• TORFdot0@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • cley_faye@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • frododouchebaggins@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • cley_faye@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.