4 ms·

> Video cameras should make a local recording that can be checked for the next few weeks if a crime occurs, but should not allow remote viewing without physical

by zzzeek 9y ago

> Video cameras should make a local recording that can be checked for the next few weeks if a crime occurs, but should not allow remote viewing without physical collection of the recording. it would suck if the terrorist bomb also took out the cameras themselves. I have cameras at my house wired to a local unit. It's mostly for convenience and looking for animals and not very serious for security; any well-respecting house prowler would want to take the recording unit from my server area so that I wouldn't have any video of who broke into my house.

LinuxBender 9y ago
The data could be stored encrypted on a VM and cycled off after {n} hours. With the right codecs and encryption, you could likely store a couple days of motion on a small amount of storage. If uploaded in chunks, you might miss a couple minutes prior to the unit being destroyed. I suppose protecting your internet uplink becomes important at this point.
- QasimK 9y ago
  Just store the encrypted files in AWS S3 (or equivalent)?
  - LinuxBender 9y ago
    That works too. And maybe use ffmpeg to encode + 7-zip (p7zip 7za on linux) to encrypt and name the chunks based on date in a programmatic / deterministic manor.
  - zzzeek 9y ago
    then I can view the recordings remotely without physical collection of the recordings, exactly what RMS proposes should be illegal.
mseebach 9y ago
That's awfully close to movie plot threat thinking. Put your NAS in a secure back room and you're going to be fine for practically every scenario short of a 9/11 scale attack. And if you insist, just save your recordings to an off-site location. I'm pretty sure RMS is cool with co-located servers, as long as you control them.
- zzzeek 9y ago
  > I'm pretty sure RMS is cool with co-located servers, as long as you control them. that wasn't my reading of what he wrote. He wrote, "should not allow remote viewing without physical collection of the recording.". If a town has security cameras all over the town, and they all transmit recordings to a co-located server facility, there's no reason to physically collect anything - anyone with access to the servers can easily collect surveillance of the whole town for no reason. > Put your NAS in a secure back room and you're going to be fine for practically every scenario short of a 9/11 scale attack. Security camera systems are hoped to be useful in the event of a 9/11 scale attack, which has actually occurred, as well as any large-scale bomb attack that might destroy an entire facility, or may have the vault with the servers buried under tons of rubble where one needs the footage a lot quicker than that.

by zzzeek 9y ago

LinuxBender 9y ago

The data could be stored encrypted on a VM and cycled off after {n} hours. With the right codecs and encryption, you could likely store a couple days of motion on a small amount of storage. If uploaded in chunks, you might miss a couple minutes prior to the unit being destroyed. I suppose protecting your internet uplink becomes important at this point.

QasimK 9y ago
Just store the encrypted files in AWS S3 (or equivalent)?
- LinuxBender 9y ago
  That works too. And maybe use ffmpeg to encode + 7-zip (p7zip 7za on linux) to encrypt and name the chunks based on date in a programmatic / deterministic manor.
- zzzeek 9y ago
  then I can view the recordings remotely without physical collection of the recordings, exactly what RMS proposes should be illegal.

mseebach 9y ago

That's awfully close to movie plot threat thinking. Put your NAS in a secure back room and you're going to be fine for practically every scenario short of a 9/11 scale attack. And if you insist, just save your recordings to an off-site location. I'm pretty sure RMS is cool with co-located servers, as long as you control them.

zzzeek 9y ago
> I'm pretty sure RMS is cool with co-located servers, as long as you control them. that wasn't my reading of what he wrote. He wrote, "should not allow remote viewing without physical collection of the recording.". If a town has security cameras all over the town, and they all transmit recordings to a co-located server facility, there's no reason to physically collect anything - anyone with access to the servers can easily collect surveillance of the whole town for no reason. > Put your NAS in a secure back room and you're going to be fine for practically every scenario short of a 9/11 scale attack. Security camera systems are hoped to be useful in the event of a 9/11 scale attack, which has actually occurred, as well as any large-scale bomb attack that might destroy an entire facility, or may have the vault with the servers buried under tons of rubble where one needs the footage a lot quicker than that.