- cross-posted to:
- msp@midwest.social
- minnesota@midwest.social
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- msp@midwest.social
- minnesota@midwest.social
- technology@lemmy.world
Wi-Fi jamming to knock out cameras suspected in nine Minnesota burglaries – smart security systems vulnerable as tech becomes cheaper and easier to acquire::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 lots of loot. Such techniques are increasingly popular with criminals.
You must log in or register to comment.
Add it to the pile of reasons to not use cloud based camera systems.
Local storage, with wired connections, or expect it to be knocked out intentionally and at random due to errors/problems outside your control.
“cloud” has nothing to do with this. Plenty of people use wireless cameras for local/selfhost setups because it is easier for them to run power than data/ethernet.
And there are actually very good arguments for wired “cloud” cameras. Because if you still have an internet connection (cable drop to the street), then your footage and alert are now offsite rather than on a hard drive in the house that is being “attacked”.
I was including wireless local cameras in that, admittedly loose, ‘cloud’ definition due to the instability wifi introduces.
A long as that cloud is your own: ie another site you own, or a VPS; mirroring the local storage the cameras are wired to, alright. But not as the primary and only destination.
There’s been plenty of examples of cloud based systems you subscribe to (ie corporate online storage only), cutting off user access, shutting down, having their own network/systems issues, providing data to third parties including authorities without warrants, etc…
Yes. There are many issues with cloud based providers for stuff like this.
Someone using a wifi jammer to take out your wireless cameras has nothing to do with that.
The cloud is not the problem. Inadequate local buffer is the problem.
If it’s got local storage, it’s not ‘cloud based’.
I’m not saying offsite backups of your local storage are a bad idea.
I didn’t say storage. I called it a buffer. No permanent local storage needed
Wifi jammers could knock it out before the camera sees anything.
The jammers don’t disable the cameras, they just prevent them from streaming the captured video to the recording machine.
If the cameras had a local buffer, they’d be able to keep recording even if the signal was jammed.
Until the cameras are destroyed, which is easier to do when they’re not streaming in real time
Why not both?
Mains power with battery backup, live streaming via wires with wifi then flash storage backup
You cannot block a camera from seeing by jamming the wifi. It could simply save the video feed locally and send it to the server when the wifi is restored.
Unless they steal the router…
You can still just restore the network and wait for the camera to sync. Feed not lost unless too long time has gone by and buffer has wrapped around
At my old job we ended up finding out that one dude was essentially using the router login page to disable the cheap Wi-Fi cameras so he could mask when he came in to work and left so he could embellish his time cards. Boss noticed a pattern so he installed a manual timeclock and the embellishments slowed and eventually stopped.
