All we need is onboard storage to record a couple hours of video locally which can then be synced when the connection is back again. Right? That doesn't fix real-time information transmission, but video is most often important for finding suspects after the fact.

Sounds like you think law enforcement actually give a shit about/can do anything toward solving burglary crime.

Maybe it's better in other countries, but 5% solve rate sounds like they go and knock on the doors of the local known burglars to see if they still got the goods lying around.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jun/17/figures-less...

However, also in many countries, like my own, police is very under staffed and burglaries are often on the bottom of the priorities list. Armed robberies, murders, shootings, stabbings, explosions, fires, domestic abuse, rape, to name a few, are the ones that get the highest priority. And those things take a lot of work to find suspects, prove what they're suspected of, write it down and get them convicted.

A case, unfortunately, isn't finished when you catch a suspect. It's a crap load of work to get someone convicted and that gets massively underestimated by people who only read statistics and conclude that LE doesn't care... Most of us do, which is why we join the field.

And they usually wear masks, so the video you do record are useless anyway.

Cameras inside the house get internet access, so intruders can't just walk off with your footage, but external camera feeds are fine to be stored locally.

That'd take very little skill to set up, prevents anyone from using those external connections to get at the rest of your network or abuse your internet connection,you don't have to worry about jammers, the police won't be accessing your feed whenever they feel like it, and Amazon won't be keeping detailed logs of everyone who comes to your door, how often you have company over, what your daily/weekly schedule is like, how often you get food delivered, what kinds of clothing you and your guests are wearing, how many children are in your home, how many pets, how often you go out on the weekends vs staying inside, how often you vacation and for how long, how many friends you have, how often you have non-amazon packages delivered, what kind of car you drive, etc

You can't build a system that's immune to every possible type of attack, but fortunately you don't have to. Most people will never catch a single "bad guy" with their camera set up, and will never have anyone mess with the system at all. That doesn't mean it's not a good idea to take a few simple steps to better protect yourself, your family, your packages, your network and your privacy. If you see value in having your surroundings captured on camera you can gain a lot of benefits for a small amount of effort by throwing your ring cameras in the trash and setting up a dedicated network for their replacements.

Typically the things on my home network that need to be isolated and/or revoked Internet access are not in physical proximity with one another, so using a separate switch for them means a lot more wiring. It is much simpler to just run devices to the nearest already existing switch and do the isolation in software. This also cuts down on the number of switches which means fewer points of failure.

For the crowd who can't isolate the cameras from the rest of their network and don't already have a bunch of networking equipment laying around though a dedicated network for the security cams is a easy solution that offers a lot of advantages over a ring cam.

"... but I think that's outside the relm of what most consumers can do."

https://openwrt.org/docs/guide-user/network/vlan/switch_conf...

I imagine them downloading movies and images that get me into trouble with the wife / LEAs / both.

I'm Dick with the FBI. Is your husband home?

I will get in trouble with my wife because the feds will rat me out to her for something stupid these hypothetical kids end up doing.

Usually it's meth heads trying to steal something that is easy to grab not the CIA.

Chrome lets me add an exception for the box itself, but really how many end user do you know that will not click on "take me to the http version(unsafe)", when talking about their home router?

So given the fact that I am in your wifi, One could use dhcp (if active) for MITM attacks, grab the router password and install tracking daemons right on top.

Next step would be to forward the dns requests to one of mine so I can build a map of what sites you use and from there all I have to to is to make you accept an insecure ssl cert and done?

An off-the-shelf consumer PVR that uses wired ethernet typically has its own integrated PoE switch on its own subnet. Maybe it will route to your LAN if you probe the private ranges, but it's also a fairly straightforward software issue to fix - nothing fundamental to the arrangement, and at no additional marginal cost.

Axis P1204 has a small camera sensor separated from the camera body by a 25' cable, which makes it easier to enclose and secure the camera body. Not seen that elsewhere, must be a proprietary protocol on that cable, e.g. RPi camera sensor cables can only be a few cm.

It is build like a tank and fully aluminium. If you mount it right you easily can hold a person from it. I bascially made a hole through the wall for the cables and mounted it directly to the outside wall.

For now im quite confident that nobody will be able to remove it without much fuzz

So I got a wired network now, on a separate LAN and have two cameras on each perimeter, so if someone tries to cut the cable (unfortunately I was unable to run the cables inside the wall, so they run in PVC pipes attached to the wall), I very least should have that recorded. Also all my cameras are 4k. The cameras also record to built in SD card. There are also two servers hidden each is pulling the videos from DVR to back up and then one copy is uploaded to external server.

You left out the dramatic details. So you stopped and confronted her directly yourself, or called the police who caught her(later)?

(In general, it is not advisable to confront meth addicts, they might be armed and not restrained in any way.)

A bit off topic, but can we please stop calling people "consumers"? It's such a weird and patronising term, not to mention completely unnecessary when "people" does a better job.

"Consumer" IS the technically more accurate term, as outside of the consumption of tech/services as designed for them, they do not venture beyond that realm & try to understand how the tech works.

Similar analogies include:

- Not caring about how a car works internally, & leaving its repair & maintenance to a mechanic.

- Not caring about how their dishes were made, & leaving that to cooks/chefs.

- Not caring about the minutiae of the law, & leaving that to the legal system & its lawyers & judges.

- Not caring about sewer maintenance, & leaving that for sewage workers.

- Not caring about recyclables processing, & leaving that for recycling plants.

- Not caring about Y, and leaving that for (workers/entities that work with Y).

All of us are consumers in some form or another: We require the services of others that require the services of others that require the services of others ad infinitum.

In my language, employers are routinely called "work-givers", employees are "work-takers", even though we have a perfectly fine "employee" term. I hate how it introduces a power relationship into the terms themselves.

But I also know it's a lost fight. I once specifically used the neutral term for employee in a work contract I wrote - which was best practice just a few decades ago. It was immediately changed.