Add a native "Security Alarm System" integration component to Home Assistant Core as a default package of pre-made Blueprints making it simpler for new users to setup an easy-to-use custom DIY Home Security Alarm?

Feature Requests
11

Jeez. I really kicked the hornets nest with that liability comment. Lets see if I can’t stir it up a bit more…

Some countries that are well represented on the HA map are a lot more litigious than others. Well, one in particular.

Don’t get me wrong I am also extremely happy with Alarmo - but I have a UPS that will keep my server, networking, hard wired sensors and cameras up for about an hour. I also have a fail-over backup mobile network if my fibre gets cut. One hour is more than long enough for me to be notified something amiss and for me to send the boys in blue round if I am away from home. Also around here your average thief has zero technical ability and will avoid properties with security cameras.

Now your average new to home assistant user from the aforementioned country may not consider these factors (and others, like how easy it is to jam most wireless networks), wonder why they still got robbed without so much as a peep from Home Assistant and look for someone to blame other than themselves. Especially if the core alarm system is an easy point and click set-up that any ol’ dummy can half-arse.

Having said all of that mildly provocative guff, the main point you should have taken away from my original post was not the liability comment but this:

Doesn’t mean it wont happen or that they would reject a well thought out and documented core integration, but that at the moment none of the core devs are interested in doing it.

At least that was the impression I got from lurking in the dev channels.

2 Likes
12

Again I think discussions about liability could be discussed in a separate thread as that could apply to many things.

Regardless I do not believe it is likely that someone will sue the non-profit Open Home Foundation that is now the legal owner over specifically because it having a security alarm system feature. or at least not likely enough that it should be a good reason to high-jack this thread and make the discussion about liability instead of the ”feature” in this feature request diacussion.

@tom_l as a forum moderator I hope that you can take the high road on this and move the liability discussion elseware. Please do not let this feature request be threadjacked.

image

13

HA. Living in TX, I would bet the exact opposite.

I had to testify once in a case where someone was suing a homeowner because his home 'didn’t do all the smart stuff they showed during the walk through. I can absolutely see someone suing the foundation for stupid stuff like that

14

Did you even read what I wrote?

15

I assume he was paying the homeowner and maybe the smart stuff was working during the walk through…
Would you back away when you pay for something that isn’t delivered?

If HA gets (something like) Alarmo built-in, nobody tells you that you have to use it, just like HA itself.
Would anybody be able to make a case that (something with) HA is not working?

1 Like
16

It’s not that off-topic, if we discuss things, that could hinder the development of a requested feature. :slight_smile: Liability is one of many concerns, and all of these should be discussed in a feature request. I mean, if the liability would be a show stopper, why discuss other things, if they will definitly not happen?! :slight_smile:

Anyway, as you have asked Niels (@nellis), the developer of Alarmo, to give his thoughts, I’ll just quote his answer from the other thread.

Some interesting points, Niels makes here. :slight_smile:

That I wouldn’t be so sure about. :wink: Nobody forces you to fly, yet if you crash, you or your legal heirs are entitled to some form of compensation…

Liability is a factor, especially in the US, where you have to look out for! :slight_smile: And this is only the US, here in Europe we seem to go in the same direction - not combined with that much of cash, but the rules what you can and can’t do as a manufacturer are getting more customer friendly from day to day! I like that, as I’m mostly a buyer and not a seller. :slight_smile:

17

Something like that. He (seller) left the panel in the hallway on and showing controls. He had to explain why just having the panel wasn’t a promise of home control. (dumb on many levels)

Is also the same reason I always recommend never handing over a completely built system unless you are a professional installer and have liability insurance for such things.

18

Again, you pay for a ticket to fly.
I guess you don’t get into a plain if you know it’s not safe/well maintained, you assume to have a skilled/trained pilot.
Getting into a plane has a risk to die, or best case have physical/psychological injuries if it goes wrong.

HA is FREE, everything that you can do with it is a bonus.

1 Like
19

I don’t understand why liability is discussed in this topic. Really, the same could be said about every single other HA feature. You could argue over and over again that any feature cannot be added, because there’s a chance it could not work due to a million different factors. Not only the discussion doesn’t add any value, it doesn’t change whether a feature will be produced or not, but if there is a legitimate issue of litigation, that’s a topic for lawyers, not HA users in here.

The second point that was brought here is that HA devs are not interested in doing it. That’s believable and fine. But again, I don’t see how that matters for this topic. It’s a feature request, the point is to show that users are interested in some new feature (or not). Perhaps if there are few hundred votes here, some developers will become interested in it, maybe even it could show up on Nabu Casa’s radar. Or maybe not, either way I don’t see why it should matter what some devs said somewhere in the past about the topic.

Point is - you think the feature would be useful, vote for it. You want to discuss its details, this is the place. You don’t like the idea, just don’t vote for it. There’s no point fighting against it with people who would like to see it. It’s just some weird gatekeeping.

1 Like
20

Not necessarily, I’ve flown my fair share on free tickets. But that’s not the point, you’re totally right, that the likelihood for a law suit is far greater in an “airplane” case, compared to an “alarm system powered by HA”.

Nonetheless it’s a possibilty, that you have to calculate with. As low as the chances might be, IF one case is succeeding, you’re done as manufacturer. Or you calculate with it, get insurance for these cases, but that makes the product much more expensive.

Either way, it’s something, I would take into account, before starting such a project.

@Fanful
I think you’re misinterpreting what a feature request thread in this forum is. As you said yourself, it’s the place to discuss all things related to such a feature. This is exactly, what we’re doing here.

I can see, that you desperately want that alarm system, but you should at least take into account, what others think about it.

A feature request isn’t something you write and see how it goes. You’ll have to defend it against good arguments. These arguments are made, because people should know, what they vote for, and what others think about that request.

You seem to think, this thread is the feature request itself, it’s not. It’s the discussion topic, where everyone can voice their opinnion, and see what others think about.

It’s not your choice, to decide which arguments are good or necessary, you’ll have to hear all of them, and then you can write a feature request on Github.

1 Like
21

Where do you see that? I haven’t even voted for this FR. I would have no use for it.

1 Like
22

Ups, sorry, I confused you with the OP! :slight_smile:

1 Like
23

Exactly! I do not undrstand why people who do not want this feature come here to argue why they do not want it.

Constructive feedback is always welcome but a deeper discussions about liability can really not be considered as constructive here at this point.

What is the definition of trolling again?

24

So the feedback you want, is only if people are for your requests? :laughing:

That’s not how this forum (and the world) works. You have an idea, you write a proposal, and then people discuss it.

Like it or not, if you make a propsal, you’ll have to argue for it and if things come up, that aren’t going your way, you will have to accept them.

It’s not your choice, what people can write here!

1 Like
25

Thank you, I will just take this as a compliment :smiling_face:

Thanks!

I just came here to express my support for the discussion about this feature. Thanks @Hedda for your initiative!

It’s a shame some guy with too much spare time during covid pandemic had to step up to fill the gap (for the time being), this is definitely a missing key feature in HA.
I haven’t been sued in years so HA has nothing to worry about.

I don’t want to hijack the topic, but until some HA developers join in the discussion, I’d like to hear in which direction you think alarmo should grow (or shrink) to be more likely to be adopted.

6 Likes
26

And you should! :slight_smile:

I wouldn’t say that, sounds more like a lucky fortune for us. :partying_face:

@Hedda
I just saw that you had changed the first post a few times, and re-read it completly.

I have to apologize to you, I was the whole time under the impression, that you’re proposing some kind of hardware built by HA for an alarm system. I have honestly no idea, why I got that out of my first read, but re-reading my responses, I see that I’m arguing against something, that doesn’t seem to be your intention.

I’m truly sorry! :slight_smile:

2 Likes
27

I’d like to see it stay as a custom integration.

That way you have control over the release cycle and interface.

But if you are interested in moving it to the core, to be adopted you would have to completely redesign it. No more nice config panel. Users would have to select sensors and alarm outputs during configuration (or re-configuration) of the integration using config flow and all the automation features would have to be dropped in favour of blueprints. That would not simplify things for users IMO.

The other option would be to make it an add-on instead of an integration. You could have any web interface you wanted then. Unfortunately this means you would be limiting it to HA OS users, and possibly container users if you maintained a plain Docker version as well. There are issues with restoring add-on sensors after a HA restart too that would require a blueprint, unless you used mqtt.

Thank you for your continued work on this BTW. It is a really useful addition to Home Assistant. :+1:

4 Likes
28

I am not requesting hardware here. This is a pure software request, a custom software package with all processes needed to run a virtual alarm system inside a single software integration component. This feature request is also totally hardware independent, as the idea is it would work with any sensors of the right type, similar to Alarmo, such as for example any Zigbee or Z-Wave sensors or DIY sensors made with ESPHome or Tasmota.

So I am basically requesting a Blueprint suite with a combination of Automatios and Scripts that is packaged as a generic security alarm controller Blueprint automation/script that you can take control of.

2 Likes
29

FYI, while much less advanced than what is asked for here, two examples of such pure software native integration components are the new ” Generic Thermostat” and ”Generic Hygrostat” (by @elupus) that allow you to create DIY termostats and hygrostats based on your existing sensors and switches:

Another similar generic software solution in the core is the ”Water Heater” integration:

30

A major difference between offerings like Verisure and other systems that are advertised as alarm system, is that that they provide certification for insurance companies. This is something that Home assistant or Alarmo cannot provide, exactly due to the nature of HA being open and allowing all kinds of integrations and devices to be used.

So in my opinion one should definitely not recommend replacing a certified alarm system with DIY alarm system like functionality, with components that may or may not be designed with alarm use in mind, on a system which reliability may be compromised by integrations that have nothing to do with security, and are therefore not tested as rigorously. With connectivity that is not guaranteed.

It is for the same reason Hubitat claims to NOT be an alarm system. And the same should apply to HA. I would also not trust it enough to act as a host for a panic button, stable as HA may be for me. An alarm should be designed and maintained by dedicated people, with security and reliability in mind, using components designed for the job. The same goes for a panic button you mentioned: don’t trust the health of elders to HA. Use a dedicated system.

I use Alarmo and really like it. But I do not consider it a replacement for an alarm system. So any arguments pertaining to real alarm systems should not be considered in favour of this request. Alarmo is at best a good approximation.

As for DIY alarm like functionality, which I think is nice functionality for HA to have: It definitely has its merits. I use it. But: I do not see the advantage of making something like it core functionality, nor do I think adding it to HA core will make it more user friendly.

Having HA developers responsible for building and maintaining it would digress from improving Home Automation in general. So it would likely be less polished then Alarmo, and taking away from time that could be invested in other functionality that is not already there. Alarmo is there, it does it all, and does it well. It can be updated quickly in case of errors, not bound to HA release cycle. If any one can do better, they canintegrate that too.

3 Likes