Technology

59569 readers

3431 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

122

Wi-Fi jamming to knock out cameras suspected in nine Minnesota burglaries -- smart security systems vulnerable as tech becomes cheaper and easier to acquire (www.tomshardware.com)

submitted 9 months ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

15 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Wi-Fi jamming to knock out cameras suspected in nine Minnesota burglaries -- smart security systems vulnerable as tech becomes cheaper and easier to acquire::A serial burglar in Edina, Minnesota is suspected of using a Wi-Fi jammer to knock out connected security cameras before stealing and making off with lots of loot. Such techniques are increasingly popular with criminals.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca 36 points 9 months ago (13 children)

Add it to the pile of reasons to not use cloud based camera systems.

Local storage, with wired connections, or expect it to be knocked out intentionally and at random due to errors/problems outside your control.

[–] lauha@lemmy.one 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

The cloud is not the problem. Inadequate local buffer is the problem.

[–] Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca 12 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] lauha@lemmy.one 1 points 9 months ago

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

[–] Venator@lemmy.nz 6 points 9 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] LufyCZ@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 9 months ago

Why not both?

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

[–] lauha@lemmy.one 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Venator@lemmy.nz 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Unless they steal the router...

[–] lauha@lemmy.one 1 points 8 months ago

You can still just restore the network and wait for the camera to sync. Feed not lost unless too long time has gone by and buffer has wrapped around

load more comments (10 replies)