The author of the article says that a network of regular security cameras is a better solution. He must not be married.
There's no way my wife would allow all those wires everywhere. And the wireless security cameras are a pain because you have to remember to recharge them.
Now, before the wannabe This Old House crowd starts up with "You just put the wires in the walls," consider that 43% of Americans rent their homes, and the number is even higher in other countries. The vast majority of landlords won't allow you to run wires in the walls.
That said, there's NFW I would have one of these in my house because I don't trust any tech company to have a camera in my house.
It's marketed as a security device, but it's not like a toy quadcopter is going to stop an intruder any better than a non-flying camera. Which means "not at all."
If you want home security that can reach all parts of your home, and provide alerts when someone breaks in, get a dog.
No, the dog can't alert you when you're not home, but again, it's not like you can do anything about a break-in when you're not home either way.
Then again, iOS has the built-in ability to detect dogs barking and react to that. Perhaps in the not-too-distant future, your Homepod can detect the dog barking and hit you with a text message.
I have a lot of IoT devices in and around my home, including some cameras. I don't trust any of the smart devices, which is why they all have offline/locally controlled operation modes and are segmented off from the rest of the network with their own manufacturer/purpose specific VLANs and firewall rules.
I don't think most people comprehend what their devices are doing, or how their data could be used against them. My robovac has a LIDAR sensor that maps the house - that's cool - what isn't cool is that by default it uploads those maps to Xiaomi and they can connect it via GeoIP (or GPS if I ever use their app) and have the location and floorplan of my home. I'm not special enough for that information to be very valuable, but it's still super creepy and I would prefer they not have it.
Are you doing any hand-rolled home automation? I just finished building a house and I had power over ethernet (PoE) put throughout before I discovered that security items using this command a hefty price premium over simple wireless / battery operated. I've toyed with the idea of just buying a Raspberry Pi with a PoE module and a decent camera module and seeing if I can replicate the functionality for half the price or less (and obviously not valuing my time at anything).
I've made some done some stuff with ESP8266 boards - remote controllers for our A/C minisplits[1], motors for our shades[2], and a humidity sensor (DHT11) for our crawlspace.
Most devices are connected to HomeKit through a Pi running Homebridge. I wanted voice control and Apple is the company I distrust the least since they at least pretend to care about privacy.
I have only messed around a little with HomeAssistant, but that's what I would recommend if you want entirely locally controlled home automation. They even have a voice assistant[1] but for now it's worse than Siri, which is really saying something.
You can buy splitters that convert the PoE into standard network + barrel power plug. Cost 20ish dollars and a roughly raspberry pi sized device in physical space.
I have used various PoE splitters over the years. They're very handy. The older generation had barrel plugs, but newer ones have various USB connectivity options too. If you're able to run cable PoE is pretty sweet. It's particularly nice to be able to put a single UPS in place to power a bunch of devices during power outages.
I wouldn't do my security stuff wirelessly if I was serious about it. A simple $2 esp8266 deauther is enough to disrupt WiFi and for the other protocols there's the option of jamming.
Our neighbor had his truck stolen and had a wireless camera in his front house. Last footage shows a car pull up across the street, a few minutes later the camera goes out, then when it comes back online the truck and car is gone. I guess the investigation decided it was jammed. So yeah, stick with wired systems.
Can't speak to PoE but Raspberry Pi works fine as a camera. I just have it shoot a still every hour that I can see on a web page. Also have a temperature sensor. Obviously I could password protect, add a motion sensor, save video, email, etc. if I wanted to get fancier.
where do you find the necessary protocol information for the various devices? that (and the trickiness of getting the firewall rules just right) seems to be a barrier to adoption for vlan'ing all the things. i still have issues with this on my little home network, typically with service discovery (e.g., mdns) and control app to device(s) communications (e.g., tradfri) across vlan boundaries.
Are you a woman or do you live with any women you care about? It was just last year it was reported that Ring employees had access to live customer camera feeds and would regularly watch each other’s homes and joke about who each other had slept with.
If you’re okay with someone in front of a computer screen watching what you and the people you care about do through a camera or even share those videos across the internet, then you’re all good!
Your other reply is horrible - LMGTFY has apparently gotten much worse and now uses their own heavily monetized search engine rather than Google - so here's a direct link to what the source probably is:
> Although the source said they never personally witnessed any egregious abuses, they told The Intercept “if [someone] knew a reporter or competitor’s email address, [they] could view all their cameras.” The source also recounted instances of Ring engineers “teasing each other about who they brought home” after romantic dates. Although the engineers in question were aware that they were being surveilled by their co-workers in real time, the source questioned whether their companions were similarly informed.
Assuming read access to your device: Detecting a shift in daily patterns to burgle your house when you're on vacation.
Assuming write access to your device: implanting false digital evidence on your device, calling the cops, and framing you
Assuming root access to your device and network: if you work from home, exfiltrating company-confidential from your home network. Running a botnet from your home.
So IoT vendors working with local burglars? Or local cops? I guess we know Amazon certainly has done the latter... (but not to frame Ring owners, that would be an odd business model...) Having rogue IoT devices on your LAN attack other machines on it is a valid concern, though your traffic would be encrypted, and your actual workstations firewalled?
Part of concern is vulnerabilities in your devices when exposed to the internet. The manufacturer doesn’t have to be malicious, just infosec incompetent.
look at it this way, if major companies who spend billions to hire the best industry security experts to secure their devices and their networks still find themselves regularly compromised, then consider how many of the iot companies are tiny or/and clearly place a significantly higher value on marketing/sales/shareholder return then they do on security, then ask yourself if you want the security and very specific details of your life to reside in the data these companies devices collect.
i don’t want to say they’re malicious but it should be clear by now that a very tiny fraction of companies are taking the security of this data and it’s collectors at even a fraction of how serious they should. even behemoths like amazon have had massive problems with their devices and have been very loose with the data collected.
I have worked with some electronics vendors. Their IT practices leave a lot to be desired.
I could completely see that someone working there could get access to all info on all clients without anyone noticing and selling it over dark net.
If somebody ever gained access to Ring's online video storage, they could easily process it to get a list of addresses and home/not-home schedules. They then could sell subscription access to that online for cheap, giving criminals a huge list of target homes (wealthy enough to be buying amazon's security products) and when it is safe to break in to them.
This was a thing starting in the early 10s. URL was something like burgleme.com. It used Facebook posts to identify when people were away from their homes.
A friend of a friend had a break in in his house last week and could see the burglars in his kids room via his cameras on his phone.
He also had the hopeless feeling of there being nothing to do, but had some sort of Eureka-moment and started playing “Fuck the police” on max volume on the floor above (all via his phone), and that apparently sent the burglars running!
(When he later talked to the cops they did call him a genius but questioned the song choice.)
The distinctive sound of a walkie talkie chirp is also a good sound to play, had it as my message alert on my phone - the number of people who suddenly think your a cop and get spooked.
Though any music works best as shows somebody in and most burglars don't want anybody there as then it becomes a robbery and those sentences are higher. So playing music good and your choice is pretty excellent in the psychological factor upon the burglars.
Please don't create low-effort posts like this that criticize / question the veracity of another post with zero evidence or context, it just creates noise and makes it harder for people to trust content posted on Hacker News.
If the above video was faked, and you could post a link or some context showing how it was faked, that would be a good contribution.
Here is an article where they discuss how some of the reactions in the initial version of the video were faked (by an acquaintance of the video's creator who was hired to help), but the creator acknowledged the issue (which he wasn't aware of when he initially published the video) and rectified it by removing those clips from the video: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/21/glitter-bomb-video-was-parti...
to the contrary if he played the Public Enemy song loud I think they'd fear being counter ambushed by some thugs unless the house gave away the identity of the owner. In otherwords the criminals may recognize that specific song, or at least discern some hard old school rap music.
I mean, who actually does need an array of security cameras? Traditional alarms work well without the need for cameras, specially when cameras are simply defeated by a face covering. At that point, the camera is just a glorified motion sensor.
In the case of the drone, it's just a geeky toy that will be inevitably marketed via fear-mongering, so they can collect even more data on you.
Aside from general documentation of damage, cameras can also be used to measure the body and movement (for instance gait) of the criminal, which is actually useful for an investigator. It shows where the criminal walked, which is also useful for securing tracks, prints or even DNA samples. Means you can save a ton of time looking. Many criminals aren't smart enough to discard or burn their clothes after use either, so this would also positively ID the perp if found. So yeah, I'd say that cameras are pretty useful for investigating crimes outside of mere facial recognition. ^^
I once had my residence burglarized. The police came hours after they were called and stayed long enough (10 minutes) to write a report that took me weeks to get which essentially said "door kicked in, owner said these things gone." That was it: no attempts to follow up with my neighbor that had security cameras, no attempt to run fingerprints on the metal pipe that was found outside that was almost certainly used to break the window, nothing.
If your surveillance drone doesn't get a crystal clear picture of the face of the person who broke into your house, absolutely no one is going to attempt to pull prints or tracks or DNA samples from what it captured. And even if it did get a crystal clear picture, you'll be lucky to get someone to look at it.
My Nest cam clearly caught the thief, but the police refused to take the video unless it was on DVD. It wasn't worth the effort (I don't even have a DVD burner anymore), but the police gave me a case number to satisfy my insurance claim. That's all there was to it; no other followup.
> the police gave me a case number to satisfy my insurance claim
This is the purpose of the visit - to verify that it was a real break-in and not someone scamming their insurance company. Catching the thief is nowhere on their priorities.
I tried to be accommodating and suggested at least 5 different means of sharing the video with the police. I even offered to provide a description of the person I saw in the video, and they told me not to bother.
I got the distinct impression that even if I did jump through hoops to provide a DVD that they wouldn't be seriously investigating the theft. The officer who took my statement basically said as much.
With respect, that doesn't seem to be a problem with the video system, but with the police department. As with any professional, a gentle reminder to please do their fn job often helps (this is from personal experience spesifically with lazy police officers). ^^ If the case goes to court, you will have a much better case against the suspect. In fact as a lay judge I've presided over many criminal cases where I live, and every case with video evidence stands a much higher chance of convicting the suspect. As for the gentleman who didn't even bother to put the video on the required media; well, I guess the case wasn't that important to him after all.
that doesn't seem to be a problem with the video system, but with the police department.
Police in many places don't do all the things that they do on television anymore.
In some cities, burglaries may not get a police response for days, if at all.
Police departments all across the country have to juggle finances. Sometimes this means deciding what types of crimes get investigated, and which do not. When I lived in the capital of a medium-sized eastern city in the 90's, the mayor and police department had a very public back-and-forth with a big list of crimes, and placing a red line on that list deciding what the police will look at and what they wouldn't.
For example, until last year, police in Las Vegas dropped car crashes from the list of things they would respond to. Unless someone was hurt or killed, they were deemed civil matters and people were supposed to take pictures and let their insurance companies figure it out.
> Police in many places don't do all the things that they do on television anymore.
None of what you're claiming is an argument against using cameras, though. Including the insinuation and logical fallacy that the only experience I, a lay judge within the Norwegian justice system, have with police work is through television........
You won't believe how often camera surveillance footage comes up in court cases, and how often they are instrumental in deciding those very cases. That you have an underfunded police force has exactly nothing to do with camera surveillance. In fact, knowing that is actually a giant argument for getting more surveillance cameras(!), since it's such a big help in solving cases and convicting criminals.
Add to this that I've travelled quite extensively, including in countries with severely underfunded police forces, such as in Bulgaria and Romania, or worse, Serbia. There I've seen up close how such underfunded police work. Yeah, surveillance footage; it's even more important in areas with underfunded police! So if you choose to not install cameras, that's up to you, pal. But don't complain to me when you're making sure that any burglary towards your house becomes unsolvable because you refused to install them...
It’s not “do your job”: it’s recognizing that in a large city certain types of crime aren’t significant enough for police intervention.
Frankly, that’s fine by me: putting enough police in place to investigate every incident of property crime would be exceptionally wasteful and would drive up overpolicing of certain communities to a ridiculous and dangerous degree. All I really needed was that report for insurance, after all.
> putting enough police in place to investigate every incident of property crime would be exceptionally wasteful and would drive up overpolicing of certain communities to a ridiculous and dangerous degree.
Making them prioritize burglaries or robberies without increasing their manpower might force them to reallocate resources from overpolicing certain communities to doing actual, useful work that makes everyone safer. Sounds like a win-win to me.
But then again, I'm not an expert. Maybe the amount of labor allocated to investigating property crimes currently is appropriate and increasing that might take focus away from violent crimes.
Police rarely goes after theft here. They basically come to assess if it was a break-in. But don't expect to see your stuff again.
It's better to focus on making sure it's not worth someone's time to get in. Such as keeping expensive, easy to grab, items out of sight. And then just have good locks and a loud alarm.
Adding a camera should be the last thing you do to your setup.
cameras can also be used to measure the body and movement (for instance gait) of the criminal, which is actually useful for an investigator
For a theoretical investigator. Police departments don't have the money, manpower, or time to do gait analysis on a burglary suspect. And outside of China, is that even considered evidence in a real court of law?
Yes. This is absolutely done when assessing and comparing security footage. Burglars are often serial burglars (it's their job or hobby to steal stuff), and many of them show up on camera multiple times from different angles.
Crime goes by some skewed power law distributions and a relatively small number of people do most of the crime in any given area.
As an aside, security camera footage of a crime in your house is also great for your criminal defense (if you are going to use violence against the intruder) and for pressing a claim to an insurance company. If the intruder pulls a gun on you and you shoot him in response on camera, you can use that piece of evidence to get charges dropped against you or to prevent the police from even recommending charges in the first place.
The police are there to notarize your claims to the insurance company, as siblings illustrate. Once you're made whole, do you want to take the time to put a petty thief on trial? Every break-in is not an episode of Law & Order.
My only thought for practical use would be to checkup on a pet while you are away from home. Since if the pet has feel roam of the house you can't necessarily see if from a stationary camera.
When I go away, I put my old launch-day iPhone on a dock and aim it at the food dish. I has an app that polls that camera and checks for movement. If movement is detected, it sends a series of stills to me by e-mail.
The app is no longer available on the App Store, but it keeps working because the iPhone is too old to connect to the App Store and be told that the app no longer exists. But I should think that there's a modern equivalent out there somewhere.
> The app is no longer available on the App Store, but it keeps working because the iPhone is too old to connect to the App Store and be told that the app no longer exists.
Nice! But also sad that this is the only way one can keep running a desired app in this day where an external corporation controls what one is allowed to use.
I don’t think that apps on iPhones stop working just because the app was removed from from the store. You wouldn’t be able to get the app on a new phone, of course, but the old installed app should keep working. The comment might have been thinking of remotely-triggered app removal, which I believe is a rarely used function.
I've never been interested in using cameras for security concerns. By the time you need to use camera footage for a security concern, it's usually too late.
I think they're really handy for monitoring the status of routine household tasks, though.
"Did I get a package today? What time does the mail normally arrive? How is the dog doing? Did the garbage truck come by yet? Did the storm do any damage while I was away?"
"Did I get a package today? What time does the mail normally arrive? How is the dog doing? Did the garbage truck come by yet? Did the storm do any damage while I was away?"
Most of that sounds like the side-effects of FOMO.
Did I get a package today?
Unless you live in a neighborhood or building where packages get stolen, who cares? You'll find it when you get home. If it's important, you have a tracking number and know if it was delivered.
What time does the mail normally arrive?
Who cares? My office window overlooks the mailboxes, and it comes at a different time every day. As long as it comes.
How is the dog doing?
He's fine. And if he's not, you'll find out when you get home.
Did the garbage truck come by yet?
Who cares? Even when I had an HMO, we had eight hours to get the trash cans off the curb.
Did the storm do any damage while I was away?
Nice to know, if it's a tornado. But again, there's nothing you can do, so why do you need to know? It's not like you're not going to push a button on your phone and magically lift your patio set out of the neighbor's pool. If you come home and see flashing emergency lights, then yes, there is damage.
> Unless you live in a neighborhood or building where packages get stolen, who cares? You'll find it when you get home.
Some packages will fit in my mail slot. Some packages won't fit and will sit outside. If I bought something that could be damaged by water, and it is sitting outside in the rain, I might drop by the house to move it inside. If it is safely out of the weather, I can save time by not doing that.
> Who cares? My office window overlooks the mailboxes, and it comes at a different time every day. As long as it comes.
I have used the data from my cameras to find out that my mail comes on a fairly consistent schedule. If I am expecting an important letter (especially something that might be a prereq for other errands I have to run), this can be helpful information to plan my schedule in a way that saves time.
> Who cares? Even when I had an HMO, we had eight hours to get the trash cans off the curb.
I live on a hill, so it's nice to put my cans away promptly so I don't have to chase them down the street or retrieve them from the middle of the road. When they're empty it's easy for them to blow away.
> Nice to know, if it's a tornado. But again, there's nothing you can do, so why do you need to know?
I disagree with this more than anything. Plain ol' thunderstorms or winter storms can do significant damage, and if the damage is to the roof, a window, or a pipe, the resulting water damage could be exponentially more extensive if it isn't remediated quickly. I have some family who were on vacation when a pipe burst -- if they would have caught it quickly, it could have been mopped up and shut off. Instead they had to stay in a hotel while their interior was gutted and replaced.
I'm not doubting you, but I'm seriously trying to picture this.
You were running late for the flight. Couldn't find your keys. Presumably pretty panicked. And you sat down and watched multiple streams of cameras to see if you might see yourself putting the keys down somewhere?
Well checking things on my camera is second nature now. Any time I don't know where something is, or want to know why something is on the floor or whatever, I check the camera. Usually one of my animals is responsible.
Also, being late for a flight doesn't make me panic.
I try to but sometimes I don't. say I was carrying a bunch of stuff in and couldn't get to the normal place I keep them, or I had taken them back to my desk to get to the yubikey or I needed the key to open my bicycles battery compartment, etc.
Or sometimes I just forget to take them out of my pocket.
you get most of the benefit out of a security camera before you even turn it on. past that, probably only useful to document the actions you take if someone breaks in while you're actually home.
> Then again, iOS has the built-in ability to detect dogs barking and react to that. Perhaps in the not-too-distant future, your Homepod can detect the dog barking and hit you with a text message.
Oh cool. I always wanted to get texts all day alerting me to people walking dogs across the street and that the squirrel that lives in the tree in the front yard has descended again.
I've actually started classifying my dog's barking since starting to work at home.
There's the "neighbor let the dog out" barking, unexpected car door, terrible music, that creepy neighbor guy, battlestations: generally unfamiliar dog or delivery person pulled up.
YES! My poodle has all the above. You can definitly tell the difference between "I see something" and "I hear something but idk what". Snowplows are DEFCON1.
Also, "there's something I want but I can't get it", very similar to "I want to be somewhere but I'm stuck" (usually she trapped herself in the bathroom). Even though both are a shrill YARP, the former is insistent, the latter is uncertain.
Then there's "throw the damn ball already", "cat, get away from my food", and the ultra rare yet adorable ambulance howl.
Contrary to the promotional ads, I feel the main use case is to have a closer look at small things where your main cameras are unable to have a good enough look eg, is the stove or toaster still on? Did my kid leave his school project in his room? Did I drop my wallet in this spot? What is my cat or dog doing right now?
Even without visible wires I don't think many people would put security cameras in every room. This drone looks like a good solution to check on the house while you are away without compromising everyday privacy (you can always turn it off when not in use). Also good tool for those of us being paranoid if they turned off the stove/water/etc.
This was actually one of the first things along these lines that looked sorta interesting.
In normal times, I travel quite a bit. I do have one camera (RPi) looking outside along with a couple other sensors. And I don't really care enough to put cameras all over the house so I can look over things when I'm traveling. (Or, given where I live, enough to subscribe to a security service.)
But, for general peace of mind, to have a single device that lets me look in on things now and then? It actually seems reasonable.
> If you want home security that can reach all parts of your home, and provide alerts when someone breaks in, get a dog.
Agree with everything you said except this. This is terrible advice for most people. Don't get a dog unless you really want a dog. And if you do get one, adopt, because there are people who do think like this^ about animals, and a significant number of those animals will end up at a shelter at some point.
I have a few cameras and the cables are all hidden. The camera doesn't have to be mounted on a wall to be useful - mine sit on existing furniture and the cables hang down behind, out of sight.
As for their utility, meh, dubious utility. Yeah, I get a notice on my phone when they detect movement. That just means I know when my maid is moving between the basement and the living room. But, I know this going in - bought them more as a nerd gadget thing that actual security.
> Now, before the wannabe This Old House crowd starts up with "You just put the wires in the walls," consider that 43% of Americans rent their homes, and the number is even higher in other countries. The vast majority of landlords won't allow you to run wires in the walls.
It also assumes typical American construction styles. In my country all houses are made of brick. Opening up the walls to run some cables is often borderline impossible.
TBH My main use for home "security" cameras has just been to check-in on my cats while away, and make sure that the people who're coming by to take care of them have given them food etc.
A flying security drone solves a few big problems for me A) sometimes a cat decides not to come downstairs for a while, being able to see them is great. B) Stuff gets wrecked while we're gone, its nice to know what we're walking in to and figure out how to have less stuff wrecked in the future.
I'd imagine other folks have various "peace of mind" concerns while away such as the classic "did I leave the oven on?". A patrolling camera is the perfect solution to this problem and is only tangentially related to true home security.
>There's no way my wife would allow all those wires everywhere. And the wireless security cameras are a pain because you have to remember to recharge them.
Several manufacturers sell battery powered cameras that last up to two years without charging. Or you can get solar powered ones for outdoors. They have very low power consumption as they're normally off, until PIR triggered. That's a reasonable trade off, I think. The downside is triggering is potentially unreliable and they're not good for continuous monitoring/recording. But for detecting someone at the door, or in your garden, they're not a bad choice.
> It's marketed as a security device, but it's not like a toy quadcopter is going to stop an intruder any better than a non-flying camera. Which means "not at all."
Preventing break-ins isn't the point of security cameras. Their purpose is reacting to break-ins. Maybe you can give the police a picture of the burglar's face. Or their license plate or car make/model/color. You can see what they took, so you don't leave something off your insurance claim because you hadn't yet noticed it was missing. Your dog can't do any of these things, and a camera is a much smaller commitment than a pet.
Is there a jurisdiction where the cops actually care to track down burglars? The clearance rate is something like <20% in the US and I suspect many of those were luck based (ie: the caught the burglar for something else and found stolen property).
I've had cops show up the next day, take fingerprints, footprints, give me a call a few weeks later when they tracked down the perp. I don't live in the USA though...
Yeah, the arguments the author made against it aren't that strong, either. I like the idea of being able to check on my older but self sufficient pet (via a loud drone that will scare her unfortunately). I like knowing that if an intruder gets into the house, they will have to look directly at the camera and get close to swat it down. Quite a bit more difficult than defeating a static camera in the corner of a room.
I don't know what your situation looks like but nearly every spot I can think of where a camera would work well there is no outlet. Not too many people have outlets just hanging out up near the ceiling in corners or on the outside of their homes on the roof.
I have Wyze cams in the front and back of the house and when I am away I leave one pointed at where everything intersects downstairs on the inside. It just needs wire for power unless you get the outside one, those you only need to mount somewhere no wires just recharge. They let you only store things on an SD card. Really cheap anr awesome company.
TBH I think the best use case for this device is anxious pet owners who want to check up on how their pets are doing. Often pets sit somewhere where the cameras are not pointing.
But this also might not be good for the pet's mental health either as a loud ass drone buzzes around them.
> There's no way my wife would allow all those wires everywhere. And the wireless security cameras are a pain because you have to remember to recharge them.
This is some misogynistic bull because you’re implying that only women would care about unsightly wires strung around the place.
This is some misogynistic bull because you’re implying that only women would care about unsightly wires strung around the place.
I am implying nothing. I am stating a fact. My wife hates visible wires. Every time we move, it's a pain in the ass to hide all the wires for the TV. When Bluetooth became a thing, she was first on board with a wireless mouse and keyboard. It's been an ongoing theme in our relationship for decades.
Educate yourself.
I don't need to educate myself about my wife. You might want to educate yourself about projection, and making false assumptions to fit other people into your stereotypes.
There's no way my wife would allow all those wires everywhere. And the wireless security cameras are a pain because you have to remember to recharge them.
Now, before the wannabe This Old House crowd starts up with "You just put the wires in the walls," consider that 43% of Americans rent their homes, and the number is even higher in other countries. The vast majority of landlords won't allow you to run wires in the walls.
That said, there's NFW I would have one of these in my house because I don't trust any tech company to have a camera in my house.
It's marketed as a security device, but it's not like a toy quadcopter is going to stop an intruder any better than a non-flying camera. Which means "not at all."
If you want home security that can reach all parts of your home, and provide alerts when someone breaks in, get a dog.
No, the dog can't alert you when you're not home, but again, it's not like you can do anything about a break-in when you're not home either way.
Then again, iOS has the built-in ability to detect dogs barking and react to that. Perhaps in the not-too-distant future, your Homepod can detect the dog barking and hit you with a text message.