WSJ Tests Home Security Cameras, Gives Negative Review

So the Wall Street Journal tested home security cameras and was annoyed with their performance.

Key problem - they wanted better analytics to accurately and only alert when a real intruder was present, noting:

"The cameras' alerts struggled to differentiate between my family's daily routines and anything more sinister, instead annoying me with a constant string of non-alarms. I'm ready to take them down."


"You end up getting lots of alerts when nothing is wrong: a ping if a tree moves in a heavy wind, a ping if the mail arrives, a ping if Fluffy launches on a midday sprint around the house. An actual break-in could easily get lost in all the pings."

Here's a (goofy) video from the WSJ reporter:

He concludes lamentfully,

"You could just use the cameras in this peek-only mode.

But as a security device, identifying the bad stuff and alerting you to it is what matters."

Ironically, as security professionals, bullet proof alerting remains a challenge even for professional systems, not just sub $200 webcams.

Login to read this IPVM discussion.
Why do I need to log in?
IPVM conducts unique testing and research funded by member's payments enabling us to offer the most independent, accurate and in-depth information.