Ideally it would store video locally, then encrypt it and upload the last minute to the cloud.
Theft of recorders/loss of recorded video is much much less of an issue than it is generally made out to be, and most systems have various means for auto backups, dual recording, etc. Many also have the ability to send select segments of video, based on motion or analytics, to cloud/FTP/email for free, which adds some extra resiliency if you are really worried about random arsonists :)
(I work in the industry)
Ohhhh, you are so in trouble now! :P
I am pondering moving to a rather remote estate with my wife but we're both city kids and have zero clue how to defend ourselves in such conditions (I am even thinking we should take shooting lessons and bring guns to the estate as well).
Part of our plan is a surveillance system -- I planned to have an on-site ZFS storage cluster with several cameras that periodically encrypts the last 5 minutes and sends them off-site. Not sure how complex such a setup might turn out to be though... Maybe there's a way to make the storage cluster itself auto-replicate remotely often enough? I'm not that educated yet.
Do you have any recommendations? I don't want to spend $5000 due to paranoia but I don't want to be defenseless in case of a robbery either. What's the middle ground?
Still not sure about guns but the dogs would indeed be a very good investment.
I think you might be overthinking this. The dogs don't even need to be large. If the property is more than a few acres just get 2 or 3 herding dogs. They're upbeat, energetic, and above all very noisy if a stranger wanders into your yard. I very much doubt anyone will ever bother you.
> Still not sure about guns
How remote is it? What's the police response time? If it's really in the middle of nowhere then it seems like a good idea to have something on hand just in case.
Exactly because of that: remote and small country (Costa Rica is one idea so far), we would prefer a sea-side house which is NOT very close to a city (we think 20-30km away from a city is optimal) and we have no clue about police response time -- but I can't imagine they'll be there 2 minutes after I make a panicked call that I am tracking 3 armed burglars, especially if not in a city.
> I think you might be overthinking this.
Very possible. Right now I don't even have the money for a down-payment, but me and my wife both share this dream and started brainstorming it and doing some preliminary planning.
Above all, I really want the dogs to not be able to be bribed with food. Not a fan of dogs that bark at every single small disturbance but oh well, if that's the price you pay for living in a remote area and having good security then okay.
Oh, I was imagining remote rural in the US or a similar country (Canada, Scandinavia, etc). I have absolutely no idea what public safety concerns might exist in less developed places.
> want the dogs to not be able to be bribed with food
It's more that a solid looking fence, a few dogs, and some visible security cameras are highly likely to deter any attempts in the first place. If someone is armed and willing to shoot your dogs then you have much larger problems to deal with (and probably don't want to be living there to begin with).
Downsides include being extremely smart but not very trainable (smart like a wolf) -- they decide what's a threat and what isn't, and they don't care about your opinion. They guard naturally. Also, you may find yourself having to bury dead coyotes on occasion, as they will murder any that are stupid enough to intrude.
I often have debates with my wife about country vs city living, but I don't think buying a gun / attack dog / big security system ever comes into the equation. (UK based).
Am I not paranoid enough, are you over paranoid? Is there a Bayesian equation we need here?
Just to put up an alternative I just read this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26411899
The guy cycled through Europe and India, met some guy in a bar in Italy and ended up sleeping on his couch and eating home cooked Pasta lunch the next day. A different approach would be to drive with a gun under the seat. I think something is missing.
Do you also forgo a fire extinguisher in your kitchen?
Often what's "country" in the UK (outside of Scotland) would be considered exurban in the USA. You might possibly feel different about security at a truly remote home in N America.
The concept of having a predictable recurring bill, and known costs can have a lot of value. In the opex hardware model, there is usually a hardware refresh built in (a lease of sorts) and also covered replacements for any failures before the refresh.
This makes no sense to me, because almost no OpEx-based services operate on a predictable billing model. Usage based pricing means they are subject to change.
If I buy a $5,000 server, and it lasts me five years, I can plan around needing $1,000 a year set aside to replace it. Meanwhile, my AWS bill can suddenly be $20,000 with no warning.
The hardware refresh model you describe... I've actually only ever seen in a CapEx appliance, where paying for the support contract got you those refreshes regularly, replacement for failures, etc. but had an initial upfront purchase cost.
If you have an on-site system (like I do) it's way more effort for the average consumer.
edit: not talking here about active monitoring security cameras used by guards.
I can entirely get why a company would outsource IP cameras to a third party cloud, even with storing data on-site. Business runs on contracts. It's entirely normal to contract out everything except your core competencies, if it's cheaper this way. It's how you turn CAPEX, complex OPEX and high risk into simple OPEX and low risk. A contract is in big part a risk shifting tool. This works well in practice... outside IT.
The problem is, with IT and data, there's a mismatch between expectations and reality. An enterprise should feel safe buying their video surveillance from Verkada, because between the contract and the legal framework, Verkada should be bankrupt now, and their management possibly facing jail time. That's the part where contracts work as Cover-Your-Ass tool: if you shift risk and liability to outside party, the liability is not on you.
However, this only works as long as the other party actually internalizes the risk and liability. Since there are no consequences for mishandling data, operating IT services you're not structurally competent to operate, and eventually having your crown jewels stolen - the contractor doesn't really internalize risk, has no incentive to mitigate it.
All this to say: Verkada should go down after this, and their customers should be named and shamed widely - the latter is so that future customers of IT services put more care into vetting companies they contract IT out to. You shouldn't get to CYA with a contract where assumptions around contracting are broken.