They’re affordable and ubiquitous, but homeowners shouldn’t be able to act as vigilantes.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I think this comment was supposed to be a reply to you. Just a heads up in case you haven’t seen it since they seem to have accidentally made a top level comment instead of a direct reply to yours. Whoops!
https://kbin.social/m/technology@beehaw.org/t/230158/-/comment/991728
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.
Amcrest is what I inherited when I purchases my house. Just know they really don’t support their older stuff at all. My NVR is inaccessible from any modern web browser, and Amcrest has no plans to update the firmware (latest version from 2018) AND ignored my questions in email when I wanted to verify the latest firmware for my model number since it didn’t appear on their site at all.
That said, the cameras are great and the system works well, its just not as simple compared to newer solutions.
Yeah, Amcrest NVR software sucks. Reliable cameras though.
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.
I have blink cameras on solar panels that work pretty well as a mostly “no wires” solution. The motion detection can be a bit slow, but they do everything I need.
ADT is the worst. I have a Ring camera, I know, I know. It as before I knew of all this. But it works and keeps my house safer.
