Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #62171

Re: OT: Looking for Remote WiFi Time-Lapse Camera

Show key headers only | View raw

On 2014-07-12, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> was all, like: 
>  --> 	 11 Jul 2014 18:29:04 GMT <c2aongFjnrvU1@mid.individual.net>
>> On 2014-07-11, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> was all, like: 
>>>  --> 	 11 Jul 2014 14:01:12 GMT <c2a918Fg964U2@mid.individual.net>
>>>>
>>>> You clearly haven't worked for very many businesses, then. Most large
>>>> corporations, for instance, would never dream of making internal
>>>> security cameras accessible from the WAN. There are quite a lot of use
>>>> cases for network cameras that explicitly prohibit connection to the
>>>> internet. And, in case you didn't pay attention, what I said was, "if
>>>> connecting them to the WAN is a requirement for full network camera
>>>> functionality that you get with other network cameras, that would
>>>> certainly be a deal breaker for me". Parse those words carefully.
>>>
>>> I did, and what you said made no sense to me. A network camera, for me,
>>> is *by definition* one that is connected to the WAN so I can access it
>>> remotely.
>
>> Again, your use case does not apply to everyone. The fact is many do
>> *not* want security cameras accessible by WAN traffic.
>
> Right. Of course they don't and there are Non-network cameras for that.

Network cameras work just fine in this scenario and have features that
disconnected cameras cannot offer. You're just plain silly if you think
network cameras aren't used in private LANs. I see it *all the time*.

> That isn't the question, the question is why you would want a network
> camera that doesn't connect to the Internet.

Honestly, I'm not sure if you are just being obtuse on purpose or if you
are legitimately this dense. Get this through your incredibly thick
head: plenty of people put network cameras on private LANs that are
*not* accessible via the WAN. They do this because they want the
functionality of a network camera without the hassle of worrying about
internet baddies gaining access to their cameras. You apparently refuse
to acknowledge this; but I know for a fact many people do just this with
network cameras, because I see them used like this all the time.

>> No, you just seem to be unable or unwilling to distinguish between LAN
>> and WAN. Pretty silly.
>
> I perfectly understand the difference between LAN and WAN. Thanks.

Okay. You say you understand the difference, but refuse to acknowledge
that a network camera can be useful on a LAN without WAN access. Do you
have any idea how silly you are being?

>> You haven't changed the fact that such data does not have to be
>> transmitted to a remote server to be useful. They could instead be
>> transmitted to a computer in the LAN and that information could be
>> conveyed without any WAN connectivity. 
>
> And as I said, from the products available it seems the vast majority of
> consumers want a camera they can use to monitor their home remotely.

Regardless of what the supposed majority wants, there are still plenty
of folks who use network cameras without WAN access. I see it all the
time in homes and corporations. It's commonplace. Just because your
limited imagination won't allow you to imagine use cases for network
cameras without WAN access doesn't mean those use cases do not exist or
aren't commonplace.

> Being able to sit in the computer room and see the kitchen isn't all
> that compelling.

If "live viewing" was the only function of a network camera, that might
actually be important. Thankfully, that's not the case. You must not
have much of an imagination. And you clearly haven't seen network
cameras in actual real-world use outside of your little bubble. In this
light, it kinda makes sense that you would balk at use cases that
explicitly prohibit WAN connections. Apparently, you're just ignorant.

>> If *you* are willing to share your personal data with Google, that's on
>> you. I refuse to purchase a product that is less useful without a WAN
>> connection.
>
> See? You did it again. You seem to be saying that WAN = Google.

No, I'm saying that if a WAN connection to send my personal data to some
company is required for me to be able to utilize standard web camera
functionality, I'm not interested. Understand yet?

>>>> That's a deal breaker for me. I require full control over my devices;
>>>> and they shouldn't be crippled without a WAN connection. 
>>>
>>> You seem to be using WAN connection for "I don't want to connect to
>>> Google" and not "I don't want to connect to the Internet (WAN)." You
>>> can't put photos on the Internet without connecting to the Internet,
>>> it's just not possible.
>
>> No, you seem to be unable or unwilling to distinguish between a local
>> network (LAN) and the internet (WAN). Some people do not want their
>> devices accessible by strangers. You can refuse to accept this, or
>> discount it, but it remains a fact.
>
> WAN does not mean "accessible by strangers" My Transporter is on the
> Internet and is not accessible by strangers. In fact, many things are
> connected to the Internet and are not accessible by strangers, the
> Internet wouldn't work if this wasn't true.

If it's hooked up to the internet, internet requests are sent to the
device, and the device may or may not respond to those requests; but the
requests do make it to the device. And it's up to the security features
of the device itself to ensure baddies don't get in. Typically such
devices don't offer the best in security to begin with. If that security
fails, you've just given complete strangers access to your camera /
personal information. In many cases, users of network cameras would
rather not take that risk; so they prohibit connection to the WAN. You
seem to be completely unwilling to entertain the idea that anyone might
use a network camera in this way. You're just plain wrong.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

Back to comp.sys.mac.system | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

OT: Looking for Remote WiFi Time-Lapse Camera Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2014-07-09 19:44 -0400
  Re: OT: Looking for Remote WiFi Time-Lapse Camera Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-07-09 17:29 -0700
    Re: OT: Looking for Remote WiFi Time-Lapse Camera Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-07-10 01:06 +0000
    Re: OT: Looking for Remote WiFi Time-Lapse Camera Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2014-07-09 21:56 -0400
  Re: OT: Looking for Remote WiFi Time-Lapse Camera Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-07-10 01:05 +0000
    Re: OT: Looking for Remote WiFi Time-Lapse Camera Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-07-10 02:55 +0000
  Re: OT: Looking for Remote WiFi Time-Lapse Camera Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2014-07-09 19:18 -0700
    Re: OT: Looking for Remote WiFi Time-Lapse Camera Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-07-10 05:09 +0000
    Re: OT: Looking for Remote WiFi Time-Lapse Camera Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-07-09 22:18 -0700
      Re: OT: Looking for Remote WiFi Time-Lapse Camera Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-07-09 22:30 -0700
        Re: OT: Looking for Remote WiFi Time-Lapse Camera Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2014-07-10 09:13 -0400
          Re: OT: Looking for Remote WiFi Time-Lapse Camera dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2014-07-11 08:36 +1000
            Re: OT: Looking for Remote WiFi Time-Lapse Camera Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2014-07-10 20:24 -0400
              Re: OT: Looking for Remote WiFi Time-Lapse Camera Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-07-11 00:46 +0000
              Re: OT: Looking for Remote WiFi Time-Lapse Camera dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2014-07-11 16:29 +1000
  Re: OT: Looking for Remote WiFi Time-Lapse Camera M-M <nospam@ny.more> - 2014-07-10 01:08 -0400
    Re: OT: Looking for Remote WiFi Time-Lapse Camera Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-07-10 05:31 +0000
      Re: OT: Looking for Remote WiFi Time-Lapse Camera M-M <nospam@ny.more> - 2014-07-10 01:49 -0400
        Re: OT: Looking for Remote WiFi Time-Lapse Camera Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-07-10 14:28 +0000
      Re: OT: Looking for Remote WiFi Time-Lapse Camera Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-07-10 07:31 +0000
        Re: OT: Looking for Remote WiFi Time-Lapse Camera Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-07-10 14:50 +0000
          Re: OT: Looking for Remote WiFi Time-Lapse Camera Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-07-11 07:20 +0000
            Re: OT: Looking for Remote WiFi Time-Lapse Camera Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-07-11 14:01 +0000
              Re: OT: Looking for Remote WiFi Time-Lapse Camera Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-07-11 18:04 +0000
                Re: OT: Looking for Remote WiFi Time-Lapse Camera Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-07-11 18:29 +0000
                Re: OT: Looking for Remote WiFi Time-Lapse Camera Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-07-12 15:03 +0000
                Re: OT: Looking for Remote WiFi Time-Lapse Camera Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-07-12 15:48 +0000
                Re: OT: Looking for Remote WiFi Time-Lapse Camera Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2014-07-12 10:58 -0700
                Re: OT: Looking for Remote WiFi Time-Lapse Camera Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-07-12 18:16 +0000
                Re: OT: Looking for Remote WiFi Time-Lapse Camera Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-07-13 07:42 +0000
                Re: OT: Looking for Remote WiFi Time-Lapse Camera Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-07-13 08:17 -0700
                Re: OT: Looking for Remote WiFi Time-Lapse Camera Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2014-07-13 16:22 -0400
                Re: OT: Looking for Remote WiFi Time-Lapse Camera Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-07-13 15:22 +0000
                Re: OT: Looking for Remote WiFi Time-Lapse Camera Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-07-13 15:26 +0000
                Re: OT: Looking for Remote WiFi Time-Lapse Camera Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-07-13 08:37 -0700
                Re: OT: Looking for Remote WiFi Time-Lapse Camera George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-07-13 11:10 -0500
                Re: OT: Looking for Remote WiFi Time-Lapse Camera JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-07-12 14:44 -0400

csiph-web