Canary - Smart home security device for everyone | Hacker News Reader

Canary - Smart home security device for everyone

canary.is

49 pointssuperchink55 comments

I think this looks really cool and interesting (esp. given that I'm looking for a home security system right now).

However, please can you make your website simpler and just have a regular scroll? The javascript scroll effect makes it really difficult for me to explore how this works and the benefits / features. I'm on ubuntu linux & chrome and using my scroll wheel is super slow and painful. The js scroll effect is taking away from letting me figure out how this works.

A case study in "just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it."

I found it nearly impossible as well to scroll down using my touchpad on a windows 7 laptop. In fact, I found it so distracting that the product that I was at first interested in, quickly became something that it was in fact annoying to gain additional information on.

I have no idea why they did this; the device reminds me of Apple's new Mac Pro and presentation. I'm reminded of how awful that was received too. The panels could be condensed to two and then stacked. "One single, beautiful device." One horrible interface; no thanks.

It's very easy to scroll through and see the highlights merely by browsing without javascript. Whitelist AWS and you get basically all the images and words on one page. That said, just go straight to the indiegogo page rather than mucking about on the product site.

I'd rather suffer with their fiddly interface than figure out what "whitelist AWS" means.

How do you whitelist AWS?

Oh, just via NoScript/RequestPolicy and allowing it through. :) It doesn't need to be WL'ed if already let through.

I use NS+RP too but I did not see anything listed for AWS.

The images interspersed were hosted on AWS, but weren't required to understand what was going on.

Came here to say exactly this. I can only hope their "form over function" mentality does not transfer over to the product itself.

Their indiegogo page is way better. Skip the standalone site and go straight there:

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/canary-the-first-smart-hom...

On linux/chrome as well and this was also my first thought. Even if the "scroll down" text were clickable and automatically scrolled for me, that'd be a big improvement.

It seems like they don't take the physical security of the device into consideration at all. For example, I don't see anything about battery backup, so if I have above-ground power lines and my would-be intruder cuts mine before breaking in, am I screwed? Supposing I thought ahead and got a UPS, what about the phone or cable line? If I try and connect to it from the outside and can't, can I distinguish between a failure because Comcast is having an outage, and a failure because someone smashed my Canary with a sledgehammer, or stole it?

Security companies sell an overpriced product, but they've been at this for a while. Most security systems don't have to be in plain view because they're not also the sensor, so someone would have to find one to disable it, and would probably have to cross through the paths of more than one sensor before doing so. Battery backups in case of power failure are also a standard feature, and GSM backup modules are readily available for dealing with communications failures. And this is without even considering many of the other advantages of standard systems: UL-licensed call centers, modular sensor systems so that you can easily add, e.g., flood sensors, if you're prone to basement flooding, etc.

I get that they're going for an easy-to-use product with nice industrial design, but comparing it side-to-side with a real system because it looks like an Apple product and has an app is disingenuous.

If robbers are cutting your power lines before entering your house like a scene out of Panic Room, you have bigger problems.

For people who don't have any security system at all because they are too complicated, unfriendly and expensive, this is a great way for them to add a basic level of security and awareness into their home that they didn't have before.

You're right; that was a little movie-plot-threat-esque. Something that might be more realistic: what's to stop someone from waiting until the power goes out to rob me?

And yes, I recognize that something is better than nothing. I was motivated to post by two things: firstly, my security system comes with a battery backup, and my sense is that this is a standard feature. I assume if that didn't provide useful additional security, it wouldn't be a standard feature. Secondly, if you're going to have a side-by-side table that lists a bunch of ways your security product is better than the industry-standard product with which it's meant to compete, as they do on their indiegogo (going so far as to call current technology "broken"), you should be honest if it does so by being less secure. They imply an equivalence that isn't justified.

No it's not. If you live in a detached house your phone line, power, water, cable, etc, is readily accessible from outdoors. I've never robbed a house, but it seems pretty prudent to cut those things with an axe before you enter. Maybe thieves aren't doing that because security systems are commonly battery backed? They would have to be cellular as well. I'm not sure, but your original concern does not seem far fetched.

They don't actually need to cut it. There's usually a master breaker by the meter, so you can just switch it off.

> It seems like they don't take the physical security of the device into consideration at all.

Actually they did. Check the comments section on the project site.

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/canary-the-first-smart-hom...

If power or internet connectivity to the unit is lost, you get an alert.

This looks interesting but unless I could set up my own infrastructure so I would have total control of where the video stream goes I would never use one, especially in light of recent events.

Two things that would make this work for me, as opposed to my home grown old Linux laptop + webcam setup.

1. Make these devices cost < $100, so getting 2-5 of them makes sense. 720p HD webcams are ~$17 retail. Raspberry Pis are ~$35 retail.

2. Encrypt everything on the device, upload to your hosting solution (but let me use my own location if I want), and then make the client do decryption using my key. No one but the user should be able to decrypt/view anything.

But what I really want is for someone to create a "base station" that handles all the fancy stuff with little wireless(/encrypted) webcams that are (optionally) battery powered and tiny so you can stick them everywhere. To save power they could have a motion detection sensor and only start transmitting video wirelessly when there's motion.

$120 for the base station + $40/wireless "agent" cams would sell like hotcakes.

> Make these devices cost < $100

You're paying for the software.

Yes, you can get the hardware cheap. I can build a similar device that detects all of the things theirs does for about 75 bucks. The problem is the software will be a complete mess and a complete horror to use.

I think the problem is that they're trying to make significant profits from the hardware or they just designed it to be expensive. If the product was sufficiently high volume and they got most users to sign up for remote hosting they could make far more money.

My first thought: I wonder if the FBI/NSA/etc could compel Canary to give them access to live audio/video feeds of your home.

Not (easily) if you can sync to your own remote location and the data is (properly) encrypted with your own private key.

Lets not talk about that. Ycombinator is about rich people funding startups. Rich people of course like the status quo. Criticizing it, won't get you funding, but a hell ban ;-)

The risk / reward for early adopters seems insufficient to me. For a 20% discount (249/199) you're accepting the risk that the device is delivered and works as advertised. I wish them luck, the device does fills a need, but as a consumer the pricing doesn't work for me.

I've set up my own home security monitoring in the past using a camera, Zoneminder, and other tools.

Zoneminder is not that great, and I would love to have a packaged commercial solution which isn't too locked down from it's owner. I think there are nice opportunities for business in this area.

That all said, I hate gimicky javash*t websites like this. If I have to noscript-enable sites like jquery.com, your site probably is too sleazy for me to look at. Stop hiding your product behind cheesy effects.

I've used Zoneminder and, you're right, it's not all that great.

If you can stomach running Windows you might have a look at the Geovision NVR software (http://www.geovision.com.tw/english/Prod_GVNVRV85.asp). I find it to be a lot more polished than Zoneminder. The user interface is a bit ugly but the functionality has been satisfactory. I have a client using it in a 100 camera installation, and another using it with just a single camera and it works well in both cases. A license to use the software is included with any of Geovision's cameras, which are also quite nice (and Linux-based, though they don't allow you to get root on the cameras).

If I can't run the backend on my own server - I don't want it...

I was going to say the same thing. I'm not going to get burned by another nice gadget that becomes a useless paperweight when the company that made it shuts down.

Well, they picked an industry that has always had that problem. People mostly don't think about it now because everyone but ADT went out of business.

That's true if a security company is involved. But you could perfectly well have a device like this without involving a third party if all it's going to do is alert me.

This looks awesome - won't lie. But the paranoid skeptic in me has me concerned about the device being hacked. Imagine this siren being triggered in the middle of the night.

Also imagine people spying on you, in your home - if I am at home, how do I know if the camera is on? I assume that there isn't a big red light on the front, because if an intruder is there then that will give away the fact that they are being recorded. But if someone else, nefariously, accesses the device and starts recording me I would love to know that immediately.

Also, a potentially 'always-on' video & audio recorded in wake of Prism is actually more scary than people breaking in.

I love the idea though, and I feel like those issues can be addressed by the company.

> I assume that there isn't a big red light on the front, because if an intruder is there then that will give away the fact that they are being recorded.

Most surveillance cameras DO have a light when they're on. An intruder may recognize a security camera, realize it's recording, and leave. Would you rather have a burglar steal possessions from your home or be deterred from the presence of a camera? (a possible problem with the Canary is it doesn't look like a camera so regardless of light an intruder may ignore it)

That said, burglars are probably wearing some sort of mask obscuring their face, so neither scenario may make a difference. What really matters is monitoring in real-time and receiving alerts of suspicious activity and acting upon it.

> What really matters is monitoring in real-time and receiving alerts of suspicious activity and acting upon it.

That's true....perhaps I am over thinking it.

After hearing all the cases of people's laptops being hacked and their webcams being turned on - I can see a crazy incentive for people to start hacking these devices. That's a bit scary to me.

The video on their indiegogo page is way more useful IMO:

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/canary-the-first-smart-hom...

I think this looks really cool, but I have a smartthing. I'd be interested to see this encompassed by their system, because one device does not a secure home make. But by itself I'd have to buy one for every room and angle to make me feel actually secure.

For those who want more info on smartthings here ya go. http://www.smartthings.com/

Currently not taking orders.

Yeah, perhaps http://ninjablocks.com instead...

It's a great product, I'd suggest getting one when they free up their production line again.

Not sure I'm a huge fan of the all-in-one approach. I'd prefer a distributed network of sensors. Also, looking at their ad copy --- sensing fire using a temperature sensor is a fool's game. By the time the temperature changes appreciably, you're in deep trouble, depending of course on the sensor location.

I've been trying to find an outside security camera for years my only two requirements are 1. resolution greater than 640x480 2. able to be used outside in temperatures lower than 0°C (preferably -20°C).

There's nothing out there and anything close is thousands of dollars and commercial/industrial only.

Outdoor cameras traditionally have been housed in a weatherproof, heated enclosure. Not sure if this is still the case. Maybe you need to be looking for camera enclosures and cameras as separate items.

The problem is infrared light doesn't go through plastic so at night when video surveillance is most often needed it's useless.

An IP66 rated (may be overkill) simple camera is tough to find it may be out there somewhere I'll find one! I'll have to pick the brains of the surveillance guys at work they use Pelco but that's industrial.

I don't want to seem like I'm shilling for Geovision in this thread. I have two clients who have Geovision cameras and they have had great luck with them.

Have a look at: http://pd.geovision.tw/datasheet/BX-E/Datasheet_IPCamBX120DE...

That camera is housed in an outdoor enclosure rated at -40°C and has a 1280x1024 resolution (there are higher available in that product line). That's about a $700 camera. I haven't worked with that model, personally.

One of my clients has a number of this model installed: http://pd.geovision.tw/datasheet/Bullet/Datasheet_IPCamBL121...

This camera is only rated to -10°C, but is more like a $500 camera.

Thanks but that's what I would class as industrial. I'm looking for something I can set up at my parents, aunts, uncles places connected either wireless (preferred) or cable to a standard PC (Win/Mac).

No offense but that camera shown in that link would make the place look like a crack house or Hells Angels clubhouse.

D-Link makes a nice 360 degree fairly low profile camera the DCS-6010L but it's not very durable it can't operate under OC.

I wonder how the insurance market will respond to this? One of the incentives for installing an alarm (although this is a cheaper proposition) is a reduction in contents insurance.

In my experience, the question is not "do you have an authorised / specified alarm service" (although there is usually a distinction between monitored and unmonitored alarms), but simply "do you have an alarm system?".

Not smart. How could 1 device in 1 location be optimized to detect motion, video and environmental conditions.

I went with the iSmartAlarm (which was an Indiegogo project from last year which uses wireless, battery powered sensors which report back to the central device plugged into my router.

Makes a lot more sense to put the sensors where they're best positioned to detect the specific activity for which they're designed.

I would like to know what the "air quality sensor" does. A lot of the places I would want an air sensor are locations in the house where many of the other features would be useless and/or unwelcome. The placement/howmany guide suggests that the use case is largely entrances. Entrances are the last place I would want to put a air sensor, thermometer and/or hygrometer.

Put this in my server room - give it a few Ethernet ports to let me know if my switches have link, throw in the option to log video locally, and make it so I can bolt it down so that the thief doesn't run off with it.

This is the main problem. Thieves watch TV and have facebook accounts. They will see the Canary and be on alert. Thieves aren't that clueless, contrary to other types of criminals. The premeditated nature of robbing someone's house allows the provisions for obstacles like pets, alarms, cameras (e.g. masks), time for police to arrive (i.e. 3 minutes), canaries (unplug, toss into trash), etc. At best, the Canary will tell you, a masked intruder unplugged me and tossed me in a closet; or in a bag with the rest of the stolen goods ;) lol.

Just kidding.

Interesting idea, but if you have a pet, is there any value at all to such a device?

They stated they're working on handling pets in the comments on indiegogo.

Pointing the camera above their height works pretty well for me (I have small dogs). Creating motion detection "zones" in areas they can't go also works.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com