Redundancy for Surveillance Systems

[TheFoxRocks]

The current gun safe in mount in the slab of the house. To move it will take a cutting torch. The gun safe is in a harden closet with a steel door and bar locks. there are two cameras on the closet one inside and one out side. They will need a sledge hammer or a very good saw to get in the closet. The closet also has a automatic co2 fire suppression system. In the closet is a floor safe buried in the slab. That safe was put in as the slab was poured and welded to the rebar. The backup NAS is in this closet. The Main BI system is in a normal rack in a regular closet, it is also in direct view of camera. I have about the same number of cameras inside the house as outside.
It would be nice to have the NAS in another safe.

As is standard all cameras and computers are on UPS.

Plus you will need to kill my three dogs to get in the house.

So I am really not trying to be an @$$ here but having any type of booby trap in your home in the United States is illegal. There are many reasons for it and home owners can be held responsible even when it works like you intended it (deterring a burglar). Not to say you do not have the right to defend yourself because you certainly do. Having some law enforcement in my education I do not recommend anyone try to deter criminals in this manner. Plus regardless of where you have your "suppression system" setup you could obviously injure someone it was not meant for like firefighters that might get near the closet during a home fire or various other persons that may be in your home legally.

It sounds like you are very well defended which alone is already an excellent deterrent. I cannot remember if I mentioned this here or not but it has become common knowledge that in many home invasions the residents usually know the burglar or the person that set it up. Therefore, many things that residents thought were in place as a security measure are already defeated before the burglary even begins. When criminals target homes they do it in two ways, the first is opportunity like knowing you are on vacation and the second is how hard your house might be to break into. Meaning if a criminal thinks your home is difficult to break into they might move on to an easier victim or they might realize you have something worth stealing and be up for the challenge.

Like I said not trying to trigger anyone but the average police response time in the United States is about ten minutes from the point of contact if I remember correctly and I think Texas is one of the longest. Finally unless your dogs have been professionally trained they can easily be defeated by someone that knows them or someone with a pocket full of doggy treats. Have you ever watched a documentary on how dogs react to masked criminals? When they use a 'friendly, non threatening tone' and have treats most dogs, even people that thought their dogs would attack on the spot are completely defeated.

I like to educate people on these matters and more times than not people get upset over the advice and by no way wish anyone ill will. However, if a sophisticated criminal gets into your home and realizes you have all these cameras and has left other evidence, they just might burn your house down to try and get rid of the evidence. Like I have said, desperate people will go to desperate extremes to not get caught. Everyone thinks it will never happen to them until it is right in front of them.

 

[fenderman]

I honestly did think about something like that, like maybe taking out a small partition on a local computer or hiding a clone of the DVR or something. However, by law for something to be considered truly backed up or redundant it has to be stored on an offsite location. For instance, I would be worried about a burglary taking place and them finding the second DVR/NVR or computer and stealing it. Then you home owner holding my business responsible for not providing a true backup. It is an awesome idea, especially since I would not have to worry about Internet bandwidth and security over the Internet. Just I do not think it is ever going to work for my business.

There is no law that defines backup or redundancy with respect to NVR/DVR's. You can do as you please. If you are worried about a burglary, why are you not concerned that the internet line will be cut and your cloud solution is worthless. You can go on and on. A hidden NVR would be near impossible to find unless hours are spent inside the home, which is unusual. Simply pop an SD card into the camera and call it a day.

 

[TheFoxRocks]

There is no law that defines backup or redundancy with respect to NVR/DVR's. You can do as you please. If you are worried about a burglary, why are you not concerned that the internet line will be cut and your cloud solution is worthless. You can go on and on. A hidden NVR would be near impossible to find unless hours are spent inside the home, which is unusual. Simply pop an SD card into the camera and call it a day.

I can almost guarantee you there is. I am not versed well in the language of the law so I would not even know where to look. The liability would come in when something actually happened to a home owner or other client like the previously mentioned things. Basically there is a good chance a court is going to hold a surveillance business responsible in the event that a customer does lose their data and no backup was in place or offered. I guess you could get around this if you had an attorney write something into your policy where you the business were not responsible for backing up the clients data and it was up to them. I have talked to two different insurance agents and they have both told me that a business like mine is much more likely to be sued after the installation has taken place, not during the installation where you think the most lawsuits would happen.

However, even if there is no regulation in place and I could get around liability with a written policy I think it would be an "unprofessional" thing to do. Imagine a customer says to me "I want to backup this footage somehow, so if something does happen to my main DVR I retain something". Then my response is "no sorry sir we do not offer anything like that, it is your responsibility". That is the best way to say it and it still sounds bad.

The entire point to having offsite storage is there is almost nothing that can happen, short of a conspired premeditated attack on a client that can leave them completely helpless. In my personal opinion the only type of criminal that is going to target your surveillance system is a sophisticated one that knows what he/she is dealing with. Which very well could end with them stealing your entire network to get rid of evidence, things like this happen more than people think. Also a natural disaster might happen and simple snapshots of moments before the incident might prove useful for insurance companies.

I think that if you have a criminal smart enough to cut the cable line to disable some security features in your home before breaking in, you are screwed right from the start. However, I personally think this is a far fetched scenario, even for a skeptic like me. Take for instance, there is nothing I can do about power backups either. So if your power goes out and you did not have a third party hook the surveillance system into a generator the cameras will not be functioning anyway. Plus if your power is out, chances probably are the cable is out too, which means no offsite storage.

Before I start another flood, I think it is important to offer some type of backup, even if it is as easy as making a solid recommendation to the client. However, I still think that I would need to set up the backup myself for them regardless of whether or not it is through a third party or me.

I have been thinking about the onsite backup and how it could greatly simplify things for me and my business. An NVR is also different correct? As in it is attached to your network? So if I understand it correctly it could be hidden away much better than a DVR? Even if it is not directly attached you would have to very strategically place it for it to work. So that a criminal specifically looking for it or one just looking for valuables does not accidentally stumble upon it.

 

[fenderman]

I can almost guarantee you there is. I am not versed well in the language of the law so I would not even know where to look. The liability would come in when something actually happened to a home owner or other client like the previously mentioned things. Basically there is a good chance a court is going to hold a surveillance business responsible in the event that a customer does lose their data and no backup was in place or offered. I guess you could get around this if you had an attorney write something into your policy where you the business were not responsible for backing up the clients data and it was up to them. I have talked to two different insurance agents and they have both told me that a business like mine is much more likely to be sued after the installation has taken place, not during the installation where you think the most lawsuits would happen.

However, even if there is no regulation in place and I could get around liability with a written policy I think it would be an "unprofessional" thing to do. Imagine a customer says to me "I want to backup this footage somehow, so if something does happen to my main DVR I retain something". Then my response is "no sorry sir we do not offer anything like that, it is your responsibility". That is the best way to say it and it still sounds bad.

The entire point to having offsite storage is there is almost nothing that can happen, short of a conspired premeditated attack on a client that can leave them completely helpless. In my personal opinion the only type of criminal that is going to target your surveillance system is a sophisticated one that knows what he/she is dealing with. Which very well could end with them stealing your entire network to get rid of evidence, things like this happen more than people think. Also a natural disaster might happen and simple snapshots of moments before the incident might prove useful for insurance companies.

I think that if you have a criminal smart enough to cut the cable line to disable some security features in your home before breaking in, you are screwed right from the start. However, I personally think this is a far fetched scenario, even for a skeptic like me. Take for instance, there is nothing I can do about power backups either. So if your power goes out and you did not have a third party hook the surveillance system into a generator the cameras will not be functioning anyway. Plus if your power is out, chances probably are the cable is out too, which means no offsite storage.

Before I start another flood, I think it is important to offer some type of backup, even if it is as easy as making a solid recommendation to the client. However, I still think that I would need to set up the backup myself for them regardless of whether or not it is through a third party or me.

I have been thinking about the onsite backup and how it could greatly simplify things for me and my business. An NVR is also different correct? As in it is attached to your network? So if I understand it correctly it could be hidden away much better than a DVR? Even if it is not directly attached you would have to very strategically place it for it to work. So that a criminal specifically looking for it or one just looking for valuables does not accidentally stumble upon it.

I guarantee you with certainty that there is no such law. Not sure where you are getting this false misleading information. There is no liability to the surveillance company for simply not offering a backup solution. You can make it clear that the recorder and or hard drive can fail and the consequences thereof. Furthermore, even if you said nothing, they would have to prove that the video would more likely than not help them recover their loss - fat chance.
No one said you should not offer a backup. Two reasonable solutions were provided to you, second NVR and camera SD cards.
Sophisticated burglars dont give a rats ass about your cameras, they use a mask and in turn your cams are worthless. They dont go around the house searching for a secondary NVR.
The first line of defense should always be an alarm system.
A natural disaster will take out your cable lines well before you can back anything up. The insurance company does not need video of a natural disaster, it is self evident.
Yes, an nvr is a networked device. You should probably not be installing them (or dvr's for that matter) if you have to ask.

 

[TheFoxRocks]

I guarantee you with certainty that there is no such law. Not sure where you are getting this false misleading information. There is no liability to the surveillance company for simply not offering a backup solution. You can make it clear that the recorder and or hard drive can fail and the consequences thereof. Furthermore, even if you said nothing, they would have to prove that the video would more likely than not help them recover their loss - fat chance.
No one said you should not offer a backup. Two reasonable solutions were provided to you, second NVR and camera SD cards.
Sophisticated burglars dont give a rats ass about your cameras, they use a mask and in turn your cams are worthless. They dont go around the house searching for a secondary NVR.
The first line of defense should always be an alarm system.
A natural disaster will take out your cable lines well before you can back anything up. The insurance company does not need video of a natural disaster, it is self evident.
Yes, an nvr is a networked device. You should probably not be installing them (or dvr's for that matter) if you have to ask.

Sounds like I hit a nerve. If you were a home owner and had a major organization like (Brinks or ADT) install a sophisticated security system in your home, then a burglar broke in and stole your DVR and said organization said "sorry your out of luck" would you be upset? Spoiler alert the reasonable answer to the question is yes, you would be upset. The next question is it reasonable for a court of law to hold them responsible? Spoiler alert again, the reasonable answer to the question is yes. The attorney is going to argue that some kind of backup or contingency plan should have been implied or offered with the system regardless of even if you have it written into your policy. I imagine their cameras are mostly IP cameras so they can be streamed and monitored but that is beyond the point.

The only question that you should ask is whether or not it is reasonable for someone to hold you responsible for something like this. I think the obvious answer to the question is yes, someone can reasonably hold you responsible.

Also your views are ridiculously uneducated. You learn that criminals can be broken down into groups in even the most basic principles of law enforcement. The most sophisticated criminals want to avoid things like surveillance cameras. They want to avoid all confrontation at all cost. Not that you want to be robbed by anyone, but sophisticated criminals are not desperate and do not want to give the law enforcement any reason to hunt them down. This means staying completely out of sight (like surveillance cameras), avoiding breaking in while you are home, avoiding being seen by your neighbors. You know what most criminals interviewed they do not give a "rats ass" about? You got it alarm systems, most criminals know how to disable them or know they are going to be in and out before law enforcement responds. This is common knowledge than anyone that knows how to use Google can figure out.

Your logic is laughable... have you ever in your entire life heard of a criminal climbing to the top of a telephone pole, cutting a cable line to disable cloud functionality with security cameras before burglarizing your home? Ridiculous. I mean where do I start with your logic? It is ridiculous that I even have to offer examples. Have you ever had a neighbor have a house burn down? Well I have two neighbors that are literally next door neighbors to me and have had their houses burn down. There were so many investigators coming out to do their investigation on the property it was not funny. By the way these investigations keep them from getting insurance money and all types of other stuff. I cannot tell you how many times our door got knocked on to ask if we had recordings, pictures of the fire or security cameras that might have seen it. Our neighbor is an electrician and has ran wires himself and think the extra fuss was over whether or not it was something he did himself. Security cameras with an offsite backup could have resolved that in an instant.

So common sense tells you that having security cameras during something like a house fire are literally invaluable if they were able to upload any type of snapshots before the power or Internet failed. Your DVR and backup NVR (if that is what you want to call it) are useless if they burned up in the fire. A fire is not the only example either.

Also I said I was considering the onsite backup. I read about the difference between NVRs and DVRs before coming here and remembered there was not much difference besides what the cameras use. An NVR is not simply a "networked device". An NVR basically uses Ethernet as a medium to connect surveillance cameras while a DVR commonly uses Coaxial to connect cameras. So in the same regard a DVR is a "networked device" as well because most modern ones connect to your home network. I was wondering why you were using NVR instead of DVR in case it made a difference, now I know it really does not. The confusion has probably come because DVRs were not commonly networked to a LAN in the past. Now that they are it has gotten confusing, but thanks for trying to insult me anyway.

 

[fenderman]

Sounds like I hit a nerve. If you were a home owner and had a major organization like (Brinks or ADT) install a sophisticated security system in your home, then a burglar broke in and stole your DVR and said organization said "sorry your out of luck" would you be upset? Spoiler alert the reasonable answer to the question is yes, you would be upset. The next question is it reasonable for a court of law to hold them responsible? Spoiler alert again, the reasonable answer to the question is yes. The attorney is going to argue that some kind of backup or contingency plan should have been implied or offered with the system regardless of even if you have it written into your policy. I imagine their cameras are mostly IP cameras so they can be streamed and monitored but that is beyond the point.

The only question that you should ask is whether or not it is reasonable for someone to hold you responsible for something like this. I think the obvious answer to the question is yes, someone can reasonably hold you responsible.

Also your views are ridiculously uneducated. You learn that criminals can be broken down into groups in even the most basic principles of law enforcement. The most sophisticated criminals want to avoid things like surveillance cameras. They want to avoid all confrontation at all cost. Not that you want to be robbed by anyone, but sophisticated criminals are not desperate and do not want to give the law enforcement any reason to hunt them down. This means staying completely out of sight (like surveillance cameras), avoiding breaking in while you are home, avoiding being seen by your neighbors. You know what most criminals interviewed they do not give a "rats ass" about? You got it alarm systems, most criminals know how to disable them or know they are going to be in and out before law enforcement responds. This is common knowledge than anyone that knows how to use Google can figure out.

Your logic is laughable... have you ever in your entire life heard of a criminal climbing to the top of a telephone pole, cutting a cable line to disable cloud functionality with security cameras before burglarizing your home? Ridiculous. I mean where do I start with your logic? It is ridiculous that I even have to offer examples. Have you ever had a neighbor have a house burn down? Well I have two neighbors that are literally next door neighbors to me and have had their houses burn down. There were so many investigators coming out to do their investigation on the property it was not funny. By the way these investigations keep them from getting insurance money and all types of other stuff. I cannot tell you how many times our door got knocked on to ask if we had recordings, pictures of the fire or security cameras that might have seen it. Our neighbor is an electrician and has ran wires himself and think the extra fuss was over whether or not it was something he did himself. Security cameras with an offsite backup could have resolved that in an instant.

So common sense tells you that having security cameras during something like a house fire are literally invaluable if they were able to upload any type of snapshots before the power or Internet failed. Your DVR and backup NVR (if that is what you want to call it) are useless if they burned up in the fire. A fire is not the only example either.

Also I said I was considering the onsite backup. I read about the difference between NVRs and DVRs before coming here and remembered there was not much difference besides what the cameras use. An NVR is not simply a "networked device". An NVR basically uses Ethernet as a medium to connect surveillance cameras while a DVR commonly uses Coaxial to connect cameras. So in the same regard a DVR is a "networked device" as well because most modern ones connect to your home network. I was wondering why you were using NVR instead of DVR in case it made a difference, now I know it really does not. The confusion has probably come because DVRs were not commonly networked to a LAN in the past. Now that they are it has gotten confusing, but thanks for trying to insult me anyway.

Yes, you hit the trunkslammer detection nerve. I am not quite done insulting you. Read on. You are not qualified to install a standard doorbell let alone a surveillance system.
Brinks and ADT dont install sophisticated burgler alarm systems. They inept installers have just enough knowledge to wire a honeywell all in one keypad/"panel" and glue sensors to walls and doors.
You dont have a basic understanding of tort or contract law. None. That is evident from your response. 99, percent of installed systems are not backed up. Like I said, what is your response when your fancy offsite backup is rendered useless by a wire cutter?
The fact that you think a criminal has to climb onto a telephone pole to cut your cable line is very concerning to me. You want to install surveillance systems but dont understand how cable is brought into a house are you kidding me?
AN NVR IS A NETWORKED DEVICE! YA dimwit! Hence the name, network video recorder!!!! It makes a HUGE difference!!! You dont have to homerun all the cameras to the NVR, you can hide it anywhere you can bring a single ethernet connection!!!!
The fact that you dont understand this basic distinction, even with the help of google is frightening.

This folks is a great example as to why you should no let and shmuck with tools "install" as system for you!
Looking forward to your long winded manifesto like response.

 

[TheFoxRocks]

Yes, you hit the trunkslammer detection nerve. I am not quite done insulting you. Read on. You are not qualified to install a standard doorbell let alone a surveillance system.
Brinks and ADT dont install sophisticated burgler alarm systems. They inept installers have just enough knowledge to wire a honeywell all in one keypad/"panel" and glue sensors to walls and doors.
You dont have a basic understanding of tort or contract law. None. That is evident from your response. 99, percent of installed systems are not backed up. Like I said, what is your response when your fancy offsite backup is rendered useless by a wire cutter?
The fact that you think a criminal has to climb onto a telephone pole to cut your cable line is very concerning to me. You want to install surveillance systems but dont understand how cable is brought into a house are you kidding me?
AN NVR IS A NETWORKED DEVICE! YA dimwit! Hence the name, network video recorder!!!! It makes a HUGE difference!!! You dont have to homerun all the cameras to the NVR, you can hide it anywhere you can bring a single ethernet connection!!!!
The fact that you dont understand this basic distinction, even with the help of google is frightening.

This folks is a great example as to why you should no let and shmuck with tools "install" as system for you!

Why do you think you know the slightest thing about me and what I am and am not qualified to install?

Firstly, if your cameras are taking motion detected snapshots how is a burglar going to get anywhere into your property to cut your cable line without being seen and uploaded? You really did not think that insult through did you? Again though have you EVER in your ENTIRE LIFE heard of a burglar cutting the cable line to disable cloud storage functional with security cameras? Again RIDICULOUS.

In your angry rage you missed the distinction, again. You can attach A SINGLE Ethernet cable to a DVR in the same way, making it a "networked device".

So when a burglar breaks into your home and disables the DVR you don't think it is very much possible for them to follow the Ethernet line back to your LAN and find the backup NVR? So you think it is more likely that a burglar is going to cut your cable line before burglarizing your home but not locate a backup storage device in your house? It is called common sense my friend, maybe you should get some.

 

[fenderman]

Why do you think you know the slightest thing about me and what I am and am not qualified to install?

Firstly, if your cameras are taking motion detected snapshots how is a burglar going to get anywhere into your property to cut your cable line without being seen and uploaded? You really did not think that insult through did you? Again though have you EVER in your ENTIRE LIFE heard of a burglar cutting the cable line to disable cloud storage functional with security cameras? Again RIDICULOUS.

In your angry rage you missed the distinction, again. You can attach A SINGLE Ethernet cable to a DVR in the same way, making it a "networked device".

So when a burglar breaks into your home and disables the DVR you don't think it is very much possible for them to follow the Ethernet line back to your LAN and find the backup NVR? So you think it is more likely that a burglar is going to cut your cable line before burglarizing your home but not locate a backup storage device in your house? It is called common sense my friend, maybe you should get some.

I know everything about your capabilities and your lack thereof based on your posts.
Take your pic

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=face+fle...&sprefix=face+flee,aps,171&ref=nb_sb_ss_i_2_9

Hell, he could cover his face with his hand until he cuts the cable.
You cannot attach a single ethernet cable to a DVR and pass the CAMERAS to it!!!
You are a moron if you think that a burglar is following network cable all over the house. You dont understand that the network cable does not run from one nvr to the other, there can be a series of switches in between them, the NVR simply has to reside somewhere on the network. He would have to chase many cables. All while the alarm is sounding!
For god's sake you dont know what an NVR is, how cable is installed, and you want to do this for others? You are a fraud and scammer.
You are a rippoff artist, screwing folks out of their hard earned money. Hopefully you get shut down. You should not be in this business.

 

[spammenotinoz]

Hey guys I am a small time business owner wanting to get into installing surveillance systems. I have planned and figured almost everything out, including insurance, installation, setup and the like for this business. However, a major obstacle for me will be how I offer my clients backup for their security footage. For instance, the systems that I install are simple solutions that are pretty awesome, except the fact that there is a single point of failure. That is the actual DVR box. Specifically, if a burglar steals the box or a act of nature damages the box the client has nothing to provide to authorities or insurance agencies. I obviously need to be able to offer my clients some method either through me or a third party, that will allow them to backup at least a couple days worth of footage.

Fortunately I am somewhat educated in computers and how they operate. Therefore, I was thinking about setting up some kind of NAS/FTP server that will allow me to offer my customers some kind of backup. I noticed that most modern camera systems have a dedicated menu for FTP protocols. However, I have never actually had to setup my own NAS/FTP server so this would be totally new to me. I am concerned about other issues that may arise as well, such as security concerns and bandwidth concerns. My surveillance systems are set to record continuously and overwrite the data on the HDD as needed. I am going to keep that the same, but was thinking maybe I could add in a control to take several still images when the motion sensors are activated and upload those to my server or even a third party. I realize I am going to get a ton of false positives but the still images should be manageable.

I also thought about a cloud service as well. I just installed a system that had cloud functionality, but there are a couple major concerns. It looks like this one only works with Drop Box and I cannot get it to sync. I am thinking this particular one was never meant to use cloud functionality. Because it looks totally different from the directions and pictures in the manual, this one looks very primitive. Another concern is that cloud services like Drop Box only offer a tiny amount of data for free. I do not think this would be enough for hundreds of video stills.

Anyway I will leave it at that for now, I am open to any other advice/criticisms as well. If you have a system you really like or think is good let me know. I have posted this topic in other non-surveillance related forums with some help. I was hoping maybe a dedicated forum would be able to go more in depth with stuff like this. I appreciate any advice in advance!

All my Footage is synced immediately to the cloud, using a variety of providers,
- OneDrive (leverage an O365 subscription, each user has 1 TB of storage)
- Google Backup and Sync
- Amazon S3 (cost of puts adds up here, not so much the actual cost of storage)
- I have also successfully hosted BI on EC2, but it's just as easy if not simpler to send a camera stream direct to AWS IoT then onto all sorts of services for analytics. This is quite easy with quickstarts available supporting pretty much every ONVIF camera
H.265 saves on upload, but if you keep the frame rate reasonable then even in Australia where we have crap internet, it should be fine.

 

[spammenotinoz]

The issue with backing to a offsite location with a file, is that the most important information occurs less than 1 minute before the system goes off line. The bad guys break in and take the nvr or smash it.

If the backup is not running in real-time it is nearly useless in a surveillance system. What happens with cloud when the internet cable is cut.

Redundancies are all about layers, cost vs rewards.
- camera overlap
- sd cards in cameras
- offsite storage to cloud
- Router with (4G backup built-in)
- ups on the Switch, Router and BI server
- padlock on external meter box
- physical measures to secure nvr and nas.
- Sync motion events and daily time lapse summaries to one-drive (more for convenience,
My second stream goes direct from the cameras live into AWS IoT, so there is no delay. (that is instead of having a second NVR\BI device on-prem).

All of these add up. No you don't need them all, but it's certainly sensible using offsite storage. I have used it many times.

 

[The_E]

Why do you think you know the slightest thing about me and what I am and am not qualified to install?

Firstly, if your cameras are taking motion detected snapshots how is a burglar going to get anywhere into your property to cut your cable line without being seen and uploaded? You really did not think that insult through did you? Again though have you EVER in your ENTIRE LIFE heard of a burglar cutting the cable line to disable cloud storage functional with security cameras? Again RIDICULOUS.

In your angry rage you missed the distinction, again. You can attach A SINGLE Ethernet cable to a DVR in the same way, making it a "networked device".

So when a burglar breaks into your home and disables the DVR you don't think it is very much possible for them to follow the Ethernet line back to your LAN and find the backup NVR? So you think it is more likely that a burglar is going to cut your cable line before burglarizing your home but not locate a backup storage device in your house? It is called common sense my friend, maybe you should get some.

I'm not going to be harsh, but your rationale is a bit flawed here, TheFoxRocks. Yes, burglars have cut cable and telco lines. Yes, many burgers do disguise their faces either with a mask, hoodie pulled down low or even a big pair of sunglasses.

Security cameras are merely a recording of what's happened, not really a major deterrent or means to catch an even mildly sophisticated criminal. Might it catch a tweaker in the act of a petty property crime? Sure. Do I want my system as hard to locate and as secure as possible? Of course. Would an off site backup be of value? Perhaps, but no more than any other data I want to retain - unless there were very specific and documented reasons why it would be necessary.

There's nothing wrong with contemplating the ideas though.

 

[Kevin_Essiambre]

Firstly, if your cameras are taking motion detected snapshots how is a burglar going to get anywhere into your property to cut your cable line without being seen and uploaded? You really did not think that insult through did you? Again though have you EVER in your ENTIRE LIFE heard of a burglar cutting the cable line to disable cloud storage functional with security cameras? Again RIDICULOUS.

In your angry rage you missed the distinction, again. You can attach A SINGLE Ethernet cable to a DVR in the same way, making it a "networked device".

So when a burglar breaks into your home and disables the DVR you don't think it is very much possible for them to follow the Ethernet line back to your LAN and find the backup NVR? So you think it is more likely that a burglar is going to cut your cable line before burglarizing your home but not locate a backup storage device in your house? It is called common sense my friend, maybe you should get some.

Red text: anyone who has any knowledge of phone line and fiber optic line systems can cut internet and phone lines to anyone in a neighbourhood long before being on camera at the target building. If you know anything about This, you wouldn't be saying it isn't possible.

Blue text: an NVR is most certainly a NETWORK device. If you had half a clue as to what you are doing, you would know this.

Lime green text: so you're telling me that when you break into someone's building, you start tearing walls apart to see where a network cable runs to? Jeeze, if you're gonna do that I'll just start running extra random cables. That way, you'll run out of time to escape while the cops show up. Tell me, on a commercial site, you do you think a burglar would trace a network cable that is in a conduit? Or a conduit in concrete? Is he gonna show up with a jack hammer to follow it? This is SUCH a ridiculous statement you made.

Oh, and you claim that there is a law that says there must be off-site redundancy storage for survailance systems in the area you plan to service and install systems. If you believe this to be true, PROVE IT AND FIND THE LAW. If it's real it'll be in writing somewhere. And when you can't find this made up law, you can admit defeat

The only way to have a true redundancy system is for you to be there 24/7 with an army of men protecting all lines of communication into the building. Can't habe anyone damage that internet line. Better place an armed guard every 15'.

Cell signal jammers exist. They defeat GSM communication. Power can be cut, a UPS battery will go dead at some point. Satellite internet is an option, as long as they don't have something to cover the dish or interup the signal somehow (I'll admit, I'm not sure what will jam a satellite internet signal. I have no use for that knowledge). You can disable a POTS or DLS phone line easily. You can cut a fiber optic line just as easily. Let's see, what other redundancies are there... radio communication? Jammer for that too. Heck, if you wanted to, you could build a home brew EMP generator and simply fry the electronics (disclaimer: EMP generators are illigal to use, and maybe make. I am in no way suggesting to build and use one).

Now, let's say you did have redundancy off site. What is to stop someone from burning down the site that contains redundancy storage (if for example you decided to host it yourself somewhere)?

This whole thread is ridiculous. I can see a lawsuit from all of your customers already. I hope you can afford a good lawyer.


Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

 

[TheFoxRocks]

Red text: anyone who has any knowledge of phone line and fiber optic line systems can cut internet and phone lines to anyone in a neighbourhood long before being on camera at the target building. If you know anything about This, you wouldn't be saying it isn't possible.

Blue text: an NVR is most certainly a NETWORK device. If you had half a clue as to what you are doing, you would know this.

Lime green text: so you're telling me that when you break into someone's building, you start tearing walls apart to see where a network cable runs to? Jeeze, if you're gonna do that I'll just start running extra random cables. That way, you'll run out of time to escape while the cops show up. Tell me, on a commercial site, you do you think a burglar would trace a network cable that is in a conduit? Or a conduit in concrete? Is he gonna show up with a jack hammer to follow it? This is SUCH a ridiculous statement you made.

Oh, and you claim that there is a law that says there must be off-site redundancy storage for survailance systems in the area you plan to service and install systems. If you believe this to be true, PROVE IT AND FIND THE LAW. If it's real it'll be in writing somewhere. And when you can't find this made up law, you can admit defeat

The only way to have a true redundancy system is for you to be there 24/7 with an army of men protecting all lines of communication into the building. Can't habe anyone damage that internet line. Better place an armed guard every 15'.

Cell signal jammers exist. They defeat GSM communication. Power can be cut, a UPS battery will go dead at some point. Satellite internet is an option, as long as they don't have something to cover the dish or interup the signal somehow (I'll admit, I'm not sure what will jam a satellite internet signal. I have no use for that knowledge). You can disable a POTS or DLS phone line easily. You can cut a fiber optic line just as easily. Let's see, what other redundancies are there... radio communication? Jammer for that too. Heck, if you wanted to, you could build a home brew EMP generator and simply fry the electronics (disclaimer: EMP generators are illigal to use, and maybe make. I am in no way suggesting to build and use one).

Now, let's say you did have redundancy off site. What is to stop someone from burning down the site that contains redundancy storage (if for example you decided to host it yourself somewhere)?

This whole thread is ridiculous. I can see a lawsuit from all of your customers already. I hope you can afford a good lawyer.


Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

So I was trying not to continue a pointless debate, but cannot, to even help myself let the ignorance continue. Anyone can pretend to be anyone on the Internet for sake people wanting to remain anonymous. However, I do have a background in law enforcement. Firstly we are talking about mostly residential homes, fast food establishments, small tax offices etc.

Firstly, you talk of showing evidence, you know there are hundreds of thousands of case studies and scholarly articles covering home invasions/burglars. Why don't you show me one that involved a residence or even a small business where the cable line was cut for the sole purpose of disabling security? I have went over hundreds of during my law enforcement classes to put together my own case study to receive class credit. Criminals rarely ever worry about any deterrents to begin with. They either avoid the that target all together or they break in and escape faster than authorities can respond.

Secondly, in Information Technology a "Networked Device" is literally anything that is connected to a network, thus making it a "Networked Device". Since almost all modern DVRs are connected through Ethernet, they are a "Networked Device". All I said was the concept was confusing. The only difference between a DVR and NVR is one uses Coaxial Cable and the other uses Ethernet. Very simple and exactly what I said before.



Finally and probably most idiotic is offsite storage. So as I said probably a dozen times already offsite storage means there are two physical locations that store and retain identical data. So first most cloud services have their own redundancies setup through RAID or something of the sort. However, even if someone burns down the location where the server that contains your backup then you still have the recordings stored locally at your NVR or DVR.

Also if you break into a residence 99% of them get their Internet from a single outside source which usually connects to a modem and router or a device that acts as both a modem and router. Therefore, in my opinion it is would not be difficult for a criminal to trace the wires around the house. For instance, in my case you would find an almost concealed laptop, Roku, and gaming console in the same room by just following the wires along the baseboard. They are concealed in a plastic piece of channeling but you can still follow it. Also the other cables run into the ceiling and floor to reach other places around the house. They are not hard to follow. I admit that it is probably unlikely for most criminals to do this. However, I personally believe you are much more likely to find a criminal tracing cables in your house to valuables or that knows you have a DVR/NVR than they are to cut your cable line before burglarizing your home.

 

[TheFoxRocks]

I'm not going to be harsh, but your rationale is a bit flawed here, TheFoxRocks. Yes, burglars have cut cable and telco lines. Yes, many burgers do disguise their faces either with a mask, hoodie pulled down low or even a big pair of sunglasses.

Security cameras are merely a recording of what's happened, not really a major deterrent or means to catch an even mildly sophisticated criminal. Might it catch a tweaker in the act of a petty property crime? Sure. Do I want my system as hard to locate and as secure as possible? Of course. Would an off site backup be of value? Perhaps, but no more than any other data I want to retain - unless there were very specific and documented reasons why it would be necessary.

There's nothing wrong with contemplating the ideas though.

I agree that there is nothing wrong with contemplating ideas. I never argued that criminals do not conceal their faces. I do believe a defense in depth scenario is the best, where there is more than one forum of security. Having that said, I personally think that security cameras are the best choice. For instance, home alarms, booby traps, dogs, and the like do little to actually apprehend suspects or even produce any sort of usable evidence. However, even when a criminal tries to conceal their identity you can still get very valuable things from your surveillance cameras. You can potentially get an approximate build of the intruder, race, motor vehicle used, weapons, clothing and much more. Certainly you do not always get all of these things, but just getting one or two might be enough to put the pieces together. Take for instance, the police have a suspect, search his/her home and find shoes, pants, mask and a jacket that matches exactly what the criminal was wearing during the burglary. You now have a solid suspect.