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

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #62120 > unrolled thread

OT: Looking for Remote WiFi Time-Lapse Camera

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  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

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#62142

On 2014-07-10, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> was all, like: 
>  --> 	 10 Jul 2014 05:31:57 GMT <c26mqdFqnqhU1@mid.individual.net>
>> On 2014-07-10, M-M <nospam@ny.more> wrote:
>>>
>>> Have you looked at Dropcam? You can make a time-lapse video of any
>>> period of time and have that video be 30, 60, 90 or 120 seconds long.
>>>
>>> Here is a 30 sec infrared timelapse of a deer eating my garden:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmPvFJbV1Fs
>>>
>>> Here is one sunrise to moonset in one minute:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PWuJlwWWbA
>
>> The thing that worries me about DropCam is the fact that Google now owns
>> them, and Google's number one interest is gathering personal data abut
>> its customers. We see it happening with Nest already. 
>
> We do?

Sure. Nest announced not long after the acquisition was complete that
they will start sharing data with Google:

<http://www.techhive.com/article/2366987/just-kidding-says-nest-we-are-totally-sharing-your-data-with-google.html>

Things can only get worse from here on out, IMO.

>> I haven't looked at DropCam's products in depth, but 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.
>
> Um... what? How do you expect them to be network cameras if they don't
> connect to a WAN? Or do you mean LAN only, because that seems of little
> utility to me. The reason I want a camera is so I can check on the house
> remotely.

Ah okay. I guess *your* use case is the only one that matters?

-- 
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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62160

Okay, so one time? In band camp? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> was all, like: 
 --> 	 10 Jul 2014 14:50:49 GMT <c27ni9F97mU1@mid.individual.net>
> On 2014-07-10, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> was all, like: 
>>  --> 	 10 Jul 2014 05:31:57 GMT <c26mqdFqnqhU1@mid.individual.net>
>>> On 2014-07-10, M-M <nospam@ny.more> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Have you looked at Dropcam? You can make a time-lapse video of any
>>>> period of time and have that video be 30, 60, 90 or 120 seconds long.
>>>>
>>>> Here is a 30 sec infrared timelapse of a deer eating my garden:
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmPvFJbV1Fs
>>>>
>>>> Here is one sunrise to moonset in one minute:
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PWuJlwWWbA
>>
>>> The thing that worries me about DropCam is the fact that Google now owns
>>> them, and Google's number one interest is gathering personal data abut
>>> its customers. We see it happening with Nest already. 
>>
>> We do?

> Sure. Nest announced not long after the acquisition was complete that
> they will start sharing data with Google:

> <http://www.techhive.com/article/2366987/just-kidding-says-nest-we-are-totally-sharing-your-data-with-google.html>

> Things can only get worse from here on out, IMO.

>>> I haven't looked at DropCam's products in depth, but 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.
>>
>> Um... what? How do you expect them to be network cameras if they don't
>> connect to a WAN? Or do you mean LAN only, because that seems of little
>> utility to me. The reason I want a camera is so I can check on the house
>> remotely.

> Ah okay. I guess *your* use case is the only one that matters?

I would think, given the number or remotely accessible cameras, it is the
usual one. Even businesses are installing cameras that can be accessed
remotely.

-- 
These go to 11

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62163

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: 
>  --> 	 10 Jul 2014 14:50:49 GMT <c27ni9F97mU1@mid.individual.net>
>> On 2014-07-10, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> was all, like: 
>>>  --> 	 10 Jul 2014 05:31:57 GMT <c26mqdFqnqhU1@mid.individual.net>
>>>> I haven't looked at DropCam's products in depth, but 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.
>>>
>>> Um... what? How do you expect them to be network cameras if they don't
>>> connect to a WAN? Or do you mean LAN only, because that seems of little
>>> utility to me. The reason I want a camera is so I can check on the house
>>> remotely.
>
>> Ah okay. I guess *your* use case is the only one that matters?
>
> I would think, given the number or remotely accessible cameras, it is the
> usual one. Even businesses are installing cameras that can be accessed
> remotely.

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. What I
meant by that is if standard functionality requires the device to be
connected to the WAN, I want no part of it. For instance, the ability to
take and retrieve pictures from the camera should not require a WAN
connection. Obviously internet features, such as uploading to a remote
web server, would require WAN connectivity; but I'm talking about basic
features of the device. No such standard features should require the
device to be connected to the WAN. Otherwise, I want no part of it.
Certain features of the Nest are disabled without a WAN connection, for
instance; and there is no option AFAIK to connect the Nest instead to a
server in your own LAN. That means for me to be able to use those
features, I have to allow Google to track my usage. That's a deal
breaker for me. I require full control over my devices; and they
shouldn't be crippled without a WAN connection. 

-- 
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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62166

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. Saying you want a network camera that doesn't have to be
connected to a WAN is like saying you'd like to buy a router that
doesn't connect to a WAN. I suppose, maybe, there's some edge case where
you would want a router for your LAN and not have the ability to connect
to the Internet, but I can't really think of one.

I would not call a camera that cannot connect to the WAN (or can, but is
not) a "network" camera; I'd call it a camera, or perhaps a closed-
circuit camera.

> What I meant by that is if standard functionality requires the device
> to be connected to the WAN, I want no part of it. For instance, the
> ability to take and retrieve pictures from the camera should not
> require a WAN connection. Obviously internet features, such as
> uploading to a remote web server, would require WAN connectivity; but
> I'm talking about basic features of the device.

I'd say taking pictures and putting them somewhere you can see one is
the most basic feature of a camera.

> No such standard features should require the device to be connected to
> the WAN. Otherwise, I want no part of it.  Certain features of the
> Nest are disabled without a WAN connection, for instance; and there is
> no option AFAIK to connect the Nest instead to a server in your own
> LAN. That means for me to be able to use those features, I have to
> allow Google to track my usage.

Granted, that makes your Nest work better because it allows it to learn
and improve its schedule. "Heat is on" and "AC is on" is not exactly
private data. Anyone can tell those things by looking at my house.

> 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.

-- 
I want to die in my sleep like my grandfather did, not screaming in
terror like his passengers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62167

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.

> Saying you want a network camera that doesn't have to be
> connected to a WAN is like saying you'd like to buy a router that
> doesn't connect to a WAN.

No, that's a bad analogy. 

> I suppose, maybe, there's some edge case where
> you would want a router for your LAN and not have the ability to connect
> to the Internet, but I can't really think of one.

That's because it's not a good analogy.

> I would not call a camera that cannot connect to the WAN (or can, but is
> not) a "network" camera; I'd call it a camera, or perhaps a closed-
> circuit camera.

No, you just seem to be unable or unwilling to distinguish between LAN
and WAN. Pretty silly.

>> What I meant by that is if standard functionality requires the device
>> to be connected to the WAN, I want no part of it. For instance, the
>> ability to take and retrieve pictures from the camera should not
>> require a WAN connection. Obviously internet features, such as
>> uploading to a remote web server, would require WAN connectivity; but
>> I'm talking about basic features of the device.
>
> I'd say taking pictures and putting them somewhere you can see one is
> the most basic feature of a camera.

Not sure exactly what you are trying to convey here, but it changes
nothing in my statement above.

>> No such standard features should require the device to be connected to
>> the WAN. Otherwise, I want no part of it.  Certain features of the
>> Nest are disabled without a WAN connection, for instance; and there is
>> no option AFAIK to connect the Nest instead to a server in your own
>> LAN. That means for me to be able to use those features, I have to
>> allow Google to track my usage.
>
> Granted, that makes your Nest work better because it allows it to learn
> and improve its schedule. "Heat is on" and "AC is on" is not exactly
> private data. Anyone can tell those things by looking at my house.

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. 

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.

>> 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.

-- 
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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62170

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

>> Saying you want a network camera that doesn't have to be
>> connected to a WAN is like saying you'd like to buy a router that
>> doesn't connect to a WAN.

> No, that's a bad analogy. 

>> I suppose, maybe, there's some edge case where
>> you would want a router for your LAN and not have the ability to connect
>> to the Internet, but I can't really think of one.

> That's because it's not a good analogy.

>> I would not call a camera that cannot connect to the WAN (or can, but is
>> not) a "network" camera; I'd call it a camera, or perhaps a closed-
>> circuit camera.

> 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.

>>> What I meant by that is if standard functionality requires the device
>>> to be connected to the WAN, I want no part of it. For instance, the
>>> ability to take and retrieve pictures from the camera should not
>>> require a WAN connection. Obviously internet features, such as
>>> uploading to a remote web server, would require WAN connectivity; but
>>> I'm talking about basic features of the device.
>>
>> I'd say taking pictures and putting them somewhere you can see one is
>> the most basic feature of a camera.

> Not sure exactly what you are trying to convey here, but it changes
> nothing in my statement above.

>>> No such standard features should require the device to be connected to
>>> the WAN. Otherwise, I want no part of it.  Certain features of the
>>> Nest are disabled without a WAN connection, for instance; and there is
>>> no option AFAIK to connect the Nest instead to a server in your own
>>> LAN. That means for me to be able to use those features, I have to
>>> allow Google to track my usage.
>>
>> Granted, that makes your Nest work better because it allows it to learn
>> and improve its schedule. "Heat is on" and "AC is on" is not exactly
>> private data. Anyone can tell those things by looking at my house.

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

> 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.

>>> 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 I only had a little humility, I'd be perfect."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62171

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62172

In article <c2d3lnF3l97U1@mid.individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> 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.

If I make suggestions and after several iterations of obtusness, they 
are still arguing with me, I suspect a troll rather than someone with a 
real problem.

My troll meter is slowly creeping up with this post.  I guess my 
threasholds are set lower than yours.

-- 
DeeDee, don't press that button!  DeeDee!  NO!  Dee...
[I filter all Goggle Groups posts, so any reply may be automatically ignored]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62173

On 2014-07-12, Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> wrote:
>
> If I make suggestions and after several iterations of obtusness, they 
> are still arguing with me, I suspect a troll rather than someone with a 
> real problem.
>
> My troll meter is slowly creeping up with this post.  I guess my 
> threasholds are set lower than yours.

No, I've noticed. I was mainly responding to ensure that others who read
the thread don't mistake his take on it as fact.

-- 
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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62182

Okay, so one time? In band camp? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> was all, like: 
 --> 	 12 Jul 2014 15:48:07 GMT <c2d3lnF3l97U1@mid.individual.net>
> 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.

What functionality of a network camera does someone want only on a LAN.
As I said, monitoring the kitchen from the computer is not that useful.
I am not being dense, you are failing to explain any use case where this
is desirable.

The network cameras for sale advertise the fact they are available over
the Internet, so non-WAN Network cameras seem to either not exist or be
very rare.

>>> 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?

I have asked you more than once to explain how this would be useful.

>>> 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.

WHy are you being a jackass instead of answering my question? I cannot
imagine anyone finding a LAN only network camera very useful. It would
not be at all useful to me, nor can I imagine a case where it would be
especially desirable. Nor would I call a camera only on a LAN a
"network" camera. If it's not available remotely, it's a closed-circuit
camera.

>> 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.

And you are incapable of explaining a single use case.

Fine. I'm done with this thread.

-- 
In the words of one of the founding Igors: 'We belong dead? Ecthcuthe
me? Where doeth it thay "we"?'

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62185

In article <slrnls4e33.d1c.g.kreme@Amelia.local>,
 Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:


> 
> Fine. I'm done with this thread.

Please tell me that's a promise, rather than another empty threat.

-- 
Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62193

Lewis:
> > Fine. I'm done with this thread.
> Please tell me that's a promise, rather than another empty threat.

Don Bruder:
I would not have know that he was in this thread if you hadn't replied
to him :)

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62186

On 2014-07-13, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> was all, like: 
>
>> 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.
>
> What functionality of a network camera does someone want only on a LAN.

Well, doing *anything* with the camera over a WiFi or Ethernet network,
such as controlling the camera, querying the camera, setting up the
camera to send images or video to an internal server, changing the
position of a PTZ camera, having the camera send system log information
to a central internal logging server, configuring motion detection,
event triggers, and camera tampering settings and so on, and yes, even
simply viewing the camera from an internal computer or device in any
other room in the building/house can be useful as well (despite your
claim otherwise), and the list goes on as far as your imagination will
allow. I've done all of these things with both my own and client /
employer network cameras that are not WAN accessible. Your insistence
that the features of network cameras are only useful when connected to
the WAN is just plain wrong in real world use.

> As I said, monitoring the kitchen from the computer is not that useful.
> I am not being dense, you are failing to explain any use case where this
> is desirable.

No, you are being *incredibly* dense. I'm done with your silly
arguments. I guess you'll need to figure out some way to deal with
your apparent utter confusion regarding how people use network cameras
in real life.

-- 
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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62187

On 2014-07-13, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>  Nor would I call a camera only on a LAN a "network" camera.

I'm sorry. I just have to say this has got to be the most idiotic
statement I've read in a day or so. If a camera is directly connected to
a WiFi or Ethernet LAN, it's a *network* camera by definition.

-- 
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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62190

In article <c2fmoaFk51qU2@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2014-07-13, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> >
> >  Nor would I call a camera only on a LAN a "network" camera.
> 
> I'm sorry. I just have to say this has got to be the most idiotic
> statement I've read in a day or so. If a camera is directly connected to
> a WiFi or Ethernet LAN, it's a *network* camera by definition.

If I recall correctly, the "N" in LAN and in WAN stands for "Network". 
So a camera on a LAN is on a Local Area Network, and is therefore a
network camera.

I write this just in case someone doesn't follow your explanation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62191

On 7/13/14 10:37 AM, in article 130720140837120472%michelle@michelle.org,
"Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <c2fmoaFk51qU2@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2014-07-13, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>> 
>>>  Nor would I call a camera only on a LAN a "network" camera.
>> 
>> I'm sorry. I just have to say this has got to be the most idiotic
>> statement I've read in a day or so. If a camera is directly connected to
>> a WiFi or Ethernet LAN, it's a *network* camera by definition.
> 
> If I recall correctly, the "N" in LAN and in WAN stands for "Network".
> So a camera on a LAN is on a Local Area Network, and is therefore a
> network camera.
> 
> I write this just in case someone doesn't follow your explanation.

Therefore, it IS 'by definition'...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62174

On 14-07-12 11:03, Lewis wrote:
> 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.


An IP device doesn't know if it is connected to the internet or not. It
just knows it is connected to an IP network. Setup/router/firewall
determines if the camera is accessible from outside the lan.

However, there may be cameras which are truly not internet accessible
due to technologies used. For instance, a camera that is layer2
(ethernet) won't be accessible from internet. A camera that uses
multicast would also not be accessible from internet since IPv4 does not
support multicast outside of an intranet.  (Bonjour for instance uses
multicast).

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web