ILNews

Technology Untangled: Easy video security with Internet cloud camera

Stephen Bour
December 19, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

technology-bourToday we will look at a simple and effective Web-based network video security camera from D-Link that makes it easy to remotely monitor your home or office over the Internet.

I became intrigued by this subject after recently working on a project that included evidence from a home surveillance camera. That camera recorded an incident as a series of hundreds of individual snapshots. Using editing software, I was able to stitch those shots together to produce a smooth, moving video of the event. This home surveillance system was set up with multiple cameras that were wired to a computer acting as a DVR. While elaborate setups like this are certainly achievable, I was looking for something similar yet simpler to set up and operate, something that required just a minimum of technical skill.

What I discovered was the D-Link Cloud Camera 1200, model DCS-942L, a simple yet feature-filled wireless Internet camera. This camera communicates with the wireless network router you probably already own. It connects via WiFi in a manner similar to a wireless printer. It is about the size of a deck of cards. This allows for great flexibility in camera placement, allowing the unit to be placed anywhere within signal range that a power connection is available. Network cameras like this are different than Web cameras because they can operate independently of a computer (they have their own built-in CPU) and can be accessed directly through the Internet.

The D-Link stood out for me because of several key features. Because it communicates with the cloud, it allows for remote viewing of your live video feed from any iPhone, iPad or Android phone or tablet. You can, of course, also view from any computer on the Internet, as well as control a host of recording and viewing options from your computer while at home or away.

Next, it allows for easy recording of video because of the included microSD memory card slot. Most similar cameras have provisions for recording video to a connected computer or for uploading video to a server, but the D-Link’s onboard memory option makes recording, storing and reviewing video very easy.

Initial setup was straightforward. Begin by attaching the camera directly to your router with the included Ethernet cable, then turn on the power. Next, use your computer to download and run the setup Wizard software. The hardest part was thinking up yet another username and password! Note that the Ethernet cable is only required during initial setup. The camera can operate wirelessly after that.

With the free mydlink app, your phone or tablet easily becomes a remote viewing device. After installing and launching the app, you enter your username and password (the first time only) and then tap to view your camera. Remote viewing includes the ability to monitor audio as well. You can also instantly capture and save a snapshot of any activity as you are viewing it on the screen.

Full functionality and control of the network camera can be achieved by logging on to the D-Link Web browser from any computer. This makes it easy to monitor, adjust and control the camera from anywhere in the world. In addition to providing many video quality and motion-trigger adjustments, the camera also can be configured to provide a two-way audio link, thus allowing it to act as an entryway monitoring and communication device. This camera is also night-vision capable due to the included infrared illuminator and sensor. The D-Link system allows for installation of multiple cameras to your router so you can monitor, for example, both the parking lot and the lobby of your office.

Because of the onboard SD card, you can easily set up the Cloud Camera 1200 as a continuously recording stand-alone security camera. It does not need to be communicating continuously with your computer to accomplish this. A 16GB memory card will record a full week of clear time- and date-stamped video before it begins to overwrite the oldest data. The default video is recorded in 60-second segments at 320 X 240, 10 fps (frames per second), and a single snapshot also is recorded once per minute. Adjustments are available for higher resolutions and longer segments.

Perhaps the more practical method of recording is to set up the camera to record only upon detection of motion. Motion-triggered events are stored to the SD card, and email notification can be set up to instantly send you several snapshots from the recorded event. You can then log on through your computer to view the recorded video. This could be useful for monitoring deliveries to your home or office.

If you are interested in a relatively inexpensive ($150), uncomplicated and practical video security solution, try the D-Link Cloud Cam 1200. You can learn more about the D-Link Cloud video products at http://www.dlink.com/us/en/home-solutions/mydlink/stay-connected. Information on their more robust business products can be found at http://www.dlink.com/us/en/business-solutions/ip-surveillance.•

__________

Stephen Bour (bourtech@iquest.net) is an engineer and legal technology consultant in Indianapolis. His company, the Alliance for Litigation Support Inc., includes Bour Technical Services and Alliance Court Reporting. Areas of service include legal videography, tape analysis, document scanning to CD and courtroom presentation support. The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT