Most active commenters
  • modeless(4)

←back to thread

551 points arrdalan | 15 comments | | HN request time: 1.051s | source | bottom

I needed a security camera inside my house, one that would send motion notifications to my smartphone and would allow me to livestream remotely. However, I could not find one that I could trust due to privacy concerns. Many of them upload the plaintext of videos to their servers and none is fully open-source as far as I know. Therefore, I decided to use my spare time to build one from scratch. Called Privastead (as in Private Homestead), it uses OpenMLS for end-to-end encryption (between the camera local hub and the smartphone) and is mostly implemented in Rust (except for part of the Android app that is implemented in Kotlin). The system is functional now and I've been using it in my own house for the past couple of weeks.

Based on some of the discussions I've seen online, it seems like there are other users who are also concerned with the privacy implications of home security cameras. Therefore, I decided to open source my solution for everyone to use. If you need a privacy-preserving home security camera, please give it a try and provide feedback. Note that trying out the system requires you to have a supported IP camera, a local machine connected to the IP camera, a server, and an Android smartphone. I have put together detailed instructions on setting up the system, which I hope makes it easier for others to get the system up and running.

In addition, consider contributing to the project. The prototype currently has a lot of limitations: mainly that it has only been tested with one IP camera, only allows the use of one camera, and only supports Android. I'll continue to improve the prototype as time permits, but progress will be much faster if there are other contributors as well.

1. modeless ◴[] No.42286902[source]
I've been wishing for a self hosted alternative to cloud cameras. My house was recently robbed and it was incredibly frustrating to know that criminals were literally in my house but not be able to see them due to the general crappiness of modern big tech software.

Seems silly to pay to upload all my video of my own house to who knows where and struggle to download it back with absurdly sluggish proprietary software when I have perfectly good computers here already. I should be able to check my cameras without waiting 10-30 seconds for loading spinners and I should be able to scrub through time instantly instead of waiting for interminable loading every time I touch the seek control.

What camera hardware are people using for custom setups? Is there anything out there that is wireless but with high quality/security firmware and reasonably priced?

replies(5): >>42286917 #>>42287053 #>>42287262 #>>42287294 #>>42287614 #
2. mattlondon ◴[] No.42286917[source]
Ubiquiti cameras store the data on-prem.

Not open source, and not the cheapest (but not absurd either). App is acceptable.

replies(1): >>42287172 #
3. 9dev ◴[] No.42287053[source]
So you did have a cloud camera system in place but it didn’t record them, or you don’t have one because all available options are shitty?
replies(1): >>42287098 #
4. modeless ◴[] No.42287098[source]
I do (Nest), and it did record them, but the shitty app made it really hard to see what was happening. Takes forever for the app to load, and it can't show all the cameras at once, and tapping into each camera shows another loading spinner, and then seeking through time is frustratingly slow and imprecise. Then there's the split between old cameras in one app and new cameras in another because Google can't be bothered to update old cameras to work with the new app (which is not any better than the old one anyway, worse if anything). It took minutes longer than necessary to get the full picture of what was happening, and when criminals are rifling through your stuff every second matters. Then after the fact it was a huge pain to get the recordings in a form I could archive and share, and there's time pressure because the recordings disappear after just a few days unless manually archived.

OTOH our alarm system (Ring) performed very well.

replies(1): >>42287272 #
5. Tempest1981 ◴[] No.42287172[source]
I read elsewhere that people are upset since Ubiquiti now requires using Unifi hub, at least for initial configuration. Maybe others do too?
replies(1): >>42287836 #
6. wkat4242 ◴[] No.42287262[source]
I absolutely hate cloud solutions but in this case there's a big benefit in that the robbers can't steal or smash your servers.

They can do that to your networking gear though but by then hopefully their image has already made it to the cloud.

replies(1): >>42287311 #
7. wkat4242 ◴[] No.42287272{3}[source]
Yeah my ring alarm worked well too when my place was broken into. It scared them off, they broke down the door but didn't actually come inside.

Unfortunately that prompted to police to be less than helpful (they considered it vandalism instead of a burglary and didn't even take prints). And because they didn't enter the house my cameras didn't see their faces so I couldn't try to track them down on my own either. But at least my stuff was ok.

8. 9x39 ◴[] No.42287294[source]
If you insist on 'secure' firmware, you're fighting uphill and probably going to be disappointed with the ecosystem out there. Tunnel back to your home network to access cams if that worries you.

I recommend either Ubiquiti or Reolink cameras, both are power-over-Ethernet. Both offer an app that allows connecting back to your equipment. UI will require their Protect software running on one of their local platforms in your house with storage on 1 or more disk drives, while Reolink offers direct storage on microSD on the camera itself, capped at 256GB.

replies(1): >>42287315 #
9. modeless ◴[] No.42287311[source]
In general I wouldn't expect random street criminals to be able to specifically locate and identify and properly disable a nondescript server in a closet in the middle of a break-in. They're frantically looking for cash and jewelry and portable commodity electronics and firearms. Stuff they can pocket and scram and easily use or fence later.
10. modeless ◴[] No.42287315[source]
Unfortunately my house is not wired for Ethernet and it's a rental so I can't install it. Wireless is a must and security is obviously important for wireless. But I think you are correct that I will be disappointed by what's out there.
replies(2): >>42287398 #>>42287437 #
11. 9x39 ◴[] No.42287398{3}[source]
Unfortunate. Reolink even has wireless cameras, but they will require a DC input, so you'd need an outdoor electrical outlet if you can't drill any holes and sneak either a power or UTP Ethernet cable.

Given the strict physical requirements, you might be looking at battery-backed wireless cameras of the type often found on Amazon, but afaik they will never offer the local storage or control you want.

I will say that surprising things can be accomplished with small drilled holes and a fishtape. Your risk tolerance and how nice the rental are obviously very important factors.

12. kdmtctl ◴[] No.42287437{3}[source]
I used a Reolink Argus with a battery and Wi-Fi connection. The one I used is probably EOL now, but a quick look at the site shows even solar chargeable options. So, it is possible.
replies(1): >>42288427 #
13. ◴[] No.42287614[source]
14. mattlondon ◴[] No.42287836{3}[source]
I think the hub thing is where the local storage is? I don't know if they are just open RTSP things or not that you could use with any random NVR?

I have unifi WiFi APs so have all the rest of the hub/controller anyway and trialled one camera but ultimately opted for Nest cameras instead.

15. ryandrake ◴[] No.42288427{4}[source]
I've got a Reolink Argus 2E which look like it's been replaced by the 3E, but it works great without any wired connection to the house. I've got it solar powered and strapped to a tree, unprotected by the elements. 2 years and still working.