4 ms·

>Of course the makers claim this is so you can watch from anywhere, but a lot of those old "dumb"(?) IP cameras could be configured to upload video to a remote

>Of course the makers claim this is so you can watch from anywhere, but a lot of those old "dumb"(?) IP cameras could be configured to upload video to a remote server if you wanted, and one under your control. The average consumer doesn't have a remote server or the knowledge to set one up.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
csydas 8y ago
> The average consumer doesn't have a remote server or the knowledge to set one up. Which is fine to say, but doesn't really address the main issue of the IoT Cameras and honestly comes off as exploitative as an excuse. Just because something provides a convenient service does not mean it should get a free pass on basic and reasonable security precautions, nor should it be able to exfiltrate data, much less in a lazy way. To be 100% clear, I'm not meaning to put words in the parent's mouth; I understand that the statement is just a factual statement that most people don't know how to set up a remote server. However, small SOC boards have never been cheaper and continue to grow cheaper; a "remote server" to feed data to can be bundled easily at extremely low cost to the manufacturer, let the user provide their own storage, and then work on making the discovery experience elegant. (Plug in the cameras and the SOC box close to one another. Plug the SOC Box into a monitor/TV. Follow the on-screen prompts to discover the local WiFi and Cameras and connect all of them) Apple has found ways to make their wireless vision almost complete; setting up remote printers, connecting via Airdrop, etc, is all fairly close to elegant with some minor bumps. Xiaomi's line of hardware ties in neatly to Mi-Life fairly well also and discovery is easy (though the actual connectivity is in dire need of work). The idea that consumers need to let their data be exfiltrated due to lack of knowledge is silly; there are numerous examples on how to do it right, and the tech has never been more ready.
- c12 8y ago
  This is far more eloquent than my reply. +1
c12 8y ago
> The average consumer doesn't have a remote server or the knowledge to set one up. The average consumer doesn't need a remote server or the knowledge to set one up, just a plug and play device that works. IP cameras don't need to stream to some cloud service, you could have a plug and play consumer "home cloud" set up that allows the user to keep control of their data 100%. A while ago there used to be almost plug and play IP camera set ups. Plug this box into your router and these cameras into that box. The box could be logged into remotely and had both a web based interface and mobile app. I used this in a number of installs were the mostly computer illiterate clients wanted to be able to check up on their horses, or home or work premises (or all three) from their phone or laptop as well as review footage from months ago. It feels weird to me that people feel comfortable in transmitting what can be very personal and private feeds into the ether and if more average consumers were less ignorant of the risks there would be more consumer pressure for cloud-less set ups.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

csydas 8y ago

> The average consumer doesn't have a remote server or the knowledge to set one up. Which is fine to say, but doesn't really address the main issue of the IoT Cameras and honestly comes off as exploitative as an excuse. Just because something provides a convenient service does not mean it should get a free pass on basic and reasonable security precautions, nor should it be able to exfiltrate data, much less in a lazy way. To be 100% clear, I'm not meaning to put words in the parent's mouth; I understand that the statement is just a factual statement that most people don't know how to set up a remote server. However, small SOC boards have never been cheaper and continue to grow cheaper; a "remote server" to feed data to can be bundled easily at extremely low cost to the manufacturer, let the user provide their own storage, and then work on making the discovery experience elegant. (Plug in the cameras and the SOC box close to one another. Plug the SOC Box into a monitor/TV. Follow the on-screen prompts to discover the local WiFi and Cameras and connect all of them) Apple has found ways to make their wireless vision almost complete; setting up remote printers, connecting via Airdrop, etc, is all fairly close to elegant with some minor bumps. Xiaomi's line of hardware ties in neatly to Mi-Life fairly well also and discovery is easy (though the actual connectivity is in dire need of work). The idea that consumers need to let their data be exfiltrated due to lack of knowledge is silly; there are numerous examples on how to do it right, and the tech has never been more ready.

c12 8y ago
This is far more eloquent than my reply. +1

c12 8y ago

> The average consumer doesn't have a remote server or the knowledge to set one up. The average consumer doesn't need a remote server or the knowledge to set one up, just a plug and play device that works. IP cameras don't need to stream to some cloud service, you could have a plug and play consumer "home cloud" set up that allows the user to keep control of their data 100%. A while ago there used to be almost plug and play IP camera set ups. Plug this box into your router and these cameras into that box. The box could be logged into remotely and had both a web based interface and mobile app. I used this in a number of installs were the mostly computer illiterate clients wanted to be able to check up on their horses, or home or work premises (or all three) from their phone or laptop as well as review footage from months ago. It feels weird to me that people feel comfortable in transmitting what can be very personal and private feeds into the ether and if more average consumers were less ignorant of the risks there would be more consumer pressure for cloud-less set ups.