carry your own bags and bottles rather than simply buying single-use items and throwing them away.
And on and on.
I'm happy to make these compromises but the system we've built where the better choices are more inconvenient certainly doesn't help us reach the goals we need.
I had bought an Echo Dot sometimes back. I had decided I'll use it judiciously. After I acceded my past recording (all of it) on Alexa app and heard some of them I just packed it away.
I also have a Smart TV. Of Vu brand - https://www.vutvs.com - quite famous in India and apparently a California company. I don't even know whether they listen in the background. I tried looking for documents related to that and talking to the customer care but they were clueless. They would get stuck at repeating "do you want to schedule a repair?".
I like my Eufy Cam. The video lives on an SD card in my house. NSA probably still watches it, but at least it's not every other Google/Amazon employee.
What I don’t understand is why people are putting internet connected cameras INSIDE their house. How do indoor cameras, that catch somebody already inside your house, make you safer? Why not just get door and window sensors? Outdoor cameras make a bit more sense but a hacker could still use info about when you are home or similar against you.
> why people are putting internet connected cameras INSIDE their house
- To monitor the animals in the house
- To get alerts if a smoke alarm goes off
- In case of break in, to capture the person's face and get a notification
- Access historical and real-time feed to check when <event> happened
- Etc
In an apartment with no other security system, a single indoors camera can do these. (In a house, you're better off with a complete security system since you have control over both indoor and outdoor configuration of your residence.)
The alternative is time consuming and potentially less secure, though much more fun to play with:
- Set up a raspberry pi-based camera system that can be scaled to multiple cameras and sensors
- Set up an raspberry pi NextCloud instance for the cameras to save their feeds to
- Set up an ML algorithm to recognize faces, animals, and types of noises
- Set up a Twilio instance to send SMS notifications
- Set up a mail server to send email notifications
- Set up a back up system in case the sdcard on one of the raspberry pis gets corrupted
- Set up a Home Assistant instance to control the cameras etc
- Set up an Auth mechanism for your residents and guests to control the IoTs
- Harden any systems that are exposed to the internet as a result of this set up
Getting a vpn, using a niche browser and binning your smart phone are the only ways you get privacy. Complaining about nest and ring is "picking out a natt and swallowing a camel".
> In his book “1984,” George Orwell imagined that Big Brother-type surveillance would be imposed on us by a violent state
as predicted by william gibson, corporations are becoming more powerful than states and the oppressive state in 1984 is more likely to be a corporation as time progresses
also the "violent" is redundant as "state" already includes some form of violence
The largest corporations have been more powerful than small states for centuries. The Dutch East India company, the United Fruit Company, various mining conglomerates. DEI was straight up put in charge of nations, complete with a military force. UFC had governments overthrown and didn't even try to hide it. They're better at PR now so their machinations aren't as proudly displayed, but if a major natural resource company wants to operate in a small, less-powerful nation, they're going to get their way, just as they have for centuries.
It really seems like there's a viable niche for a privacy focused line of digital assistants, cameras, doorbells, thermometers, etc. Honeywell, for example, seems to do well with their learning thermostat. You'll never own the bigger market, but there does seem to be an opportunity.
The niche of people who actually care about privacy is vanishingly small, and I would hazard a guess that it overlaps strongly with the niche of people who would buy a raspberry pi to tinker with.
At this point, we're better off rolling our own with cheap CMOS camera modules, IR LEDs, 3d printed enclosures, arduinos, and rpis. Perhaps there's room in the market for a few people to do this as a side hustle, and sell completed boxes with software for those who don't have time to build their own, but likely not much more than that.
Alternatively, any decent A/V store will still sell you wired cameras and base stations that don't connect to the Internet at all. Then your inconvenience is fishing coax or cat5 through the walls of your house.
It's a niche, but I doubt if it's viable. The segment of people who care enough about privacy to pay for it (VPN or Fastmail/Protonmail for example), is likely to overlap with the segment of people who claim they could reverse-engineer your solution with a Raspberry Pi over a couple of weekends.
Maybe not, but many of your neighbors, the police (via ubiquitous public space abuse), every store, every mode of public transportation, and an increasing number of automobiles are all pointing cameras at you, whether you like it or not, and companies like Amazon in particular are actively seeking to aid law enforcement access to all these devices. It's not like you can opt out just because you haven't installed one in your own home.
[+] [-] mh8h|6 years ago|reply
You can achieve a privacy focused solution by doing the processing localy. I am looking forward to more HomeKit Secure Video compatible hardware becoming available. The idea is to process the video feed locally on an Apple TV or iPad, and then send notifications to your iPhone. An encrypted video can be uploaded to iCloud upon detecting some motion.
Also... with the photo library available on the Apple TV, I guess face detection in the video feed might be possible in the future.
[+] [-] gduffy|6 years ago|reply
Processing on local devices is slightly better but ultimately it’s cold comfort when those devices are locked down, closed source, and opaque to anyone but hackers.
From the end customer perspective, the only protection was Apple’s customer-focused business model, which is now slowly tilting from “sell slick technology products” to “monetize the user base.”
Another solution is needed. Since I created Dropcam (Nest cam), I am working on fixing this: send us a message at https://duffy.org if you want to learn more.
[+] [-] ezzzzz|6 years ago|reply
I've looked into flashing a CFW on a cheap Xaomi ip camera, running ZoneMinder and a NAS for storage and backups and whatnot, and while setting all this up is pretty trivial, I feel like I'd be better off just paying for a commercial system rather than administering my own. But then you look into the security practices in such systems and well, lets just say, off the shelf isn't really a great option either.
[+] [-] bart_spoon|6 years ago|reply
I absolutely agree that Ring products should have better security features like required 2FA. But I'm not sold on the idea of our society becoming a surveillance state because people have video doorbells. It seems like a stretch and one that is born out of a tendency for people to see all technology as "the thing" that will be what ends our society and ushers in a 1984-esque dystopia. I'm skeptical.
I don't have to be convinced that I shouldn't be trusting Amazon or Google with my best interests. But I don't see how security cameras, or at least the video doorbells, are more dangerous than all of the other things we've just already accepted, like constant tracking of our positions via smartphones and our online browsing habits.
Perhaps I'm wrong, I suppose time will tell.
[+] [-] pmoriarty|6 years ago|reply
Since the poor security practices have led to people getting spied upon and harassed, those poor security practices are clearly related to dystopic surveillance concerns.
The article also directly addresses larger issues than poor security practices. Two examples:
"And Amazon's surveillance doorbell cameras are just the start: The company is selling a multitude of other gadgets equipped with microphones, cameras and sensors, all designed to gather enormous amounts of data, which Amazon refines -- like crude oil -- into power and profit. Alexa, the company's "home assistant," is constantly listening and explosive investigations revealed that Amazon employees have also listened, via Alexa, not just to private conversations, but also to deeply intimate moments such as couples having sex or kids singing in the shower. Amazon even marketed its microphone-enabled Echo Dot Kids directly to children."
"Amazon devices aren't just giving hackers and Amazon employees an eye or an ear into our homes. The company has also partnered with more than 600 police departments across the country to tap into the surveillance network its customers are creating for them, developing a seamless process for government agents to request footage from tens of thousands of Ring cameras without warrants or any judicial oversight."
[+] [-] orev|6 years ago|reply
With a phone, I can at least make the choice whether to track myself or not (by using the phone). With a doorbell cam, now you’re involving everyone in your neighborhood. They don’t have a choice.
I have no doubt someone is going to say that those people are in a public space, but there there is a huge difference between the theoretical concept of being in public, and the actual reality of public spaces being under video surveillance 24x7.
Have you not heard that Amazon has been partnering with local law enforcement to give them access to a bunch of cameras? It’s not about just giving your data to Amazon or Google anymore.
Also, in the US, there is the Third Party Doctrine. Any data you give to a third party can be given to the government without any Fourth Amendment protections. By using these services you are giving up your Constitutional rights.
[+] [-] nullc|6 years ago|reply
They've seldom had access to their own data at all (or at least a clear view of it), nor have most suffered with snoopy busybodies with access to it... nor have they had that data about other people.
But for Cameras that record video (and maybe sound) people have a much more visceral understanding of the privacy consequences even though audio/video is often _less_ of a wide scale privacy problem than web access data, location, or phone/email metadata (because of the logistics about manipulating and analyzing that data).
But whatever. Just because people should care a lot more about their other (web/geo/meta)data than they do, doesn't mean that A/V privacy isn't a huge deal. If we, as technologists and experts, can manage to motivate the public on this issue we should do so. Advancement on this front will make success easier on others. Failure on this front-- where people do have an innate understanding of the privacy problems will bode very poorly for areas where they do not.
[+] [-] WolfeReader|6 years ago|reply
The current big tech companies have established a new business model based on two important facts: your time/attention/data are valuable to them, and you are encouraged to give them your time/attention/data for free. You should have the right to not do business with Amazon, in exactly the same way that you should have the right to not do business with, for example, a fast-food place you don't like. But anyone who lives near a Ring owner is going to be contributing to Amazon's business, whether they want to or not.
None of my neighbors have Rings yet. I'm going to have a talk with them the first time I see one get put up.
[+] [-] raxxorrax|6 years ago|reply
If the police can access them without warrant and even promote the devices on their twitter accounts? I am completely sold on it.
I am more skeptical about calling door bells with cameras a technological innovation or progress.
> things we've just already accepted, like constant tracking of our positions via smartphones and our online browsing habits.
I don't think people have accepted being tracked 24/7. I know plenty of people that actively use guards against these practices and that isn't restricted to technically inclinded personalities. It is just that legislative powers seem to be sleeping. But accepting invasions of privacy as inevitable is certainly a dystopian development.
[+] [-] nreece|6 years ago|reply
Nothing personal, but I can't fathom such naive viewpoints in this day & age, specially as a parent. One of the many stories: "Man hacks Ring camera in 8-year-old girl's bedroom, taunts her: 'I'm Santa Claus' " https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/man-hacks-ring-camera-8...
[+] [-] mentat|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] moksly|6 years ago|reply
You wouldn’t want to be filmed sneaking into your lovers house in such an area, and you really wouldn’t want to be overheard.
In the west, it’s much more a question of what you want companies to know about you, than what you have to hide. But we haven’t always been free. Imagine planning a revolution to overthrow a despot with the current level of surveillance.
[+] [-] BiteCode_dev|6 years ago|reply
Things add up, that's all.
Before, you had the danger to personally be tracked in an area around you and listened to.
Now you add a device that can get sound, image and movement of anybody in a zone, and possibly extrapolate their position and potentially face recognition.
The phone story is bad, very bad. But at least we can switch it off, not take it with us, etc. When you walk in the street in front of those camera, you have no choice but to be spied on.
The sum of all the phones + smart speakers + e-health devices + Ring-like products has a deadly potential for democracy. Their coverage is monumental.
Right now we feel like the benefits are huge, and the cost minimal: most people are not affected in their daily life by the surveillance, or at least not in a way that is annoying enough. So we accept it.
But the issue is not about what it does right no. Just like climate change, it's about what it can do in the future.
[+] [-] Baeocystin|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bbmario|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ropiwqefjnpoa|6 years ago|reply
In any case, Google, Amazon and the like are chipping away at peoples desire for privacy and soon, I imagine privacy will be viewed as a quaint notion from the past. All this just to sell us more stuff.
[+] [-] RijilV|6 years ago|reply
I’m not saying I endorse either (I personally do neither), but folks to seem to get more out of these cameras and social media sites than just the return the companies providing them get.
[+] [-] drukenemo|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fierarul|6 years ago|reply
This has been going on for some time. Do you imagine a respectable person from the past allow his wife to be groped by a stranger before entering the train? Yet, this is totally acceptable with airplanes.
[+] [-] bbmario|6 years ago|reply
I wish, however, there was an affordable DIY solution to home cameras. And yet, I still couldn't find a setup that is completely open-source and/or provides me enough freedom. Has anyone started digging into this?
[+] [-] glaslong|6 years ago|reply
https://randomnerdtutorials.com/esp32-cam-video-streaming-we...
[+] [-] sirmoveon|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MandieD|6 years ago|reply
"Because it's convenient" is the main excuse I hear for excessive plastic packaging, disposable everything, taking a 3 hr drive instead of a 4 hr train/transit ride, posting to Facebook instead of your own blog, placing voice-"activated" spy devices in your home.
I'm coming to despise that word.
[+] [-] markosaric|6 years ago|reply
I do many "inconvenient" things these days. It takes more time to make better and more informed decisions about products you use/buy or organizations you support rather than simply buy by habit.
It can be more expensive to buy locally produced and environmentally friendly products rather than something mass-produced or coming from the other side of the world.
It is more inconvenient to carry your own bags and bottles rather than simply buying single-use items and throwing them away.
And on and on.
I'm happy to make these compromises but the system we've built where the better choices are more inconvenient certainly doesn't help us reach the goals we need.
[+] [-] balladeer|6 years ago|reply
I also have a Smart TV. Of Vu brand - https://www.vutvs.com - quite famous in India and apparently a California company. I don't even know whether they listen in the background. I tried looking for documents related to that and talking to the customer care but they were clueless. They would get stuck at repeating "do you want to schedule a repair?".
[+] [-] arkanciscan|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bbmario|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oxymoran|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bobongo|6 years ago|reply
- To monitor the animals in the house
- To get alerts if a smoke alarm goes off
- In case of break in, to capture the person's face and get a notification
- Access historical and real-time feed to check when <event> happened
- Etc
In an apartment with no other security system, a single indoors camera can do these. (In a house, you're better off with a complete security system since you have control over both indoor and outdoor configuration of your residence.)
The alternative is time consuming and potentially less secure, though much more fun to play with:
- Set up a raspberry pi-based camera system that can be scaled to multiple cameras and sensors
- Set up an raspberry pi NextCloud instance for the cameras to save their feeds to
- Set up an ML algorithm to recognize faces, animals, and types of noises
- Set up a Twilio instance to send SMS notifications
- Set up a mail server to send email notifications
- Set up a back up system in case the sdcard on one of the raspberry pis gets corrupted
- Set up a Home Assistant instance to control the cameras etc
- Set up an Auth mechanism for your residents and guests to control the IoTs
- Harden any systems that are exposed to the internet as a result of this set up
[+] [-] LatteLazy|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brosinante|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whitebread|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ptah|6 years ago|reply
as predicted by william gibson, corporations are becoming more powerful than states and the oppressive state in 1984 is more likely to be a corporation as time progresses
also the "violent" is redundant as "state" already includes some form of violence
[+] [-] caymanjim|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fyfy18|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tyingq|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] daxorid|6 years ago|reply
At this point, we're better off rolling our own with cheap CMOS camera modules, IR LEDs, 3d printed enclosures, arduinos, and rpis. Perhaps there's room in the market for a few people to do this as a side hustle, and sell completed boxes with software for those who don't have time to build their own, but likely not much more than that.
Alternatively, any decent A/V store will still sell you wired cameras and base stations that don't connect to the Internet at all. Then your inconvenience is fishing coax or cat5 through the walls of your house.
[+] [-] rchaud|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] onreact|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tyingq|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] workthrowaway|6 years ago|reply
btw did you know that grep (as in the unix tool) is in the dictionary? it even says it comes from the operating system.
[+] [-] RickJWagner|6 years ago|reply
I think there's a market for an upgrade that uses recognition software to see the home owners, then omit them from tracking.
Only the bad guys get 'tracked'. Sounds better.
[+] [-] Calashle0202|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] DrivebyPoster|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rasvj|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] caymanjim|6 years ago|reply