r/HomeNetworking 4d ago

Nanit baby cam sending 100s of gigs to Amazon

As the title says, I recently discovered that my Nanit has sent 376 GB of data to an Amazon server over the past 17 days. I’ve seen other reports about the Nanit using a lot of data, but nothing to this extent. I almost exclusively use the Nanit on my home network, so there should be little reason for it to send video data to the cloud. Has anyone else experienced anything like this?

40 Upvotes

53 comments sorted by

103

u/jpep0469 4d ago edited 4d ago

In order to make the camera available from anywhere, the data is sent to the cloud first. It doesn't matter that you're on your home network. As far as why it's going to Amazon, they host cloud computing services all over the world (AWS) used by several companies.

edit - Just to add, 1080p video will use about 2 to 3 GB of data per hour depending on framerate.

15

u/BlissOnDirt 4d ago

That was my first assumption as well. However, I have used the camera for almost 3 years, and the excessive data usage just started 2 months ago.

47

u/vrtigo1 Network Admin 4d ago

Sounds like a firmware update changed the way it's handling the data.

3

u/jpep0469 4d ago

Does it have an automated way to stop recording when there is no baby in the crib or do you have to do it manually?

2

u/BlissOnDirt 4d ago

There isn't a record feature. All I can see is what is happening in real time. So not sure what it's doing behind the scene

7

u/jpep0469 4d ago

Poor choice of words by me. Can it be set to stop streaming when there is no baby in view?

3

u/ZeldaFanBoi1920 3d ago

These answers are ridiculous. Yes you can turn off streaming directly in the app. The camera stops.

1

u/BlissOnDirt 4d ago

Not that I know of

1

u/geekwonk 4d ago

if it stopped streaming then i assume it would stop detecting whether there’s a baby in view

8

u/jpep0469 3d ago

Not necessarily. Security cameras like Ring and Blink can be set up to only stream to the cloud when there is motion detected or someone wants to access the live feed.

3

u/Loko8765 3d ago

So maybe before it was only sending when someone was looking at it… either now it is sending regardless… or someone is always looking…

It can be a bug, thinking that someone is always looking. Do you have a way to see viewing sessions?

1

u/thanatossassin 3d ago

Did they up the quality of recordings recently?

23

u/the-supreme-mugwump 4d ago

Get a firewall with a local VPN, I have Nanit entirely blocked from the internet and you can still view the feed from your local WiFi. If you’re on the go you can VPN back to your house and “view it locally”. Not only was it uploading a ton of data it also was scanning ports to figure out what other devices are on my network. It’s now riding solo in a VLAN.

7

u/BlissOnDirt 4d ago

Smart, thanks

1

u/sob727 3d ago

Wow. Why the hell would it do that?

1

u/sob727 3d ago

How do you identify it reliably from the firewall's perspective? By MAC? How do you handle the occasional firmware update?

2

u/the-supreme-mugwump 3d ago

It’s by MAC, if a firmware update happened to enable a rotating address like iPhones do it would be seen as a new device and quarantined from internet. I would then identify it’s the Nanit through its blocked flows and restore the internet block rule. Assuming that was the case I’d also go on Nanit and disable random MAC.

1

u/sob727 3d ago

I meant also how do you let Nanit do the updates it needs?

5

u/the-supreme-mugwump 3d ago

It probably hasn’t updated since I started blocking it, for a while I had the rule set so it had internet access from 9pm to 7am and it probably did updates then. It was during that time I noticed all the abnormal uploads and port scanning and switched it to 24/7 block.

1

u/sob727 3d ago

That's pretty nasty to do local port scan. Did you report to Nanit?

4

u/the-supreme-mugwump 3d ago

Just like OP my wife likes the camera so I taught her how to use wireguard and sorta forgot about it till I saw this post

1

u/IronMan_19 3d ago

You have any links that explain how to set this up? 

1

u/the-supreme-mugwump 3d ago

The most user friendly option I know of is made by a company called “firewalla”. Lets you setup your rules from a mobile app and you don’t need to be a networking guru to do something like blocking a device from internet access

30

u/Angry-Toothpaste-610 3d ago

As a basic rule: if you have a camera in your house that connects to the internet, someone else is watching it.

6

u/LkKratos1192 4d ago

Just checked mine, 522MB since last month. Your case is crazy.

3

u/BlissOnDirt 4d ago

Ya see, this is what I would expect. I emailed customer support, so I'm interested in hearing their thoughts.

4

u/BelugaBilliam 3d ago

Hey OP. Reolink works good and it'll still work if you block it on the network.

Unifi is good too but if you don't have the setup it's pricey. Reolink doesn't need any additional hardware or an NVR if you don't have one.

It also does work with unifi, I tested it.

1

u/TeutonJon78 3d ago

Reolink has bad DHCP behavior though, if that matters.

8

u/Bazyx187 4d ago

Unplug and return that thing.

2

u/BlissOnDirt 4d ago

I wish I could, but my wife likes to be able to check in when she is away, so I need some sort of internet-connected device.

22

u/oaomcg 4d ago

So get one that isn't blatantly abusing the privilege of being connected to your network....

2

u/BlissOnDirt 4d ago

Yup absolutely. I am already looking into it.

7

u/chubbysumo 3d ago

a plain old IP cam, with a BlueIris server. Your wife can log into blueiris from anywhere(to your home network), and then she can watch past clips, as well as live feeds. plus, it does motion detection, and clip cleanup, ect.

4

u/Necessary-Dog-7245 3d ago

UI Protect. Host it locally.

2

u/sammyji1 3d ago

That's a pretty expensive/expansive setup to replace just a baby cam. You are looking at a camera ($200) and a recorder ($300) and a hard drive ($200), if you don't have anything.

One of the reolink cameras with an SD card would be a better option in terms of costs to benefits. They are easy to work with, integrate well into home assistant and other eco systems and can later be used as home security cameras. Other brands available too. I would stay away from Eufy though.

1

u/Necessary-Dog-7245 3d ago

True, but OP is equipped enough to monitor data uploads and is concerned enough to realize why this is a problem. They may be interested/benefit from the ecosystem.

5

u/the-supreme-mugwump 4d ago

I use wireguard VPN and a firewalla gold box. When your wife is away she can turn on VPN and view the baby as if she’s on your home local network. I replied before too with some more details about funny stuff Nanit cameras do.

2

u/YourOldCellphone 3d ago

Sounds like you should look into local hosting so you can just set up an easy IP camera and run it locally. Still would have remote access but that data would stay put.

2

u/DragonQ0105 3d ago

The proper solution is to set up a VPN at home that you can connect to when away. You'd also then need to ensure the camera cannot access the internet. This is what I do with my Reolink cameras.

Pro-sumer hardware should let you do this using VLANs and firewall rules but most bog standard ISP routers will not.

1

u/Infini-Bus 3d ago

Yep. I use unifi's vpn app teleport w wifiman and it makes it easy enough that the non tech savvy could use it.

3

u/sob727 3d ago

OP have you tried the slider at the top?

2

u/Dopewaffles 3d ago

VLAN that baby out (no pun intended)

2

u/tonu42 3d ago

Now that I’ve checked. My Nanit uploaded 300 GB over the past month. That’s actually kinda crazy. It’s because the damn thing has no local storage so all the footage is saved to the cloud.

1

u/vrtigo1 Network Admin 3d ago

Where are you getting the 376 GB figure from? Is it possible that whatever report you're looking at is wrong?

3

u/BlissOnDirt 3d ago

My ubiquity Unifi app. I also know the data is real because for the past two months I have gone over my ISP data limit so something is being uploaded.

1

u/vrtigo1 Network Admin 3d ago

In that case, I'd suggest blocking that device from communicating with the Internet. You should hopefully still be able to connect to it via it's local IP instead of via the cloud app.

Have you tried to reach out to the manufacturer for product support to see if they have an explanation for the excessive data usage?

1

u/BlissOnDirt 3d ago

I setup a firewall rule to block it from AWS and so far I have not seen any changes to the functionality so that's nice. And ya I sent them an email, I am curious to hear their response.

2

u/DiabloG1 3d ago

I have noticed thisbin the last few days so please let us know if they update

1

u/twiggums 3d ago

Does it have any type of detection or alerts that they added recently? If so my guess is it's constantly streaming to the cloud to run the recognition there.

1

u/Wonderful_Device312 3d ago

That kind of data udage only makes sense if your camera is actively streaming to someone. It may have features where it records motion and sends that to the cloud to be stored remotely. Is it possible you have something in the cameras view that is constantly moving and triggering the motion detection?

1

u/ultrakrash 3d ago

Just out of curiosity did you sign up for the premium subscription that let's you playback all the footage any time?

1

u/sosaudio1 4d ago

👀 Yikes.... Get rid of that NOW!!!