I’d argue that it’s more convenient to have clouds connect for recording and storage purposes but so many cameras come with SD cards built in now that the cloud storage isn’t even really an advantage anymore either.
It is a bad idea.
On one hand, we have the mean to make them quite secure. There is no such thing as an unbreakable encryption, but with proper key management and using decent enough algorithms we can totally do something that puts your camera out of reach of most thing that are not nation-scale organisations.
On the other hand, it’s mildly more inconvenient than “installing an app and entering your email”, as it might require stuff like doing a tiny little bit of setting up.
What’s the alternative to putting them on the pUbLic InTeRnEt? I pay my ISP $2000 per month for my own private commercial circuit?
It’s not a bad idea because there is no reasonable alternative. Risk mitigation is the key, as you seem to be aware.
It’s a bad idea because of the de-facto “requirement” that people want everything available everywhere with zero setup, causing cheap, completely insecure solution to become the norm. Just don’t use “cloud-based, app-enabled zero-config ultra easy trust me bro I know what I’m doing” camera and get proper stuff that allows you to control what goes where and use decent encryption.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@lemmy.world
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Cameras connected to the public internet are such a bad idea.
No it isn’t! - CIA
I’d argue that it’s more convenient to have clouds connect for recording and storage purposes but so many cameras come with SD cards built in now that the cloud storage isn’t even really an advantage anymore either.
It is a bad idea. On one hand, we have the mean to make them quite secure. There is no such thing as an unbreakable encryption, but with proper key management and using decent enough algorithms we can totally do something that puts your camera out of reach of most thing that are not nation-scale organisations. On the other hand, it’s mildly more inconvenient than “installing an app and entering your email”, as it might require stuff like doing a tiny little bit of setting up.
So, the unsecure/“trust the service” way it is.
What’s the alternative to putting them on the pUbLic InTeRnEt? I pay my ISP $2000 per month for my own private commercial circuit? It’s not a bad idea because there is no reasonable alternative. Risk mitigation is the key, as you seem to be aware.
It’s a bad idea because of the de-facto “requirement” that people want everything available everywhere with zero setup, causing cheap, completely insecure solution to become the norm. Just don’t use “cloud-based, app-enabled zero-config ultra easy trust me bro I know what I’m doing” camera and get proper stuff that allows you to control what goes where and use decent encryption.