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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Sounds like a job for a raspberry pi.
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.
i’m also thinking to just take a cheap reolink and put over the door - but it would be cooler if there was a screen inside that turns on when someone is detected outside (even by an ultra cheap PIR sensor, don’t need sophisticated AI recognition stuff)
do bees be?
-
