2

TLDR:

Are there work arounds for smart cameras (specifically Nest) to not need the subscription service?

Like many companies today, Google has taken to selling subscription services. My wife and I want to install a number of cameras in and around the house for a variety of reasons, not least of which is security and the ability to see what happens or happened (as the case may be) in the past, as we travel frequently.

I like the ease of both Nest and Ring - but I am leaning to Nest because I can get a bunch for free due to some promotions from work. However, as said here, and here and finally here it appear that Nest is utterly useless for that purpose without a subscription (which is difficult to change from the 5 day to 30day when we travel) also making it expensive for the 5 cameras we want to install. Additionally, we already have a couple of Google devices in the home, so I would like to keep them all compatible if possible.

I have looked online and couldn't find anything - so I thought I would try here. Has anyone found a work around for using smart cameras without the subscription?

J Crosby
  • 163
  • 1
  • 7

1 Answers1

1

If there is a workaround for a specific device, that device is insecure. Getting this right (if the company decides to enforce specific aspects) should be a basic security requirement.

A plausible alternative is to install both a targeted device (with the motion detection/doorbell functionality), as well as a simpler 'always on' device, and link the 'trigger' event to a 'capture image' function.

You could always dedicate a device running the app as an 'opto-net' jump over the firewall, but this seems just as convoluted.

Sean Houlihane
  • 10,524
  • 2
  • 26
  • 62