25
Recommendations on a home alarm system (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/privacy@lemmy.ml
18 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I am in the process of purchasing a home, and the house that it’s looking like I am likely to buy has a Ring alarm system and camera installed. I like the idea of having burglar alarms on the windows and doors, but I do not want to use Ring. Between their ownership from Amazon and sharing data with the cops, I don’t trust them.

Are there privacy-friendly home security systems out there that don’t require an ongoing subscription? Bonus points if the devices are HomeAssistant compatible.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Eufy, by Anker, is a great choice imo. They keep data local by default, no subscription required. Very minor record of controversies.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    They keep data local by default

    https://gizmodo.com/eufy-local-security-camera-cloud-unencrypted-scandal-1850059207

    The original security issue was first noticed by security researcher Paul Moore, who noticed Eufy cameras were streaming recorded video to a cloud server on the site’s web portal, even though cloud storage wasn’t enabled. That data sent to the cloud remained unencrypted.

    https://www.theverge.com/23573362/anker-eufy-security-camera-answers-encryption

    Anker has finally admitted its Eufy security cameras are not natively end-to-end encrypted — they can and did produce unencrypted video streams for Eufy’s web portal.

    The article also includes a response from Anker.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yep, this is exactly the controversy I was referring to from two years ago. It only applies if you choose to upload video to their cloud, not your local storage hub.

    If you read more about this, you'll find that the vulnerability has been sensationalized by Gizmodo. A malicious actor would have to go to great lengths to obtain a very long hash string and then append that to a URL to get access to the unencrypted content. That hash string itself is not accessible, so it is highly unlikely.

    With that being said, I wouldn't recommend putting a security camera of any brand inside your home and pointing it somewhere you can't risk being seen on the off chance of a breach, but how many people are really looking to do that anyway?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Thanks for the reply. While I’m sure that the video feed wasn’t the easiest to access from an outside attackers end, the fact that it was even being sent to the cloud, unencrypted, without consent, in the first place is a little more than a “minor” controversy. A company advertising a camera that works local only, and then proceeding to quietly upload everything from the camera to their servers, servers that, mind you, cost money to operate, likely have malicious intent.

    While it may have been sensationalized, given this is a privacy comm, it should at least be worth mentioning.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent