>"The main limitation is that it requires you to use their NVR products"

It is true that Unifi cameras can't be used without running Unifi Protect. And there are many low-cost options for that. But Protect also fully supports RTSP, so you can send the video to something else and never even touch Protect (other than for setup), if you wish. For example, at work we send the video from all the Access door readers to our large Synology system where we store/archive/access the video with their NVR (Synology Surveillance Station).

And you can connect 3rd party ONVIF cameras to Protect, too, which is nice.

>"The unifi stuff leans heavily towards cloud, you can force it to do direct connections but its not the default"

That is not accurate. There is zero dependency on the "Cloud", other than if you want to install updates. Or if you optionally choose to use their cloud tools to gain remote access more easily. The login, the settings, the processing, the web server, the data, and all the video are all local.

Ubiquiti's signature feature is having everything local. It is one of several reasons they have become increasingly more and more popular.

>"I don't recognize that name, but I retired a few years ago and haven't really kept up with changes in the industry."

They have been around for many years. Parent is Samsung, I think. They also market under the name Wizenet, I think

>"Question out of random curiosity, do they have a tool for managing very large numbers of cameras?"

Yes

>"How long do they support their cameras?"

Seems like many years. They use security screws, metal enclosures, have alarm contacts, good documentation, full line of every kind of mount you would need, all the stuff a professional would expect. And they are NDAA approved, of course.

"Consumer" class action, which I'm sure was written and bankrolled by Jared Kushner and Ellison.

>"I've only seen two manufacturers who really understand that security cameras should actually be secure, Axis and Pelco."

I would add Hanwha to that list as well. Again, not cheap, but serious stuff.

>"So this isn't at all what you asked for, but I'm going to throw it out there anyway: Ubiquiti. You'll pay more and they're all PoE rather than wireless, but if you spend the money and run the wires (hey, you have to run a wire for power anyway, might as well use it for data, too) you won't regret the results."

I second that. Have a system at work and was impressed and bought one for home. You can do everything with their gateway and also stream to other devices at will. Everything under your control and stored locally. And their stuff is constantly improving. At home using the Cloud Gateway Max, U6 Pro WiFi, G5 Turret Ultras which are not that expensive and have a great picture, basic AI that works well, look great, super easy to mount and aim. And Unifi WiFi stuff is near the best. So you can have a great gateway/firewall/console, plus WiFi, plus video up in no time, and manage it all via a web page.

WiFi should never be used for cameras. It is too unreliable, too easy to fail, too easy to jam, too frustrating in every way. Running that cable is a hell of a lot better in the long-run (pun intended).

>"MY prediction is that I will never buy a pair of these from anyone."

Me neither.

>"They are just another over priced 3D TV type product as far as I am concerned."

I love 3D TV. And it wasn't over-priced; maybe added 5% to the cost of my TV choice at the time? Totally different thing than being a Glasshole.

>"Seems like everyone wears contacts, gets lasik, or something?"

None of those work (or work well) for loss of near vision, which will happen to all of us. And many of us don't want to have to put on and take off reading glasses 1,000 times a day so we get bifocals or progressive lenses and just wear them all day.

Don't believe me? Get back to me when you are 40 or 50... :)

>"in many EU countries, there VERY MUCH is an expectation of privacy in public. Set up a doorbell camera in Germany that films anything but your own front yard, and enjoy the lawsuits from your neighbors. Store the footage more than 72 hours? More legal problems. It's great ... they take personal freedom seriously. don't just pay lip service to it."

Um, that isn't taking personal freedom seriously. That is taking personal PRIVACY IN PUBLIC seriously. Often freedom and privacy are linked. But in your example, they are taking away individuals' freedom to record what they see while in public. Right?

Exactly how does this equate to when you are in a park and want to photo or video your kids? You have to somehow frame everything so no other human is ever visible? How about if you are at a party? You have to get permission slips from everyone? What about places where it is essentially impossible to de-frame other people, like a concert, or a theme-park? How will a dash-cam fit into this paradigm?

What we most need privacy protection from are systems that tie multiple cameras together into networks that spy on us while "in public". I am not as concerned about individual people or home security cameras.

Although- putting on "glasses" that record people without others knowing, especially people being actively interacted with, is EXTREMELY RUDE. It breaks all social norms and contracts. And it is not at all the same as people occasionally pulling out a camera/phone to take a photo or video.

There is a reason people coined the term "Glasshole". https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki...

I've appreciated the cheap, practically new equipment on Ebay for pennies. But yeah, it's absurd. I've had a total of 2 ports fail on a switch in the last 18 years. Just run them till something goes wrong. Why else have redundancy?

It's like the old adage: The architect 2x's the design for resiliency, the engineer doubles it again for extra redundancy, the carpenter reinforces it 2x for safety and suddenly you're 8x instead of 2x.

But it's also an argument for the disability-access arguments which are that increasing access for people with disabilities generally helps everyone.

The old fill in the bubble testing has long been obsolete. If you come up with a superior method of testing that is adaptable easily to people with special needs, you'll end up with a superior learning experience for everyone.

>"If your argument is not able to stand by its own, without your name, your reputation or people checking your post history, it is no good argument."

One can have a reasonable argument, but also be completely unreasonable, socially. I agree that AC postings *can* have value. Yours is a perfect example. You are clear, respectful, and add to the conversation. The problem is that it often is just a bunch of nastiness or trolling. And because so many abuse it, people will filter it all out, or make negative assumptions about the poster's information or intent.

I am probably an outlier. Whether I post somewhere will full ID, with a pseudonym, or completely anonymously, I always write exactly the same way. With the same tone, respect, and diligence. I don't resort to personal attacks or inflammatory tone, I try to put myself in other's shoes and see multiple perspectives, and try to assume the poster I am responding to is acting in food faith (unless he or she proves otherwise in that posting). It seems this is far from "normal", though, which is a shame.

>"If you don't want to put your name to what you say then you're not worth giving a shit about. The AC thing has run it's course. There's no point in having it anymore. All it does is allow fuckwits to unleash their most fuckwitttest version of themselves."

I don't even think it needs to be your "name". (Note, you don't use your name.... I actually do, but that was my choice). At least requiring a login so there is some "handle" to show previous activity and positions is useful. And there is still a reputation to protect, even if it is not a person's actual name/identity. So I agree with you on the "AC" stuff on Slashdot. It is abused as a way to just attack positions or people without any reference.

I say this but am FIERCELY against platforms requiring verified "ID" in order to post. Even if they allow a public-facing alias. For me, that is a bright red line. And we are already crossing that line very quickly in this backwards methodology of "saving the children" when the real problem are having access to unrestricted devices, not the platforms, themselves.

>professors "struggle to accommodate the many students with an official disability designation,"

Do they also get to bring their "emotional support animals" to the test?

>"At Brown and Harvard, more than 20 percent of undergraduates are registered as disabled. At Amherst, that figure is 34 percent."

Why does that not surprise me.

>"But I would say that insurance should pay if the scan turns up anything requiring medical attention - early detection saves money."

I would say it is very unlikely any insurance will retroactively pay for a non-medically-indicated (non-physician-ordered and with justification) scan. Even if it picks up something that is a valid concern. However, they should cover further investigation/treatment of something discovered. Including further scans to clarify and follow-up scans.