“5 minutes of sheer terror”: Hackers infiltrate East Bay family’s Nest surveillance camera, send warning of incoming North Korea missile attack



ORINDA — Laura Lyons was preparing food in her kitchen Sunday when the lazy afternoon took a turn for the absurd. A loud squawking — similar to the beginning of an emergency broadcast alert — blasted from the living room, the Orinda mother said, followed by a detailed warning of three North Korean intercontinental ballistic missiles headed to Los Angeles, Chicago and Ohio.

“It warned that the United States had retaliated against Pyongyang and that people in the affected areas had three hours to evacuate,” Lyons said Monday. “It sounded completely legit, and it was loud and got our attention right off the bat. … It was five minutes of sheer terror and another 30 minutes trying to figure out what was going on.”

Lyons and her husband stood slack-jawed in the living room, terrified but also confused because the television continued airing the NFC Championship football game. As their scared 8-year-old son crawled underneath the rug, the couple realized the apocalyptic warning came from their Nest security camera atop their living room television.

After many panicked minutes and phone calls to 911 and to Nest, the couple learned they likely were the victims of a hacker. And that panic turned to anger when they found out that Nest knew that there had been a number of such incidents — none involving nuclear strike scenarios — but failed to alert customers. Lyons said a Nest supervisor told them Sunday they likely were the victims of a “third party hack” that gained access to their camera and its speakers. The company did not return a request for comment Monday.

The Lyons are not alone.

Reports from across the country indicate a growing problem of hackers accessing the WiFi-enabled cameras from Nest and other similar companies. In December, a Houston couple rushed to their infant’s room when a hacker began screaming over the family’s Nest camera baby monitor that he was going to kidnap their child. The same month, a benevolent Canadian hacker began speaking to a Nest camera user in Arizona, warning him that his system was ripe for hacking and how to protect it.


Adwait Nadkarni, an assistant professor of computer science at the College of William & Mary, was a lead investigator in a December study on the vulnerability of Nest and similiar technology.

“Our recent study of the Nest platform shows that it is reasonably secure, in comparison with other similar platforms,” Nadkarni said. “In such cases, the problem most often lies in how the devices are configured and used in the smart home, especially in terms of setting the account password.”

Nadkarni said there have been other hack attacks, but he had not heard of a nuclear hoax.

For the Orinda family, the incident began around 2 p.m. Sunday and froze Lyons in her tracks. She initially anticipated an Amber Alert warning, but the detailed nuclear war message claimed to be from Civil Defense and provided details down to the fact President Trump had been taken to a secure facility.

As the frightening message repeated a second time, Lyons’ young son asked, “Mommy, is there a missile coming?”

As she tried to calm her son, Lyons’ mind raced.

“My first thought was which car are we going to get into now because the Bay Area would be such an obvious target,” Lyons said. “I was thinking we can stop at our friends in Napa. I was disappointed I didn’t have much cash on me. I was going right down the rabbit hole.”

Lyons switched to CNN and other news stations but found no discussion of a nuclear threat. She called 911 and the dispatcher told her she had heard of no other calls.

Lyons didn’t even realize the pair of surveillance cameras the family installed a couple years ago for home security had speakers. The couple began to get more and more suspicious and eventually Googled “Nest and hack” but found nothing about a nuclear attack. Nest is owned by Google.

Posted in Main | Leave a comment

For Owners of Amazon’s Ring Security Cameras, Strangers May Have Been Watching Too


The “smart home” of the 21st century isn’t just supposed to be a monument to convenience, we’re told, but also to protection, a Tony Stark-like bubble of vigilant algorithms and internet-connected sensors working ceaselessly to watch over us. But for some who’ve welcomed in Amazon’s Ring security cameras, there have been more than just algorithms watching through the lens, according to sources alarmed by Ring’s dismal privacy practices.

Ring has a history of lax, sloppy oversight when it comes to deciding who has access to some of the most precious, intimate data belonging to any person: a live, high-definition feed from around — and perhaps inside — their house. The company has marketed its line of miniature cameras, designed to be mounted as doorbells, in garages, and on bookshelves, not only as a means of keeping tabs on your home while you’re away, but of creating a sort of privatized neighborhood watch, a constellation of overlapping camera feeds that will help police detect and apprehend burglars (and worse) as they approach. “Our mission to reduce crime in neighborhoods has been at the core of everything we do at Ring,” founder and CEO Jamie Siminoff wrote last spring to commemorate the company’s reported $1 billion acquisition payday from Amazon, a company with its own recent history of troubling facial recognition practices. The marketing is working; Ring is a consumer hit and a press darling.

Despite its mission to keep people and their property secure, the company’s treatment of customer video feeds has been anything but, people familiar with the company’s practices told The Intercept. Beginning in 2016, according to one source, Ring provided its Ukraine-based research and development team virtually unfettered access to a folder on Amazon’s S3 cloud storage service that contained every video created by every Ring camera around the world. This would amount to an enormous list of highly sensitive files that could be easily browsed and viewed. Downloading and sharing these customer video files would have required little more than a click. The Information, which has aggressively covered Ring’s security lapses, reported on these practices last month.

At the time the Ukrainian access was provided, the video files were left unencrypted, the source said, because of Ring leadership’s “sense that encryption would make the company less valuable,” owing to the expense of implementing encryption and lost revenue opportunities due to restricted access. The Ukraine team was also provided with a corresponding database that linked each specific video file to corresponding specific Ring customers.

“If [someone] knew a reporter or competitor’s email address, [they] could view all their cameras.””At the same time, the source said, Ring unnecessarily provided executives and engineers in the U.S. with highly privileged access to the company’s technical support video portal, allowing unfiltered, round-the-clock live feeds from some customer cameras, regardless of whether they needed access to this extremely sensitive data to do their jobs. For someone who’d been given this top-level access — comparable to Uber’s infamous “God mode” map that revealed the movements of all passengers — only a Ring customer’s email address was required to watch cameras from that person’s home. Although the source said they never personally witnessed any egregious abuses, they told The Intercept “if [someone] knew a reporter or competitor’s email address, [they] could view all their cameras.” The source also recounted instances of Ring engineers “teasing each other about who they brought home” after romantic dates. Although the engineers in question were aware that they were being surveilled by their co-workers in real time, the source questioned whether their companions were similarly informed.

Ring’s decision to grant this access to its Ukraine team was spurred in part by the weaknesses of its in-house facial and object recognition software. Neighbors, the company’s disarming name for its distributed residential surveillance platform, is now a marquee feature for Ring’s cameras, billed as a “proactive” neighborhood watch. This real-time crime-fighting requires more than raw video — it requires the ability to make sense, quickly and at a vast scale, of what’s actually happening in these household video streams. Is that a dog or your husband? Is that a burglar or a tree? Ring’s software has for years struggled with these fundamentals of object recognition. According to the most recent Information report, “Users routinely complained to customer support about receiving alerts when nothing noteworthy was happening at their front door; instead, the system seemed to be detecting a car driving by on the street or a leaf falling from a tree in the front yard.”

Computer vision has made incredible strides in recent years, but creating software that can categorize objects from scratch is often expensive and time-consuming. To jump-start the process, Ring used its Ukrainian “data operators” as a crutch for its lackluster artificial intelligence efforts, manually tagging and labeling objects in a given video as part of a “training” process to teach software with the hope that it might be able to detect such things on its own in the near future. This process is still apparently underway years later: Ring Labs, the name of the Ukrainian operation, is still employing people as data operators, according to LinkedIn, and posting job listings for vacant video-tagging gigs: “You must be able to recognize and tag all moving objects in the video correctly with high accuracy,” reads one job ad. “Be ready for rapid changes in tasks in the same way as be ready for long monotonous work.”

ring-redacted-1547070465Image: Ring

A never-before-published image from an internal Ring document pulls back the veil of the company’s lofty security ambitions: Behind all the computer sophistication was a team of people drawing boxes around strangers, day in and day out, as they struggled to grant some semblance of human judgment to an algorithm. (The Intercept redacted a face from the image.)

A second source, with direct knowledge of Ring’s video-tagging efforts, said that the video annotation team watches footage not only from the popular outdoor and doorbell camera models, but from household interiors. The source said that Ring employees at times showed each other videos they were annotating and described some of the things they had witnessed, including people kissing, firing guns, and stealing.

Ring spokesperson Yassi Shahmiri would not answer any questions about the company’s past data policies and how they might be different today, electing instead to provide the following statement:

We take the privacy and security of our customers’ personal information extremely seriously. In order to improve our service, we view and annotate certain Ring videos. These videos are sourced exclusively from publicly shared Ring videos from the Neighbors app (in accordance with our terms of service), and from a small fraction of Ring users who have provided their explicit written consent to allow us to access and utilize their videos for such purposes.

We have strict policies in place for all our team members. We implement systems to restrict and audit access to information. We hold our team members to a high ethical standard and anyone in violation of our policies faces discipline, including termination and potential legal and criminal penalties. In addition, we have zero tolerance for abuse of our systems and if we find bad actors who have engaged in this behavior, we will take swift action against them.

It’s not clear that the current standards for which Ring videos are accessed in Ukraine, as described in Ring’s statement, have always been in place, nor is there any indication of how (or if) they’re enforced. The Information quoted former employees saying the standards have not always been in place, and indicated that efforts to more tightly control video were put in place by Amazon only this past May after Amazon visited the Ukraine office. Even then, The Information added, staffers in Ukraine worked around the controls.

Furthermore, Ring’s overview of its Neighbors system provides zero mention of image or facial recognition, and no warning that those who use the feature are opting in to have their homes watched by individuals in a Ukrainian R&D lab. Mentions of Ring’s facial recognition practices are buried in its privacy policy, which said merely that “you may choose to use additional functionality in your Ring product that, through video data from your device, can recognize facial characteristics of familiar visitors.” Neither Ring’s terms of service nor its privacy policy mention any manual video annotation being conducted by humans, nor does either document mention of the possibility that Ring staffers could access this video at all. Even with suitably strong policies in place, the question of whether Ring owners should trust a company that ever considered the above permissible will remain an open one.

Posted in Main | Leave a comment

Family traumatized after home monitoring system hacked by stranger

LONG ISLAND, N.Y. — A mother in Long Island says a stranger hacked her family’s Nest camera and tried having a conversation with her five-year-old son, according to WPIX.

Nest ads will show you beautiful images of mother nature captured on their outdoor cameras, life’s silly moments and even those moments when your child is up to no good.  But for this Long Island mother, the Nest cam she and her husband set up around their home to act as a nanny cam became a full-on nightmare.

“My son came running out of the playroom and found me in the kitchen and said ‘it’s not daddy talking to me. It’s not daddy.’”

Nearly every day, after school, this mother, who asked PIX11 to hide her identity, said her 5-year-old son chats with her husband through the Nest cam, a home monitoring system users can connect through their cell phones.  This time, however, it was a complete stranger on the other end.

“He asked my son if he took the school bus home and he was asking him about the toys he was playing with and when my son said ‘mommy, mommy,’ he told him to shut up,” she recalled.

When she walked into her child’s playroom, the ominous voice addressed her directly.

Now she is frightened and wonders how long a complete stranger was watching her family. Since this frightening violation, this mother called police, who, while sympathetic, said there was little they could do.

As for Nest?  She was simply told to change her password and switch to a two-factor verification when logging on, but for this mom it’s not enough. She wants to speak out to warn others about this potential danger lurking in their home.

A Nest spokesperson responded to our request for comment and issued this statement:

“We have seen instances where a small number of Nest customers have re-used passwords that were previously exposed through breaches on other websites, and made public. None of these breaches involved Nest. This exposes these customers to other people using the credentials to log into their Nest account. We are proactively alerting affected customers to reset their passwords and set up two-factor authentication, which adds another layer of account security. Customers can reach out to Nest customer support with questions or report anything suspicious to security@nest.com.”

Posted in Main | Leave a comment

Convicted Texas Door Knocker Gets 1-Year Jail Term, Fined $4K

In his Alarm Exchange newsletter, Ken Kirschenbaum examines the case of an alarm salesman who lost an appeal to overturn his conviction for shady sales practices.

   Jump to Comments
Convicted Texas Door Knocker Gets 1-Year Jail Term, Fined $4KAn alarm company salesman in Texas lost is appeal to overturn a 1-year jail term for duping an elderly woman into purchasing a bogus monitoring contract.

Beware to those door-knocking alarm salespeople who misrepresent themselves and prey upon unsuspecting or otherwise vulnerable customers. Your deceptive misdeeds do not always go unpunished.

Consider the case of a convicted alarm company salesman in Texas who has been slapped with a 1-year jail term and fined $4,000 for duping an elderly woman into purchasing a bogus monitoring contract.

In an installment of his Alarm Exchange newsletter, industry attorney Ken Kirschenbaum outlined details about the case in which the salesman appealed his original conviction on factual and technical grounds only to have an appellate court affirm the trial court’s decision.

The story of the salesman’s transgressions is, of course, all too familiar in the alarm industry. But as Kirschenbaum writes, while door-to-door sales tactics can be effective in stimulating sales it is the blatant deceptive business practices that are wholly unacceptable.

“In my opinion, it’s too bad that the company’s sale manager and even company president and owner [weren’t also prosecuted],” states Kirschenbaum, who pens SSI‘s “Legal Briefing” column. “They are the real culprits, probably training the door knocker and letting him loose, not to mention reaping the rewards of his illicit sales tactics and conduct.”

The following are quoted portions from the appellate court decision as presented in the Alarm Exchange newsletter:

The complainant was about 80-years-old at the time of the offense. She had a home security alarm system monitored by Central Security Group. There was a sign in the front of her yard with the name of the company on it.

Appellant was a door-to-door sales representative for Capital Connect, a different home security alarm monitoring company. On the day of the offense, appellant rang the complainant’s doorbell. When the complainant answered, appellant pointed to the sign in the yard and said, “I’m here to update your security.”

He said that he would put a light on her sign and make it more visible from the street. He did not say what company he worked for. He was not wearing a uniform, nametag, or anything to identify what company he worked for.

Believing that appellant worked for Central, the complainant invited appellant into her home. Appellant told her that installation of new features, such as wireless monitoring, would be “free.” Ultimately, the complainant signed a five-year alarm monitoring agreement with Capital at a higher monthly cost than her previous service with Central.

The complainant testified that, before she signed the new contract, she “kept telling him that I can’t do anything without my daughter’s approval” because the daughter “tends to all of my business.” The complainant testified that she realized appellant did not work for Central when he “presented the papers” to her. One of the documents the complainant signed was an “alarm upgrade agreement.”

The complainant initialed next to the statement: “I understand that Capital Connect has not bought, taken over or is in any way partnered with my current alarm monitoring company.”

The complainant also spoke on the phone with a representative from Capital while appellant was in her home, and a recording of the call was admitted as an exhibit at trial. When the representative asked the complainant who she was paying to monitor her alarm system, the complainant said, “Central.”

The representative asked whether the complainant was having a new alarm system installed because the prior company was going out of business, had been taken over, or was no longer able to perform monitoring services. The complainant responded, “No, I’m just changing it up.”

Later, they had the following exchange:

Representative: Do you understand that by accepting this offer you will be changing alarm companies?

Complainant: That I will what?

Representative: You will be changing alarm companies.

Complainant: I’m not understanding you.

Representative: Capital Connect is a separate company from Central and so I’m just verifying —

Complainant: Yes.

Representative: — that you understand that. Ok. Great. And you understand that moving forward that you will no longer be with Central and that your monitoring and billing will be performed by [Monitronics]?

Complainant: Right.

A few days later, the complainant canceled the new contract with Capital.

The State also introduced evidence regarding two additional instances when appellant had misled customers about who he worked for. The first witness testified that he was 80-years-old at the time of trial. In July 2016, the witness was returning home at about 8 p.m. when appellant walked up to the witness in the driveway.

Appellant had multiple “ID tags” or lanyards around his neck. The tags had the names of several companies, including Honeywell, Stanley and ADT. Appellant told the witness, “I’d like to talk to you about your alarm system, your burglar alarm. I see you have Stanley.”

For about 30 minutes while they were conversing, the witness thought appellant worked for Stanley — the witness’s then-current alarm monitoring company. The witness testified that appellant “probably misrepresented the fact that he was a Stanley operative.”

The witness testified that by the time he signed up for the new alarm system, he knew he was dealing with Capital.

The second witness testified that in June 2016, appellant came to the witness’s door. The witness testified that appellant “said that he wanted to talk to me about upgrading my security system, that he had seen the sign outside saying that I had ADT Security.”

Because appellant referred to the sign in the witness’s yard, the witness “assumed [appellant] was working for ADT.” While they were inside the house, the witness told his wife that appellant was “with ADT Security.”

Appellant did not correct the witness at that time. Appellant was inside the witness’s house for about 30 minutes before the witness realized that appellant did not work for ADT. The witness testified that the “first clue” that appellant did not work for ADT was the fact that the paperwork had “Capital Connect” written on it. The witness testified that he understood by the time he signed the contract that he was getting a Capital system.

The State, however, contends that the statute criminalizes conduct both leading up to and during the completion of a business transaction. Thus, the State contends that a “deceptive business practice can be committed in all aspects of the transaction and is not excused merely by a signature on a contract stating appropriate terms.”

Kirschenbaum agrees with the State, stating “The relevant inquiry does not focus on what the complainant knew at the time she signed the contract; instead, it focuses on what appellant did — what he represented — during the course of business.

Kirschenbaum goes on to say the representation must be made “in the course of business,” which includes “selling … serviceor property.” The statute does not criminalize conduct of a defendant only when the defendant is successful in perpetrating a fraud. Rather, the statute criminalizes the act of “representing” — an act that can occur before a completed transaction.

Kirschenbaum continues:

In this case, a rational juror could have understood the statutory word “representing” to include appellant’s conduct and statement immediately after he initiated contact with the elderly complainant at her front door — pointing to the Central sign and stating, “I’m here to update your security.”

A rational inference from this statement and conduct is that appellant was describing a Central Security Group alarm system, although he was not. Indeed, the complainant testified that appellant did not refer to a different company’s alarm system until appellant “presented the papers” to her after gaining entry to her home and discussing alarm system features with her.

Under the evidence in this case, a rational juror could have found that appellant represented that a commodity or service was of a particular style, grade or model when it was of another.

The State presented evidence regarding two uncharged extraneous offenses, which showed that appellant employed the same or similar tactic on other people. He pointed to their alarm system signs, for companies other than Capital, and misled the customers into believing that he worked for those companies.

In one instance, he wore multiple lanyards of different companies, and in the other instance, he failed to correct the customer’s statement that appellant worked for a company other than Capital. In both instances, the customers did not learn the true style, grade, or model of the alarm systems that appellant was peddling until nearly 30 minutes into the conversations.

Posted in Main | Leave a comment

Security Alarm Systems in Clearwater, Fla., Must Now Be Registered With Police

Amendments to the city’s security alarm system ordinance reflect the adoption of a new digital accounting system, along with modification to a fee payment schedule.

   Jump to Comments
Security Alarm Systems in Clearwater, Fla., Must Now Be Registered With PoliceThe Clearwater Police Department hired a web developer to create a new alarm registration system to manage online registry, oversee the issuance of citations and receive payments.

CLEARWATER, Fla. — Residents and business owners here are now required to register their security alarm systems with the police department, following revisions to a city ordinance.

Clearwater Police Chief Dan Slaughter appeared before the Clearwater City Council on March 12 to seek approval for the amendments to the ordinance. The city now requires that all residents and business owners who have a security alarm system to register with the police department, tbnweekly.com reports. For the past two decades, the police department had handled all permits and registrations manually.

“But now with the 20,000-plus customers we have in the city of Clearwater, the time has come for us to digitize and bring it up to date with current standards and current common practices,” Slaughter told council members.

The police department hired a Web developer to create a new system for the city to meet these needs, Slaughter said. The system will allow the department to manage the online registry and oversee the issuance of citations and to receive payments.

Changes to the ordinance reflect the adoption of the new digital system, the discontinuance of stickers which were given alarm system owners, and modification to the fee payment schedule, the website report. Citation payments are now required to be made within 30 days rather than 15 and the implementation of an escalating fee schedule.

“Where in the past we gave one free alarm per year, and then after that it was a $50 fine, now there will be an escalating scale,” Slaughter said, referring to when an officer responds to an alarm and it is later determined to be a false alarm.

According to Slaughter, there will be no fine for the first violation, but second through fifth violations will be $50 apiece, and six or more alarms would cost $100 per incident.

Should an alarm system owner not register their system with the police department and officers should respond to a break in at their home or business, they would be issued a $50 citation. However, that citation could be waived should the owner choose to register with the police department, the website reports.

Those owners who already have a valid permit and registration will be entered into the system by department personnel and need not reapply, unless changes to their systems have been made, Slaughter said.

Posted in Main | Leave a comment

Trump Authorizes PASS Act, Exempts Security Systems From DoE Energy Restrictions

President Trump signed the Power and Security Systems (PASS) Act that exempts security systems from having to abide by DoE’s no-load energy restrictions.

   Jump to Comments
Trump Authorizes PASS Act, Exempts Security Systems From DoE Energy RestrictionsPresident Donald Trump (pictured signing previous legislation) has signed into law legislation that allows security equipment to bypass the U.S. Department of Energy requirements to carry “no-load” in an energy efficiency mode.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump signed into law the Power and Security Systems (PASS) Act, P.L. 115-78, culminating a yearlong effort led by the Security Industry Association (SIA) to preserve an important provision in federal energy efficiency requirements critical to the operation of security and fire alarm systems.

“The PASS Act provides much-needed certainty to manufacturers, installers and service providers who are among thousands of Americans that work in the security industry,” SIA Director of Government Relations Jake Parker says. “But ultimately it benefits the millions of American consumers that depend on such security and life safety systems.”

Drafted with assistance from SIA and in collaboration with the energy efficiency community, the PASS Act extends a policy exempting security and life safety external power supplies (EPS) from having to meet a “no-load mode” energy efficiency standard, since they must always be connected and in active mode by design and no efficiency gains would result.

The new law makes the exemption essentially permanent by removing the July 1 expiration date on the exemption and providing the U.S. Department of Energy with authority to retain the common-sense policy in any future updates to energy efficiency standards governing external power supplies.

SIA led a coalition of industry groups in working with Congress to secure the exemption in 2011, which included a “sunset provision” — a common way of ensuring a new policy set forth in legislation is reviewed by Congress before becoming more permanent.

Preserving the exemption was a key concern for security manufactures and systems integrators. Without it, product redesign and adjustments to manufacturing processes would needlessly increase the cost of the equipment by 200% to 300%, according to industry estimates, affecting not just manufacturers but the entire value chain.

Enactment of this solution would not have been possible without the bipartisan leadership of the bill’s sponsors, Sens. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., and Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., as well as Reps. Peter Welch, D-Vt., and Susan Brooks, R-Ind. In the past two years, Gardner, Welch and Brooks have been recognized with SIA’s Legislator of the Year award for their support of this and other policies important to the security industry.

Posted in Main | Leave a comment

Hacked! Why Home Security Camera Installs Should Be Left to Pros

When selling video surveillance systems to would-be DIYs, remind customers about all the cybersecurity hacks out there, especially through IP cameras.

   Jump to Comments
Hacked! Why Home Security Camera Installs Should Be Left to ProsRemote networking, monitoring and management tools like SnapAV’s Luma + OvrC can help customers protect their surveillance systems from hacking.

Over the last year there have been several high-profile hacking events, including a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack on Dyn, the Internet performance management company, which shut down major websites across the East Coast, and the much more recent Equifax breach.

Hackers are consistently working to take advantage of weaknesses, and security systems are a top target on their list. One of the more common devices in these systems is the IP camera  — it’s incredibly common, and many are inexpensive and poorly maintained.

Yet these products can be so simple and inexpensive for DIYs to install themselves, why would they need a pro for the job? Consider that getting the cameras and recorders up and running is the easy part. Maintaining these products and services over time is actually the hard part.

Manufacturers forget to mention this, even with a small asterisk, when they tell you, “It’s so easy your grandmother can do it.”

Remote networking, monitoring and management tools like SnapAV’s Luma + OvrC can help customers protect their surveillance systems from hacking. Recently, several surveillance manufacturers, including some really big ones, have announced known exploits on their systems that have comprised not only home security by the Internet in general. (See the running list at CVE, Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures.)

Breaches through cameras and other IoT devices remain a constant and ever-changing threat.  Professional installers should make sure the products are connected over a secure network, administered properly and updated constantly to ward off the latest Internet security threats.

In selling surveillance — even DIY products — remind clients that a security system is just like any piece of software that needs to be maintained and updated. New firmware is available on a regular basis to fix security threats, as well as address known issues and add new features (same is true for most connected devices).

Security systems should always be running on the latest available firmware, which requires them to be updated frequently. When given the option, do consumers press the “upgrade now” button or, like many of us, do they cancel and put it off to a later date?

As for home-technology pros, updates can consume quite a bit of time if done manually. To update the firmware of a handful of cameras and a recorder might take an hour. But multiply that across 25 sites and you are talking about significant time — and cost.

Thankfully, there are remote management systems that can ease this burden — simplifying the process and greatly reducing the time it takes to keep your customers’ security systems up to date. This includes instant notifications when new firmware is released, the ability to update remotely, and more.

Posted in Main | Leave a comment

Annual Revenue for Residential Monitored Security to Exceed $14B by 2020

New research by Parks Associates also shows that 20% of U.S. broadband households plan to purchase a network camera in the next 12 months.

   Jump to Comments
Annual Revenue for Residential Monitored Security to Exceed $14B by 2020 

DALLAS — New research by Parks Associates reveals that more than 26 million U.S. broadband households will have professionally monitored security by 2021, and that total annual revenue for professionally monitored security in U.S. households will exceed $14 billion by 2020.

“The residential security industry is changing along many dimensions,” says Tom Kerber, director of IoT Strategy, Parks Associates. “The addition of interactive services and home control products has expanded the market and changed the value chain and competitive landscape. Cable and telecom operators have entered the market with security services. New approaches to selling professional monitoring including self-installed solutions and on-demand monitoring services, and service providers are working to expand the market by connecting smart products to monitoring services.”

Another report titled, Smart Home Devices: User Experience, shows that security is the strongest driver for smart home adoption.

Among U.S. smart home device owners, 37% made the purchase to keep their home safe, while 29% wanted to monitor their home while away.

One-fifth of U.S. broadband households plan to purchase a smart all-in-one security product in the next 12 months, and another 20% plan to purchase a networked camera, according to the report.

“The residential security market has experienced continued growth, and the introduction of smart devices and services has opened new opportunities to bring more U.S. homes into the security market,” says Kerber. “Security providers must adapt to this trend and embrace the new IoT reality, which will expand the market for monitoring services and ultimately bring provider higher revenues.”

Posted in Main | Leave a comment

Robot Security Guard Drowns in Office Water Fountain

The Knightscope security robot has issued a statement after falling into a water fountain at an office and retail complex in Washington D.C.

Robot Security Guard Drowns in Office Water FountainPhoto Credit: Greg Pinelo?

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A  K5 security robot by Knightscope was discovered face-down in the Washington Harbour office and retail complex water fountain yesterday afternoon.

The robot was on its daily rounds when it decided to roll down the stairs and into the fountain. It had only been patrolling for a few days according to a local office worker.

The robot, which is 5-feet tall and weighs 300 pounds, is designed to avoid confrontations. It uses sensors and analytics to detect unusual activity and report it back to humans to investigate.

Knightscope issued a statement saying the incident is under investigation, and described it as an “isolated incident.”

A new robot will be delivered to Washington Harbour this week for free.

Knightscope’s security robot made headlines this past April when a drunk man got into an altercation with one at the company’s HQ.

The man was charged with prowling and public intoxication, claiming to be an engineer who was “testing” the robot.

Of course a drowning robot has sent the internet into a frenzy. Fortunately, Knightscope has a good sense of humor about the situation, tweeting the following explanation from the security robot:knightscope security robot

Those who are worried about robots taking over the world should rest easy tonight — they can’t even swim yet.

Posted in Main | Leave a comment

7 Benefits of Having an Integrated Security System

From boosting productivity, to conflict resolution, integrating a security system can benefit businesses in many way

By Ahmad Hamidi · June 5, 2017

Business security is a complex issue that we tend to ignore until it’s too late. In today’s environment, putting up surveillance cameras or contracting a guard service provider is simply not enough from a security liability perspective.

Optimal security solutions can only be achieved by integrating security systems that fit each business’s unique requirements.

What is an Integrated Security System?

An integrated security system takes multi-layered security systems and integrates them into one solution. For example, a business can have the following security systems:

  • Video Surveillance
  • Access Control
  • Intrusion Alarm
  • P.A System
  • Uniformed Guard Service

Here is how an integrated security system can benefit your business.

1. Efficiency


Running a business comes with an abundant amount of high-order tasks, one of them being the company’s security. An integrated security system in any industry will allow businesses to flourish more effectively and efficiently.

Assigning a specific role for a specific person in regards to the different sectors of the integrated security system will allow the team member to utilize their skills, specifically in that area, ultimately ensuring the management team that the tasks assigned to that specific person will make a grand shift in the company’s efficiency.

2. Centralization


An integrated security system will allow a businesses security operations to become centralized. Management teams and business owners can now get a full report from one area rather then needing to speak to all areas of their integrated security system.

This not only is a time saver, but also allows a more organized work flow for businesses.

3. Theft Prevention


No matter what kind of industry one works in, they always have to be prepared for the unexpected theft. Whether internal theft or external theft, it can be overwhelming.

According to the Kroll Annual Global Theft Report, theft remains predominantly an inside job. The 2016 figures show that 60% of frauds are committed by insiders, up from 55% the year before. Ways to prevent moments like these is to integrate a specifically catered security system for your business.

4. Real Time Monitoring


With multiple security systems, business management teams are able to see what is going on within their facilities and areas of work instantly, if needed. However business owners and management teams don’t always spend all their time on the properties and can’t always ensure themselves that everything is running smoothly.

However, with real time monitoring, that task has turned into a simple system, accessible with a click of a button on your phone, tablet or computer.

5. Conflict Resolution


Some integrated security systems come with a package of video surveillance, access control, intrusion alarms, PA systems and uniformed guard services.

All of these elements will come forth if a problem were to arise in a work place, whether it be an internal/external burglary, attempted break-ins or just about any security threat that can occur at a business.

6. Boost Productivity


At any business, an integrated security system is a guarantee to boosting productivity in the workspace. According to Kristin Morgan at St. Francis University, “Employee monitoring is being used to increase customer satisfaction, improve employee performance and enhance productivity,”.

This allows business owners to monitor their employee activities as it is one of the most essential points in protecting their businesses from unwanted actions at the workplace.

7. Business Savings


In the long run, having an integrated security system will allow your business to save money and be protected. Otherwise, in the case of a theft, burglary or robbery, the business owners/management team would be held liable for all the losses with nowhere to turn to.

With an integrated security system, businesses have multiple outlets to look into and see what occurred, why it occurred or the possibility of those events not even taking place at all.

So organizations need to be proactive for their business security as failing to integrate the latest security system in your business can lead to an increased risk of a major security breach.

Posted in Main | Leave a comment