Looking for ideas and experience with Video Security Cameras on the Farm

[Rockbadchild]

A few things to note, cameras are ''good'' but have their limitation, even if you can find someone who can identify that person that was caught on camera you need someone who is willing to testify in court to say yes this person is that person in the video footage. We had that happened although I got my stuff back because of the camera none of them get charged because I didn't had anyone who would testify in court. So if these people are wearing a balaclava cameras are almost useless.

It is true that if the footage goes to a remote server it is no longer yours so be mindful of that, that means cops can access it without a warrant and the company can sell it without you knowing it.

 

[California]

Here's an old thread on the subject to give some idea of what inexpensive wifi cameras can do.

I have a couple of posts in that thread made with the Wyze $35 wired camera. I bought it to see wth is the racket waking us up at night. Just last night (we weren't there) the camera showed two deer sampling the flowerpots on the deck.

Security camera from old smart phone/phones

I have to be away from home for a week and am looking into obtaining a couple of used smart phones to use as monitors so I can keep an eye on things. There's a guy on youtube who says it can be done with an app called Alfred. If I can figure all of that out, keeping the battery charged will...

www.tractorbynet.com

Then at Goodwill I found an outdated Arlo kit, two 'Pro'' cameras and the hub. $12. (yeah I'm cheap).

Here are a couple of photos made with those. Since they are battery powered I set them on the lowest resolution if we won't be back to the ranch for a while. That gives a month of battery run time.

Cat pic(s)

Trap is set :oops:

www.tractorbynet.com

These are all on wifi so obviously the range is limited, in my experience about 100 ft. They feed to a second router in a back window which is fed by Ethernet Over Powerline, repeating the primary router in the center of the house.

I'm not paying for subscriptions on any of this. I eventually bought two more Wyze cameras. The $19 one has frustrating methods to view what it recorded, not recommended.

 

[TN8Man]

If you have concerns of professional trespassers then wifi is a risk as wifi jammers are readily available these days.

I would use direct burial ethernet cable but you would need PoE cameras that get power through the cable and possibly repeater switches is a length is more than 100 meters.

 

[plowhog]

This is a bit dated and I don't know the more recent history. But a good example of some of the risks involved.

You might want to stop using your Wyze security camera right now! (Updated)

Wyze reportedly failed to inform customers about a serious security flaw that allowed hackers to gain access to its home monitoring cameras.

www.androidauthority.com

 

[ponytug]

I was told earlier that Ring doorbell cameras store 100% of the video footage on their servers whether you subscribe to their cloud service or not. So, they keep videos of your property you may not know even exist.

Related, I was told there is history that Ring has turned such videos over to law enforcement for prosecution even if the person being prosecuted was the customer who originally bought the Ring doorbell. If that is true it is the ultimate "snitch" machine.

I don't know if that is an internet rumor or something valid, but it did come to me from several sources.

I think that the story is a little complicated. Amazon (Ring) did share customer videos after being served with search warrants with some time pressure. In the cases that were reported, the customers were storing the video on Ring's (Amazon's) servers.

Amazon finally admits giving cops Ring doorbell data without user consent

Amazon Ring gave police data without user consent 11 times so far in 2022.

arstechnica.com

Separately, I believe that Nest did reserve the right to upload video for a variety of purposes in the early days, but the current privacy document seems to suggest that it only happens if you turn on features that require notifications, and thus analysis by Google;

FAQs on privacy: Google Nest - Android - Google Nest Help

Last updated: April 8, 2024 | Archive Welcome to Googl

support.google.com

They have gone on record saying that they have never turned over video to law enforcement without a warrant.

Ring, Google and the Police: What to Know About Emergency Requests for Video Footage

The law lets Ring and Google share user footage with police during emergencies without consent and without warrants. Here's everything you should know.

www.cnet.com

Some of the other Federally banned cameras export videos offshore.

Basically, I think that in terms of security, it is prudent to assume that any network connected camera (or device generally, e.g. TVs, etc.) will communicate with its mothership and hackers who ask for information, as well as (potentially) download malware. As I mentioned above (#27) you can make this less likely to happen with suitable routers and settings on the router(s).

I know of at least one hospital that was hacked by folks who broke into an electronic lock on a drug storage unit, and then used that device to drop malware on other computers within the hospital.

Like many things in life, cybersecurity is only as strong as the weakest link, often the human clicking on some ad, or email...

All the best,

Peter

 

[California]

Ponytug, you have a deeper understanding of the issues than I do. Here's my layman's understanding of where we are at:

Wyze - a major company - not disclosing their weakness tells us all we need to know about camera security. I suspect the many no-name Chinese cameras on Amazon are even worse, perhaps similar to the TicToc controversy. (I think the basis for that concern is that TicToc setup requires total access to everything including an ability to re-configure unrelated functions).

I don't recall what Smart Home (wifi) device it was, but some security professional found his router uploading huge quantities of data after installing a Smart Socket or something. Uploading everything from his phone, or, participating robotically in a Denial of Service attack flooding some destination along with thousands or other compromised devices. It's the Wild West out there.

I use the cameras only outdoors. My wildlife videos aren't sensitive content.

It boggles my mind that so many have an Alexa device in their bedroom etc repeating every word it hears back to Sunnyvale(Google) to filter the commands it recognizes - "turn down the lights" or whatever. Does anyone believe that Google's techs can never hear what comes in?

In summary there's no guarantee that these devices are secure.

 

[finallydribben]

I appreciate all this information especially the concerns of security of the information and cloud storage.

Anyone have any experience with CuddeBack Cameras? I dont like the cell aspect and subscription etc but it seems like how these cameras link together would be helpful on my hilly woody property. I would rather not have cell but a hub at my house instead. Not sure if that exists.

I put out a hidden SDcard game camera as a temporary fix until I can make a decision on the best way to go with this.

 

[ericm979]

In summary there's no guarantee that these devices are secure.

There's no guarantee that anything is secure but wifi cams have been notorious for bad security.

Put them on your wifi network's DMZ, don't let that network initiate connections to your internal network, and restrict its connections to the outside network as well, allowing only outbound to the cloud service if you're using one.
That way the cam might get used in a bot net but at least it's not an attack point for your network.

Better yet would be to not allow outside connections to the cam at all but that means that you can't operate it from outside your network. If that's ok then by all means totally block the cam from the internet.

 

[plowhog]

Then at Goodwill I found an outdated Arlo kit, two 'Pro'' cameras and the hub. $12. (yeah I'm cheap).

That is an unbelievably good find!!

 

[plowhog]

it is prudent to assume that any network connected camera (or device generally, e.g. TVs, etc.) will communicate with its mothership

That dahua camera I mentioned had a setting buried in it something like:

Contact dahua support, provide IP address, serial number, etc. etc. to allow for future remote camera troubleshooting. That setting by default was ON. So that camera, by default, communicates with the "mother ship." It is also the one that wanted to run the .exe plugin file. Scary stuff.