People who claim they don't value privacy are simply ignorant of how this can affect them. They don't consider the data falling into the wrong hands. Surely they don't want criminals with unauthorized access at least. It should be obvious that governments don't always have their best interests either.

Isn't roofing too abstract either? 100% majority of people dont know how prevalent asbestos was in roofing material and what even asbestos does but yet if you tell anyone thay their shit has asbestos in it they'll be quick to rush to alternatives. Sometimes people just need to be told what to do.

There are many other cameras but most have the same potential to do this sort of shit. Sending video to some server you don't control, on cameras you don't control because it's proprietary, isn't going to cut it if privacy is your goal.

No, most don't do it.

An offsite server is not under your control and accessible by who knows. Surely it is still a privacy concern.

Privacy is like security in that it costs time. Most people don't spend time on even having a conversation like this but if something bothers you then finding a spare day is easier.

It's not like there's been dozens of people warning about it in the last few years. People deserve what they get.

Not if they are willingly bringing this inside their homes. I think it’s very different from substances that you might not be aware are there and are highly toxic.

The best thing is you don't need any of that. Just install normal doorbell. We all love gadgets but some of them are just not worth it.

We need to protect uninformed people. You do this by informing them. If they know the risks and still decide they don't care it's their problem, not ours.

I recently adopted a dog who I want to monitor when I'm away from home. So I got a cheap motion tracking in-home camera with cloud storage, and AI identification for people and pets. The AI functions never fucking worked. I already had a Ring camera.

Did a bit of research after realising the cheapo camera was shit, and went for a eufy stack to replace the Ring doorbell and tbr shitty in-house camera.

I now have:

• eufy Video Doorbell
• eufy HomeBase 3, with an added 1TB of storage
• eufy IndoorCam C220

This gives me

• local storage for both cameras on the HomeBase.
• the HomeBase also gives you local AI for (individual) person, (general) pet, vehicle, and package identification. I haven't tried the vehicle identification.
• streaming in the app for both cameras should work in 2k. I have it set to 1080p. It's good enough for me.
• continuous recording is an option. I have it set to motion alerts because
• the app gives you motion and doorbell alerts. You can configure how much information you want in the notifications, to prevent video's from passing through eufy's servers.

This is the right approach. Normies won't pay attention to any "your privacy is at risk" argument. But showing them examples (plural, as 1 instance won't do shit either and will just be dismissed) of people getting fucked by all the surveillance COULD make some of them take it into consideration (no guarantees).

I do not agree that people that allow these devices into their homes are idiots. I see them more as "ignorantly lazy".

That's right. But how detrimental asbestos is took time to be made abundantly clear and known, plus "authorities" got involved, so the sheep listened. With surveillance, the same "authorities" want the public to be ignorant so that they can keep it going without us countering it.

Similar situations, but certainly not equal.

Ubiquiti. Cloud gateway max (router + NVR) for $200 with no storage, add your own 2tb nvme, get a ubiquiti doorbell for $300. Little pricy, but simple to setup and all the footage lives locally on the cloud gateway max. No subscription, and you can add more cameras later. The cloud gateway max is an excellent 2.5G router. Slap on a WiFi 7 access point for $200 more and you got yourself a killer home network.

This is highly unlikely to be able to notify you of someone ringing the door. It's doable, but takes some tinkering which most people are not able to do because of all the reasons mentioned in previous comments.

Reolink devices still reach out to a bunch of different servers across the world as soon as you connect them to a network.

Always isolate an IP doorbell or camera on its own access point or virtual network, where it can't see or interact with other devices on your local network, and then block it from WAN access.

i use wyze, been solid for years esp for the price. local SD storage is a huge plus for me and the streaming quality is good and loads insanely fast. i have a handful of blink cameras around the property but never use them anymore bc the interface and UX is so shit

This is the choice if you want to buy the equipment and it works out of the box. Its cheaper if you want to sort of build your own setup but requires more maintenance and setup.

Hard agree. What does a video doorbell connected to the internet solve? I'm concerned that people dont trust their neighbors to this extent. Sort of a canary in the coal mine type thing.

To be honest china is more likely to come to their defense than american police are.

Just bought a Reolink rln46 NVR and four cameras. I don’t have the doorbell, but every other feature you requested works flawlessly. It records 24/7 in 4K but can stream at lower resolutions if you want when you’re away from home on mobile. You can set what notifications you receive and when you want to receive them. You can even go back and search for events by type in the recorded video when they were never flagged for notification in the first place.
I’ve been thoroughly impressed and plan to add to the system in the coming months.