|
|
|
|
|
|
by jrochkind1
1931 days ago
|
|
|
It's not just that it's a single point of failure, it's that as a customer I do not want any admin who is feeling curious to be able to snoop on my footage with a click. I don't know how "established" this company is, but their customers appear to include city governments, hospitals, and Tesla motors, which I would consider "high value and large targets". Makes me suspicious of the whole industry. If others in the industry dont' want that, time for some industry codes and audits and self-regulation. |
|
|
Regarding established: I might be wrong! I willingly admit that I knew nothing about verkada some days ago. Seems to be relatively new (5 year-ish) and "classic" Silicon Valley in that they push hard for growth to get their valuation up and try to "disrupt" by running everything in the cloud. More sales people than R&D, which I think is uncommon.
Verkada runs full lock-in, so if you buy a camera from them you have to buy their services. This is again relatively uncommon. Most of the industry supports the ONVIF standard, so you can run the hardware you bought with different software solutions. If you want encryption at rest, no problem. You just make an on-premise solution with full encryption. With verkada you can't do that (incidentally verkada have mocked ONVIF due to alleged security concerns, but obviously it undermines their business model with full lock-in).
Since combining verkada and other hardware would require parallel systems I made an educated guess that most customers would be places without previous hardware and/or less concern for the long run. Most large and high value targets have previous hardware, but certainly there are exceptions. And as stated earlier, I might be wrong:)
And lastly, you should be suspicious! Last time I bought a car I was very suspicious. I like the car I did buy very much, but next time I will be just as suspicious again. That's how things should be when it's about trust and high impact.