On Sat, 2020-07-11 at 11:51 +1000, Paul Brooks wrote: > Which is to say - minimal to no risk.
Agreed on this - but any sufficiently wealthy house could be worth the effort for professionals. So the risk increases with your net worth, I would say. > OTOH, smart security cameras that just transmit on motion detection > do have benefits And it would be easy to have them transmit, not constantly, but at random intervals, and to store real frames for transmission and retransmission in the random stream, thus making patterns in the transmissions difficult/impossible to detect. You don't store anything you weren't going to store anyway. It would use somewhat more bandwidth and somewhat more battery, but would be way cheaper, more reliable and indeed more random than a pet :-) Regards, K. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karl Auer (ka...@biplane.com.au) http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer http://twitter.com/kauer389 GPG fingerprint: 2561 E9EC D868 E73C 8AF1 49CF EE50 4B1D CCA1 5170 Old fingerprint: 8D08 9CAA 649A AFEF E862 062A 2E97 42D4 A2A0 616D _______________________________________________ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
