Comment on Wi-Fi jamming to knock out cameras suspected in nine Minnesota burglaries -- smart security systems vulnerable as tech becomes cheaper and easier to acquire

• Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  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.

  source

  • lauha@lemmy.one ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I didn’t say storage. I called it a buffer. No permanent local storage needed

    source
• Venator@lemmy.nz ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Wifi jammers could knock it out before the camera sees anything.

  source

  • LufyCZ@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    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.

    source

    • ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Until the cameras are destroyed, which is easier to do when they’re not streaming in real time

      source

      • 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Why not both?

        Mains power with battery backup, live streaming via wires with wifi then flash storage backup

        source
  • lauha@lemmy.one ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    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.

    source