SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
https://nest.com/camera/meet-nest-cam-iq/
Nest plans to bring a new camera to their lineup with 4k resolution and facial recognition. It appears the facial recognition actually takes place on Nest/Google Servers rather than on the camera. It seems like that feature could be extended to the existing camera lineup, but perhaps the higher resolution is required to make this effective.
Also included is a better WiFi antenna system in the camera to compensate for the fact that these cams are often placed at the edge of your WiFi envelope. MiMo moving out of the routers into the clients.
So how creepy can this get? Will Nest start federating the facial recognition from all its subscribers so you have names of people you don't even know as the arrive at your doorstep for the first time?
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Saturday June 03 2017, @01:45AM (3 children)
HDA camera systems are 1080p; they're analog, and wired. Most are IR-assisted when it's dark. There's no security compromise available via the camera to the security system. If you keep the security system itself off the net (and you really, really should), there's no compromise available there either. Also, you don't have a metric fuckton of transfer constantly chewing up your wifi bandwidth, so there's that.
Putting security cameras on your LAN has, thus far, proven to be an excellent way to severely compromise your security.
Also, 1080p is really pretty good in terms of what it can and can't see.
I learned all this because I have a 16-camera HDA security system. Like it. Not compromised by it. Lots of useful features without requiring a network connection of any kind.
A 10-camera / 10-cable / 16-channel, power supply, IR remote and mouse driven, Samsung HDA DVR system with a 2 TB drive and 1080p output and recording (and NTSC compatibility if you have some of those) can be had for somewhere around $500 (I purchased mine from Amazon.)
Just saying. Good quality, easy to use, zero security compromise.
Or, you know, you can stream everything to the cloud and Nest and etc.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday June 03 2017, @02:40AM (2 children)
I really like digital though and that using wires. Long analog wires have their own issues. And digital makes it possible to use switches so all those cables don't have to go all the way to a central point.
But any such network don't have to have any outside connection. To secure it further the camera themselves could encrypt the video and the storage facility can then store it as-is. Where only a client with the right key can view the video.
RF occupation by continuous video streaming, now that's an issue that could make a neighborhood sour ;)
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Saturday June 03 2017, @01:24PM (1 child)
I run 100 foot cables; they're fine. Longer is a problem. At 200 feet, signal degradation is distinctly visible.
Having said that, long digital wires have much worse issues for me: radio frequency interference. Particularly with high-bandwidth signals like 1080p; it'll just be worse with 4k. With HDA, a relatively inexpensive coaxial cable takes care of RFI, as in, there isn't any. To really keep long network cables quiet, you need some very expensive cable. It can be done, but most people would weep at the cost. Then again, most people are unaware of what's going on - they just suffer with decreased wifi range, loss of weak FM signals, etc. An AM or shortwave listener is much more likely to pick up on the problem as those bands are often rendered almost useless.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday June 04 2017, @01:59AM
Use FTP cables?
Or perhaps STP..