• cley_faye@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 years ago

      It is a bad idea. On one hand, we have the mean to make them quite secure. There is no such thing as an unbreakable encryption, but with proper key management and using decent enough algorithms we can totally do something that puts your camera out of reach of most thing that are not nation-scale organisations. On the other hand, it’s mildly more inconvenient than “installing an app and entering your email”, as it might require stuff like doing a tiny little bit of setting up.

      So, the unsecure/“trust the service” way it is.

      • frododouchebaggins@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 years ago

        What’s the alternative to putting them on the pUbLic InTeRnEt? I pay my ISP $2000 per month for my own private commercial circuit? It’s not a bad idea because there is no reasonable alternative. Risk mitigation is the key, as you seem to be aware.

        • cley_faye@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 years ago

          It’s a bad idea because of the de-facto “requirement” that people want everything available everywhere with zero setup, causing cheap, completely insecure solution to become the norm. Just don’t use “cloud-based, app-enabled zero-config ultra easy trust me bro I know what I’m doing” camera and get proper stuff that allows you to control what goes where and use decent encryption.

    • TORFdot0@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 years ago

      I’d argue that it’s more convenient to have clouds connect for recording and storage purposes but so many cameras come with SD cards built in now that the cloud storage isn’t even really an advantage anymore either.

  • Archer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    ·
    3 years ago

    If you weren’t getting rid of Wyze devices before the Wyzecam v1 fiasco where they lied, this is a great time to do so. Unplug your Wyze stuff and hit 'em right in the metrics

  • Knusper@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    3 years ago

    If you’re incapable of building a secure service, maybe you shouldn’t be routing people’s camera feeds through that service.

  • irotsoma@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    3 years ago

    This is why I’d never use a hosted service for interior cameras, only exterior ones.

  • tabular@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 years ago

    They don’t own the ones they paid for either, someone else is in control…

    • PFShady@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 years ago

      I’ve been using Amcrest cameras with Frigate and a Coral USB. It’s been working perfectly. My cameras are on a VLAN with no Internet access and it hasn’t caused any issues.

    • mob@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 years ago

      Is the Pi4 on sale still around the 100$ mark?

      I’d love another Pi at the original.prices

    • AArun@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 years ago

      I’ve been partial to amcrest they’re affordable and “us” based even though they’re rebranded dahua cameras. Everything I’ve read says they’re compatible with frigate and even home assistant if you plan to use that as well. I’ve been trying to do a similar setup for myself.