Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Crime Wireless Networking Networking Security

Wi-Fi Jamming To Knock Out Cameras Suspected In Nine Minnesota Burglaries (tomshardware.com) 174

Mark Tyson reports via Tom's Hardware: A serial burglar in Edina, Minnesota is suspected of using a Wi-Fi jammer to knock out connected security cameras before stealing and making off with the victim's prized possessions. [...] Edina police suspect that nine burglaries in the last six months have been undertaken with Wi-Fi jammer(s) deployed to ensure incriminating video evidence wasnâ(TM)t available to investigators. The modus operandi of the thief or thieves is thought to be something like this:

- Homes in affluent areas are found - Burglars carefully watch the homes - The burglars avoid confrontation, so appear to wait until homes are empty - Seizing the opportunity of an empty home, the burglars will deploy Wi-Fi jammer(s) - "Safes, jewelry, and other high-end designer items," are usually taken

A security expert interviewed by the source publication, KARE11, explained that the jammers simply confused wireless devices rather than blocking signals. They usually work by overloading wireless traffic âoeso that real traffic cannot get through,â the news site was told. [...] Worryingly, Wi-Fi jamming is almost a trivial activity for potential thieves in 2024. KARE11 notes that it could buy jammers online very easily and cheaply, with prices ranging from $40 to $1,000. Jammers are not legal to use in the U.S. but they are very easy to buy online.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wi-Fi Jamming To Knock Out Cameras Suspected In Nine Minnesota Burglaries

Comments Filter:
  • by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Wednesday February 14, 2024 @05:05AM (#64238356)

    Wireless "security" cameras are basically a prop. They can be hacked or jammed without ever being in their field of vision before they become inoperable.

    • Exactly this.
      The camera needs power so it needs to have cables routed to its location anyway, might as well just route cables to carry the video feed too. There is PoE so you only need to run one cable, as well as data over powerline technologies that could achieve the same result.

      It's also extremely inconsiderate to your neighbors to waste big chunks of the shared wireless spectrum sending 24/7 video feeds from a wireless camera.

      • by mysidia ( 191772 ) on Wednesday February 14, 2024 @05:31AM (#64238404)

        I imagine Wireless is used because it's a Less-expensive retrofit in existing buildings -- there are existing power outlets everywhere,
        so much less labor involved to tap into a nearby power circuit than install a whole wired network.

        The real question IMO: Is how come these cameras don't have a 256 GB SD card, or some other backup storage tech
        that data can be buffered to while network is down, and simply Buffer saved video locally while the network is offline?

        Or if no SD card on the camera itself; they could be designed with a short network run to whever the power outlet is for the camera,
        and have a storage device on each camera's power adapter.

        There is no reason that a camera having Wireless connectivity should preclude also having a secondary method in order to ensure footage generated while the network is down is able to be captured and preserved.

        .

        • by Narcocide ( 102829 ) on Wednesday February 14, 2024 @06:07AM (#64238462) Homepage

          Well, sure there is, if you think like a greedy asshole who doesn't actually care about security. By removing the local storage feature they can save on manufacturing costs while forcing consumers to be vendor-locked to their subscription-only cloud service.

        • Data over power lines is a thing and has been for quite some time, assuming that you are placing the cameras near existing power lines.

          Secondary storage in the camera itself is quite easily stolen. The idea of networked cameras is to send the data offsite so even if someone burns the whole building to the ground you at least have a video of the guy showing up and pouring gas around.

          • by DarkOx ( 621550 )

            That is still effectively radio though. Those lines are unshielded (well mostly, in modern residential buildings anyway, armored cable and lines run in conduit are pretty effectively shielded) as well so jamming or at least significantly degrading the performance is probably fairly trivial without using a lot power even compared to the base band signaling on UTP cable.

        • Simple - because securing the camera itself is pointless. All your addition does is makes the thieves smash it.

          • by mysidia ( 191772 ) on Wednesday February 14, 2024 @07:49AM (#64238598)

            Simple - because securing the camera itself is pointless. All your addition does is makes the thieves smash it.

            Smashing a camera doesn't do anything about a SD card mounted in the base. These storage media are fairly rugged -- designed to survive drops, etc, and while plugged in the card will normally be surrounded by hard plastic and a metal sleeve. You aren't breaking the storage medium, unless you are targeting the storage medium or using explosives -- rocks or whatever thrown at the camera from the ground won't wreck the storage.

            You will usually have cameras mounted high up out of reach, And have at least 3 or 4 cameras, if not more, so even if thieves know the cameras have storage on them -- it's Not fast or easy to destroy all them. So it would take someone hours or more extra to try taking out the cameras while outside and making it obvious they are doing something incriminating the whole time = high likelihood of being caught.

            The WiFi jammer is also something you can have a sensor to detect and trip an alarm.

            • by Bert64 ( 520050 )

              Often the bases are not so sturdy, or the cameras themselves not fixed so securely to the wall that they can't be removed with a crowbar.
              Often the card is quite easily removed so a thief could just take it out.

              • by onceuponatime ( 821046 ) on Wednesday February 14, 2024 @10:18AM (#64238960)

                They could. In reality they wear hoodies and don't care about being filmed.

              • by mysidia ( 191772 )

                Often the card is quite easily removed so a thief could just take it out.

                Yes, but you neglected the most important part. Security cameras are usually mounted 10-feet up. They may be mounted even higher. Cameras are often mounted behind waterproof enclosures and other barriers. A thief cannot tell from the ground whether or not the camera contains a local backup storage chip inside the body, or somewhere else.

                No doubt it is possible to tamper with the camera, But they're going to need extra e

            • If your security mechanism is âoewell itâ(TM)s high up and enclosed in a bit of plasticâ, then security camera vulnerabilities are the least of your worries.

            • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

              by JackieBrown ( 987087 )

              The WiFi jammer is also something you can have a sensor to detect and trip an alarm.

              I tried that but my wiresless sensors went down too.

        • The real question IMO: Is how come these cameras don't have a 256 GB SD card, or some other backup storage tech
          that data can be buffered to while network is down, and simply Buffer saved video locally while the network is offline?

          The answer to that question is obvious: adding a $10 memory card might impact Amazon or Google's revenue stream. They can't have customers realizing that maybe you don't need to pay that monthly subscription fee. Whether or not the camera is actually effective is completely seco

          • by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Wednesday February 14, 2024 @08:52AM (#64238720)

            The real question IMO: Is how come these cameras don't have a 256 GB SD card, or some other backup storage tech that data can be buffered to while network is down, and simply Buffer saved video locally while the network is offline?

            The answer to that question is obvious: adding a $10 memory card might impact Amazon or Google's revenue stream. They can't have customers realizing that maybe you don't need to pay that monthly subscription fee.

            You don't need the monthly subscription. I have a Blink system, and the videos are saved on a USB thumb drive.

            I don't really consider them "security cams", they just tell me what is going on around the house, like deliveries, or what the local wildlife is doing.

            If I was concerned about security for criminal activity, I'd have a wired system behind Lexan.

            • Indeed, or use something like Frigate for the video recording and StalkedByTheState for state of the art people detection and video alerting.

        • This is one of the shortcomings with Blink cameras.

          The cameras have batteries, but do not have attached storage. The hub can have attached storage, but no batteries. The function of the attached storage is nebulous - nowhere does it state that the attached storage will function during an internet outage. The stated purpose is to back up your already online cloud saved videos onto your device. My attempts to clarify this with tech support were fruitless - they insisted that they needed me to give them
          • This is one of the shortcomings with Blink cameras.

            The cameras have batteries, but do not have attached storage. The hub can have attached storage, but no batteries. The function of the attached storage is nebulous - nowhere does it state that the attached storage will function during an internet outage. The stated purpose is to back up your already online cloud saved videos onto your device. My attempts to clarify this with tech support were fruitless - they insisted that they needed me to give them permission to access my Blink network in order to answer the question.

            An internet outage won't be an issue - depending on where the outage is. If your router and Main module lose power, you lose connectivity.

            If you want to test it, unplug your ethernet connection to the router.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          A lot of people rent, so drilling holes for wires isn't an option. Wireless is better than nothing, especially if it has an SD card. Most do, so I assume in these cases people simply didn't fit them.

          • I own my own long drill bit, so drilling holes for wires is an option. They're pretty easy to seal up and hide later in a way that won't cause water ingress. I've done it in rentals before and I probably will again. Crank up the music and the neighbors won't even be able to hear it to rat you out.

            • With the amount of horrible things I saw inside walls during my tenure in both construction and demolition, there's no way I'd go jamming a bit into a wall that I don't know, especially given the absolute in-wall hack jobs I saw from plumbers and electricians on the regs.
        • Exactly my question... I have a quite cheap camera from Wansview that includes a microSD card for local storage. (The cloud app only allows
          an interface to access that local storage, unless you buy a subscription for cloud storage.) So it seems this is at least not susceptible to wifi jamming destroying the evidence, as described in the article. Or am I incorrectly understanding the attack in the article?

          The artcle mentions Ring, Nest, and Blink (big brands!) as being vulnerable to this jamming. Does this me

          • Exactly my question... I have a quite cheap camera from Wansview that includes a microSD card for local storage. (The cloud app only allows an interface to access that local storage, unless you buy a subscription for cloud storage.) So it seems this is at least not susceptible to wifi jamming destroying the evidence, as described in the article. Or am I incorrectly understanding the attack in the article?

            The artcle mentions Ring, Nest, and Blink (big brands!) as being vulnerable to this jamming. Does this mean they don't have local storage at all?! That really surprises me, given the capabilities of the cheaper brand I have.

            Of course, an intruder could always gain physical access and steal the card or destroy the camera.

            Blink modules have a USB port to store videos locally.

            Now are these really security cameras? They certainly aren't as secure in their function as a top notch professionally designed and installed camera system mounted behind bullet proof glass. powered by non-mains power supplies, and all lines routed through metal conduit to a command center in your house, preferably into a faraday cage control center in the basement.

            But as so often happens, we end up making perfect the mortal enemy of good enough. An

        • by mjwx ( 966435 )

          I imagine Wireless is used because it's a Less-expensive retrofit in existing buildings -- there are existing power outlets everywhere,
          so much less labor involved to tap into a nearby power circuit than install a whole wired network.

          The real question IMO: Is how come these cameras don't have a 256 GB SD card, or some other backup storage tech
          that data can be buffered to while network is down, and simply Buffer saved video locally while the network is offline?

          Or if no SD card on the camera itself; they could be designed with a short network run to whever the power outlet is for the camera,
          and have a storage device on each camera's power adapter.

          There is no reason that a camera having Wireless connectivity should preclude also having a secondary method in order to ensure footage generated while the network is down is able to be captured and preserved.

          .

          I tink your first sentance hit the target. It's the cheapest way to comply with an insurance requirement. I suspect this requirement will change as soon as lawyers can craft sufficient verbage that makes it an easy bat to use to squash claims.

          Beyond that it's no secret that most businesses treat security as a burden and a cost, so do the minimum they have to in order to meet regulatory or insurance requirements.

        • It's because people believe that if WiFi cameras are sold that they actually work. They disconnect all the time continuously even if they appear to work on an app for non-technical people.

      • by Tx ( 96709 ) on Wednesday February 14, 2024 @06:04AM (#64238450) Journal

        "The camera needs power so it needs to have cables routed to its location anyway [...]

        The first few hits from an Amazon search for "wireless security camera outdoor" all featured rechargeable batteries. This is touted as a feature because they will continue to function if power to the house is cut. Must be a pain recharging them, I didn't take the time to look up how long they last between charges.

        • Yeah, terrible idea... Hassle having to replace the batteries especially if the cameras are in inconvenient locations (eg high up).
          If you have a centralised system with PoE then it's simple to add a UPS for the switch.

          • by mjwx ( 966435 )
            The problem isn't the POE cameras or switches but the cost of wiring an entire site (most of that will be labour). Especially if it's an older building that doesn't have existing ducting for wires and lets not even think the hassle if it's been listed (heritage).

            However the cameras should write to local storage at the same time because WiFi is simply not reliable, a few businesses are learing that the hard way.
            • It's really not that expensive. You can use cat5e cable and the camera kits will often come with 100+ft spools of cable per camera, so you simply drill holes with a long spade drill and staple the wire to rafters to install. The cable is cheap and running low voltage is dead simple. Having been a part time cctv installer long ago, the main cost is the camera sensors in the cameras driving camera cost, and those are a commodity item so 3-8mp cameras with good focus and low light clarity are dirt cheap the
        • by Junta ( 36770 ) on Wednesday February 14, 2024 @06:26AM (#64238486)

          A relative has some. A charge goes for about two months. It spends most of its time with just motion sensor powered and only cuts in the camera when motion is detected within a relatively small area.

        • This is touted as a feature because they will continue to function if power to the house is cut. Must be a pain recharging them,

          Imagine an entire building using wireless badge access and having to have the batteries replaced on every single card reader. Yes, this is a thing and yes, I had to deal with it. It was so fun putting up your badge and wondering if the reader would work, and if it didn't work, was it because the batteries were low or because the reader couldn't read your card an inch from its pl

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          You can get solar ones now too. They can go indefinitely on solar power, as long as they don't need to do too much recording. Ideal for low traffic areas.

          Most can take an internal SD card too, so even if the WiFi goes down they can record.

      • by jools33 ( 252092 )

        The cameras I have are not 24x7 feeds, they only record and transmit when they detect an event, so its not so wasteful on wireless spectrum, from that perspective. I think this is fairly typical, as cameras have detection mechanisms, and then are active for short recording periods only, or if the user contacts them and wants a live stream.
        I agree that a cable solution is the simplest, cheapest and best alternative, and pretty easy to setup.

      • Some wireless cameras (e.g. Arlo, Blink) actually have batteries. You either have to change them every 6 months, or set them up on "power-saving mode" where they can only record a 5 second video clip. I've always thought this was the dumbest idea ever, but I've seen a lot of them. Easy for lazy people to set up, then they often neglect changing the batteries and then they really end up being useless props.

    • by skam240 ( 789197 )

      Not really. Your post assumes that all burglars have the wherewithal to do something like this when in reality most don't which is exactly why they are thieves to begin with and why this type of jamming is relatively rare.

      Sure, wireless cameras aren't as useful as wired ones exactly because of this but the wireless ones should do the trick for most folks for most crimes. If you live in a large, high value house though, yeah you should probably wire up.

    • Wireless "security" cameras are basically a prop. They can be hacked or jammed without ever being in their field of vision before they become inoperable.

      Or at the very least to have onboard storage, so they still keep a visual record even when the network connection gets lost. PoE based cameras, with a UPS are probably still the best way to go?

  • wireless < wired (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Wednesday February 14, 2024 @05:06AM (#64238358)

    Homes in affluent areas are found ... the burglars will deploy Wi-Fi jammer(s) ...

    They're affluent, they should have hard-wired cameras/security.

    • Re:wireless wired (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Narcocide ( 102829 ) on Wednesday February 14, 2024 @06:08AM (#64238464) Homepage

      Just because they're affluent doesn't mean they're smart.

      • Re:wireless wired (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Inglix the Mad ( 576601 ) on Wednesday February 14, 2024 @08:47AM (#64238706)
        Now this is unfair. Just because you know about technology doesn't mean you are also knowledgeable about other things. That would be like me insulting your intelligence because you couldn't land a plane or my brother mocking you because you couldn't read an CT scan.

        People are specialists today, you literally can't know everything. So I could mock others as lesser because they don't have a specific degree or fail to understand something... then again I couldn't fix a modern car... or blend the color on a paint job... or be a baker... perform surgery... or do any of 1000's of other jobs.
      • Just because they're affluent doesn't mean they're smart.

        Yeah, a smart person wouldn't live in such a crime ridden area, where thieves run about with jammers to steal their stuff.

        If a person has such affluence, and is paranoid enough, there are security systems with video behind hardened camera points, lines run through metallic conduit and a non-mains powered system for everything.

        Jamming RF is trivial - who knew?

    • They're affluent, they should have hard-wired cameras/security.

      One of the consequences of being affluent is convincing yourself that you don't need security cameras because criminals would never strike a nice neighborhood like yours.

      Then after you get cleaned out by a burglar, you start looking into security cameras. You ignore the recommendations from professionals to get wired cameras (too expensive, too much trouble, too difficult to learn to use) and hire a handyman to install a couple of Ring doorbell

    • Re:wireless wired (Score:4, Interesting)

      by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Wednesday February 14, 2024 @11:01AM (#64239080)

      You don't get rich by spending money.

  • Security systems frequently check all WiFi devices every 30 or 120 or 240 or 0 (disabled) minutes depending on settings. If device isn't present the owner is alerted that the device is missing. Usually this is after the device already sent a low battery message that customer ignored and the battery is dead. Many systems will detect jamming because they can't find any of the Wifi devices and alert the customer about that.

    • Security systems frequently check all WiFi devices every 30 or 120 or 240 or 0 (disabled) minutes depending on settings. If device isn't present the owner is alerted that the device is missing. Usually this is after the device already sent a low battery message that customer ignored and the battery is dead. Many systems will detect jamming because they can't find any of the Wifi devices and alert the customer about that.

      So do a drive-by jamming daily until whomever responds to those messages becomes desensitized and starts ignoring / switches them off, then rob them.

      • by mjensen ( 118105 )

        Then that's on the customer. Customer shuts off their security system, that's their fault.
        Burglars will have no idea if customer switches that feature off, and don't know if it was on in the first place.
        Security systems CAN detect jamming.

        • Then that's on the customer. Customer shuts off their security system, that's their fault. Burglars will have no idea if customer switches that feature off, and don't know if it was on in the first place. Security systems CAN detect jamming.

          Security system which can be made to flood the customer with false positives isn't "on the customer".

        • That's nice and all... But you know when it happened but still have no evidence.

          If they hurry, they will be gone before police can arrive. That is assuming you contact the police just because your Wi-Fi went down. On the one hand, you could be experiencing a break-in... Or it could mean a number of other scenarios and you'll be cited for a false alarm. So particularly if they are randomly jamming without doing anything, gaslighting the system owners into thinking it's just randomly glitchy, they would like

    • Security systems frequently check all WiFi devices every 30 or 120 or 240 or 0 (disabled) minutes depending on settings.

      Which is plenty of time for a burger to get in, steal stuff and leave. Even 30 minutes is a long time, especially since the owner isn't likely to return immediately.

    • As long as the security system itself is hard wired, that might work. The real question is how many of these systems (especially the "home security" systems marketed to consumers by $RandomCorp), are actually hard wired to the internet and actually set up with an active notification account? (Email might not work if the account hasn't been used recently enough. Mandatory subscription fees for alternative notification methods weren't added via an IoT update. Hard wired connection is properly monitored and pr
  • Shouldn't those cameras record locally, too for exactly such scenarios?

    • by burni2 ( 1643061 )

      same thought here, but I think the correct answer from some know-it-all-GenNewbie would be "hey Boomer, it's all in the cloud .." except it can't get there.

    • In which case they snatch the cameras.

    • Because that wouldnâ(TM)t cause the thieves to just smash the cameras once theyâ(TM)ve been jammedâ¦

  • And NAS and cloud backup.
    Of course the police do next to nothing about these "minor crimes."
    AI (on camera) powered person detection with alarm and lights is probably more effective.

    • Are you kidding? Angry rich folks and out-of-pocket insurance companies equals action. Average people getting mugged...not so much The loss of some replaceable credit cards and cash (if you can prove you had it on you), along with maybe a few stitches and a concussion...good luck prying the cops out of the local doughnut shop for that.

      • If the cops won't do their job they should be thrown out of the doughnut shop and put in the bread line. That's a failure of the community to police the police.
    • The real problem for burglars now is that cameras are so inexpensive you can, at least where I live, depend on several sets of them with different owners watching as you approach your target... and those are the obvious ones.

      Depending on how much the burglars get and how active they've been in the area, you might find the cops not interested in doing much more than writing a report... but if you do their jobs for them and get your neighbours to give you their video for the relevant time period there's a goo

    • by ledow ( 319597 )

      Yep.

      I have PoE cameras, with inaccessible cabling, wifi backups, notifications for obscuring or losing contact with the cameras, on-board SD, local and remote cloud backups of footage, plus detection alerts to my phone (because literally the only person who cares about my property is ME, so the only person worth informing is ME, and I can then check the cameras and decide if escalation is necessary or it's just the cat).

      Have I spent a fortune? No. Just cheap "smart" cameras. IP68, fitted and cabled by my

  • Dogs & Geese (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TractorBarry ( 788340 ) on Wednesday February 14, 2024 @06:36AM (#64238498) Homepage

    If you've got stuff worth stealing and want actual security you should invest in geese and dogs. Geese to raise the alarm and well trained dogs to deal with intruders (get them on the floor then hold them by the throat)

    Unless you've got access to government level funding no technology whatsosver will be anything more than a light deterrent.

    Luckily I have next to nothing worth stealing so I make do with a couple of old cats :)

    • Yeah the cameras are nice to have but even if you've got local storage of PoE cameras then instead of jamming the Nest cams and them getting a cloud notice that their camera is offline then they just have to paintball the lenses instead. You can have a steel frame door but they can come through the garage door and then come through the drywall. It's all just a matter of making your home less appealing than your neighbor's.
    • by skam240 ( 789197 )

      Boy do I hate going to the homes of people with dogs aggressive enough for home security. Having a dog that could do significant damage to me glowering at me for my entire visit to a friend's house is a good way to not have me back over.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Dangerous dogs are banned in many countries, and a single bite will get it destroyed, even if it was an intruder.

      Don't turn your dog into a weapon and sacrifice its life, when you can just buy a decent security system.

      • Re:Dogs & Geese (Score:4, Insightful)

        by iAmWaySmarterThanYou ( 10095012 ) on Wednesday February 14, 2024 @09:31AM (#64238824)

        A dog or gun and a camera serve entirely different purposes.

        A barking dog of any size will send many burglars to a quieter house. A large dog will scare off even more. A gun gives you a chance if they come in when you're there with your family. A camera lets the police know who robbed you after killing you.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          To be honest I'd probably save my money towards moving somewhere that I don't have to worry about people coming into my house to murder me.

          But don't criminals usually go for houses that are unoccupied anyway? Especially if there is a chance the occupier might be armed. So maybe the best thing is to buy some of those gadgets that turn the lights/TV on and off randomly while you are out.

          A camera that tracks people might be effective. If they can see it following their movements, they feel like they are being

          • Moving isn't always an option. Also there is no truly safe place, just better odds.

            There are two kinds of break in criminals. The majority prefer an empty home, yes. But some actually target homes with people inside because they're psychotics who are looking for people to hurt as well as steal from. This is a much smaller group but very real.

            Statistically you are better off having the timer lights, etc, as you say but you're drawing in the rarer and more dangerous group a bit.

            If you want to move, I'd sa

          • To be honest I'd probably save my money towards moving somewhere that I don't have to worry about people coming into my house to murder me.

            Where do you live that the ratio of rich to poor doesn't invite constant thefts? Go ahead and lie to me, I won't get mad. I may tell you that you are blind, but I won't get mad.

            (yes, some (many?) people steal anyways, but incentivizing people to steal by ensuring they have nothing seems... counter-productive)

      • Nicely put!

    • by mjwx ( 966435 )

      If you've got stuff worth stealing and want actual security you should invest in geese and dogs. Geese to raise the alarm and well trained dogs to deal with intruders (get them on the floor then hold them by the throat)

      Unless you've got access to government level funding no technology whatsosver will be anything more than a light deterrent.

      Luckily I have next to nothing worth stealing so I make do with a couple of old cats :)

      Or just not live in a place where criminals are motivated to rob you just because you have a nice house. I'd rather not live in an estate done up like a prison because the wealth disparity is so high and there are so many kept in poverty... This is before a society where it's largely considered OK to keep something if you can take it.

  • Inside that box we use a cell phone that is powered by a UPS that powers the camera that uploads to the cloud but also has and SD card in it that records locally. The box is wired for power on a pole at construction sites and can last about 4 days in case of power loss which can be dealt with easily.

  • by timholman ( 71886 ) on Wednesday February 14, 2024 @08:21AM (#64238648)

    ... was convincing the general public that Ring makes security cameras, instead of video doorbells.

    Most cloud camera providers follow the Ring model. Unless you have a WiFi connection, nothing is recorded. The camera has no internal storage. It's all about the business model of ensuring that you pay the subscription fee.

    A $10 memory card would provide a Ring camera with a week of continuous-time rollover video storage, but Amazon would never dream of incorporating one, because they don't want to impact their revenue stream. Instead you have millions of owners paying Amazon for cameras that are only marginally better than useless, and turn into paperweights if something happens to the WiFi.

    A wired PoE camera system is the way to go for home security, but I know from long experience that you can only convince one person in a thousand to install them. So instead I tell people that if you're going to install WiFi cloud cameras, then get them from Wyze, and install memory cards. It won't prevent the cameras from being jammed, but at least you'll be able to review the video footage after the fact.

  • What's a good outdoor PoE camera with open source firmware?

    I already run some custom code on my Wyzes with openmiko.

    I'd rather not just run proprietary Chinese firmware and firewall it.

    • Re:Good PoE Camera? (Score:5, Informative)

      by EmagGeek ( 574360 ) on Wednesday February 14, 2024 @10:09AM (#64238930) Journal

      I have a bunch of Amcrest cameras. They're all PoE and have worked pretty well for me. They can push to Amcrest's proprietary cloud, but they can also push to an NFS server or any other security software suite that supports rtsp. They have a published API that anyone can use without a fee to access their camera's streams.

      I've been totally happy with them.

    • Actually, I think your last suggestion is the best one. HIKvision colorvu cameras have unbelievable low light capability. Around 0.0005 lux I understand. try and beat that in the same price class.

      • I bought a similar camera from Lorex. It records in 4k and the color in low light levels is amazing. When there's snow on the ground the reflected light is enough for full color in the dead of night.

        As far as firmware, every camera made has Chinese firmware. I block them all at my router.

  • For some thieves to figure this out. Now, of course, it'll go nationwide in nothing flat. Fortunately for me I have a wired security system, but the dang doorbell camera is still wireless. Of course me not trusting wireless there's a separate wired camera watching that area as well. We need vendors to stop messing around and update their doorbell cameras to Cat6.

    Sure you'll have quite a bit of gap for a while, but new construction will just being to install the Cat6. Heck many electricians already used C
  • by morgauxo ( 974071 ) on Wednesday February 14, 2024 @08:43AM (#64238696)

    It's just yet another consequence of society buying into marketing BS that modern devices shouldn't have wires.

    Unless you are talking about the back fields of a large ranch or something.. wires are pretty much always better.

  • Obviously, wired security systems are the real solution. But how about a device that sets off a shrieking siren when it detects WiFi jamming? :)

  • I like using home rental services for my vacations rather than hotels, but the possibility that the landlord may be spying on me via wireless cameras and microphones is a definite concern -- especially in big cities. I freely admit I have absolutely considered buying wifi jammers online to protect my privacy. It's not only bad guys who want jamming.

    At the moment, I have concluded that any landlord technically savvy enough to understand jamming will most likely have hardened their network and/or added local

Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills. -- Ambrose Bierce

Working...