Home security cameras

In the news today (Ars Technica): an ADT technician rigged home security cameras to grant himself access…so he could see naked women and watch people having sex.
Timely topic!


turns out that the fake pandemic is a great time to have masked-sex and social-distance at the same time … wut ?



That went off topic and off-forum.

1 Like

Not sure what you’re on about… but let’s not go there, ok :P?


Sure you didn’t make a typo there? :rofl:

Link: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2021/01/home-alarm-tech-backdoored-security-cameras-to-spy-on-customers-having-sex/

Can only say again: at the price of integrating the surveillance of your home permanently with some company and its servers somewhere

Can only say again: I would not install any commercially available security camera (if it has access to the internet)

From the above link:

a good reminder of the risks that come from installing network connected cameras inside the home or other locations where there’s a reasonable expectation of privacy

There is no mitigation if you install a blackbox camera and give it access to the internet. (A more sophisticated “peeping tom” might even have modified the firmware so as to give himself remote access while suppressing the listing of the fact that he is one of the users with remote access.)

The risk of installing the camera is there. So you need to compare that with the risk of not installing the camera.

In the specific case of the above link, customers might consider which rooms are best avoided for surveillance cameras that view the room e.g. bedrooms, bathrooms. However with many cameras having PTZ functionality these days, it may be best to avoid surveillance in those rooms altogether - again with a comparison of risk.


Ay, it kinda comes around to that need definition. Security cams have a specific function to keep an eye on something specific, defined - an area or identify something continuously. If it’s a turning or full PTZ pivoting to some other direction, it’s not doing what it’s supposed to, its then used to monitor (I know, a bit pedantic and definitions vary). And having them indoors means you have some need to keep on eye what’s going on inthere, but yu’ve already kinda lost at that point, if the threat has already gained access that deep. Cameras should be at the perimeter exit/entry points - doors, gates and in general assuring no-one has breached the perimeter. So, even if you’d for some reason didn’t mind exposing risk of exposure to your inner areas, the setup is already bonkers to me. It’s not a camera system for security, it’s for… vanity, I guess?

And I also agree on the comparison of risks (“to have or not to have a camera”, as Haml… Kieran said) but add that IR-sensors are the common alternative and they can also be connected to network. They give alarm, if no-one is supposed to be in that area, and they can be used to locate where people are moving. Without the additional info of image from video. There are other sensors for opening windows and doors and locks and breaking windows (HW, not the OS in this case) which give notice/alarm (–> time to react) much earlier than with video.

1 Like

or you can try sleeping with a knife in your hand … like Rambo. please be careful NOT to cut yourself or worse, stab yourself, while turning around (that would be bad …) in your sleep.