This has always been a concern I've had around WiFi anything in security systems. Sure, they're great for easy installing in an existing structure, but between jamming and battery replacement, I've just never been a fan. I'm also old and don't trust anything, so that just adds to it.
At the end of the day its security theater. Having a video of the crime won’t prevent it or even lead to solving it most of the time. If you want actual response to active crime you are going to need someone who is paid to preferentially show up to your property and they should be in a guardhouse nearby.
Regardless of that we all should have cameras running everywhere all the time
It is only recent history that cell phone cameras have become ubiquitous and it has caused a huge shift in the authorities ability to squash their abusive behaviors
In the same way that TV played a fundamental part of progress in the civil rights and Vietnam wars, one of the best tools the average person has to hold people accountable is to control the narrative via video
My only concern is that gen AI will mean that nobody will ever trust video evidence again. I hope we get some kind of signature based crypto verification on recordings to prove they aren’t fake. Like every device is keyed to authenticate the recordings it produces
I would like to opt out of this nightmarish safety hellscape. I never use the phrase Orwellian because it’s so often misused, but yikes is this some 1984 badthink.
I think the distinction is who controls the tools. Everyone having their own cameras is very different from the party controlling cameras around everyone.
Sometimes it's both, like in the case of Ring doorbell cameras. I may install a camera and think I'm in control, until my footage in the cloud is subpoenaed without my knowledge for an alleged crime I have nothing to do with.
I went with a doorbell with local storage (Eufy, in my case) for this very reason.
My knowledge of the law here is virtually nonexistent. It seems likely that I could still be subpoenaed to turn over footage under some circumstances. But at least I'm in control of that footage and it's not automatically being given to some third party.
Ring doorbell cameras don't even need subpoenas.
https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/security/amazons-r...
(Although Amazon claim to be "sunsetting" that as of a couple of weeks ago: https://www.npr.org/2024/01/25/1226942087/ring-will-no-longe... )
That's a meaningless distinction in a world with room 641A, rubberstamp FISA warrants, etc. If the party wants the data, it can get it; whose disks it is stored on is an irrelevant implementation detail.
I held this same opinion until recently but I've come to realize that it only disallows citizens from recording in public -- that is, if this opinion were adopted in policy, the police could use said policy against me to prevent my filming of police activity.
I'd also like to opt-out of having cameras everywhere in public but the fact of the matter is they are here to stay. Additionally, most of the cameras which capture your image in public are not cameras which you installed and they're not cameras which you have the authority to remove. Adding your own cameras to the mix is functionally equivalent to exercising your freedom to speak; really, to document, in this context.
At the least we could have legislation to prevent police from creating mass surveillance networks, ie keep the process limited to individuals.
I don't know about should, but given that cameras and microphones and processors and power and communication are all probably going to continue to get cheaper and smaller and lighter it seems to me that this is nearly inevitable. So the question really should be - how do we adapt to it? How can we try to mitigate the harm (through social, legal, and/or technical means) and steer our changing society closer to a future that we'd actually want to live in?
Yeah, not only are cameras going to get cheaper and smaller and lighter (and way more ubiquitous as a result), but there's other factors to consider too. Face recognition is also getting cheaper and more ubiquitous (and other similar technologies like gait recognition and even skeletal kinematics identification).
The privacy implications are astounding. But, as you say, this is all inevitable (I intentionally left out your "nearly" there), and it's a very good question about how that's going to change society and whether we (I) want to live in that.
And from elsewhere on the HN homepage right now:
"Before he was George Orwell, he was Eric Blair, police officer" -- https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/05/books/review/george-orwel...
Today's "nightmarish safety hellscape" is brought to you by (amongst others) Toby Roberts, a former technical surveillance officer at the UK's Eastern Region Special's Operations Unit, and the Raspberry Pi Foundation where he's the official "Maker In Residence". -- https://www.theregister.com/2022/12/09/rpi_maker_in_residenc...
Cryptographically verified recordings don't sound practical to me (sensors and video processing electronics sound like a lot of hardware to put in a secure element), but I'm sure we will see generative AI inflating away the value of blackmail material soon; one mitigation for this could be cryptographically signing material and then publishing the signature long before it becomes practical to fake it (i.e. the past, increasingly), then periodically creating signatures with new algorithms in advance of the discovery of practical attacks on existing ones.
The only thing that'd need to be in a secure element would be the signing keys. This has existed for a while for digital cameras. Canon, Nikon, and Sony have all brought still image solutions to market for use in situations like photojournalism or forensic evidence collection.
Device signing can be used very effectively to tell if a particular devices was involved in an action - but it is far more difficult to tell if some non-specific device was the source or whether it was generated. When it comes to fabricated video evidence we'd need to establish a circle of trust that included every camera ever produced but was somehow secure and unforgeable. We've seen this approach break down previously with Diginotar[1] - it really only takes on weak link in the system to compromise the verification. At the scale with which cameras are demanded it seems unreasonable to expect a centralized signing administration to be able to keep their tokens all completely secured.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DigiNotar
Stopping short of that, there'd still be value in being able to cryptographically prove that your home surveillance video (or dash cam video) came from _your_ camera and is unaltered from the original recording.
I think going forward, the "circle of trust" for the next "capital insurrection type event" video evidence will be founded on multiple videos of the same scenes from multiple angles and from devices owned by un related individuals.
Although, the biggest category of cameras these days is cell phones, and all (most?) of them have some sort of hardware trust store with private keys that are extremely difficult to extract, so it wouldn't be to much of a stretch to consider having Android and iOS default camera app being able to digitally sign photos/video - all without "a centralized signing administration" and piggybacking on existing token security methods...
I don't think that the signer would be able to verify the authenticity of the data that it received from the sensor and image processing circuitry unless they were able to authenticate each other securely. I know that an attack on a system like you proposed would still be expensive, but it would become more attractive if its characteristics were overplayed (and would then be subject to legal challenge). Forensics, of course on the other hand is based on experts saying "yes, by all accounts this appears to have happened".
Any idea of trying to prove that a random video isn't fake by crypto verification is very, very brittle - the trust relies on having almost 100% certainty of key secrecy from a global, heterogenous system of low-margin commodity manufacturers.
Like, ok, every device is keyed to authenticate the recordings it produces, using a unique key signed by the manufacturer - as long as a few valid device keys ever leak from the device or the manufacturer, any fake video can get signed with a valid key from Camera#1234 from ShenzhenCameraCorp567, ltd.; you're not going to make every $1 camera module in cheap embedded devices tamper resistant.
This seems conceptually similar to certificate authorities.
Kind of, but the requirements on such a system are far stricter than what we get (and expect) from certificate authorities. For example, the CA system doesn't fail in its goals if I publish (no matter if accidentally or incidentally) the private key for *.mydomain.com; but the proposed image verification scheme does become useless if one of the many manufacturers does that; the CA system doesn't fail just because CAs will issue a certificate to phishing sites run by some criminal, but the proposed image verification scheme does become useless if some manufacturers will issue a "camera" certificate that can be extracted and used in some criminal's Photoshop workstation instead of a real camera.
For web CA's to work, all you need is that the single certificate for the site you're choosing to visit is good - but if you want to use a similar system to verify trustworthiness of viral images originating from strangers through social media, you need 100% of the camera certificates to be valid - if there are any leaked certificates, then manufacturers of fake images will use those; and on the other hand if you "revoke" everything from any compromised manufacturer, people won't just replace their cameras, they'll simply keep posting data with their valid-but-invalid certificates and you'll either have to automatically mistrust lots of genuine true content or be vulnerable to fake data, and most people will choose the latter.
Yes, and then governments will require that any sale of recording devices are registered so that footage can be traced back to.... undesirables who undermine the great leader.
Sadly, you're not wrong as expecting a police officer to do anything with the footage is just a farcical notion. Which really makes me wonder what police were doing when they were requesting footage from Ring directly. We've been told directly by detectives that they are too busy to look at emails with evidence. There must be some other purpose for them wanting the footage other than solving crimes. I just don't know what it is
Solving different crimes. The ones you might get a promotion or some other gratification out of.
If you're in a city with 1,000+ home burglaries a year, nobody cares that you clear one and arrest some meth head. But, solve some gruesome or politically-tinged crime and you're holding a press conference and getting praise left and right.
We do the same thing as software engineers. Every large company has some lore about what types of work get you promoted, and many engineers prefer to work on that.
Actually crime against persons (murder, assault, armed robbery) have higher priority than simple burglaries. Having your property taken away is infuriating but no one can argue that stoping a violent criminal is more important.
Maybe?
First, a lot of simple assault arrests are for objectionable but ultimately trivial stuff - people getting into drunken brawls, spitting on each other, and so on. A series of burglaries targeting a local small business can be far more devastating to the owner than that.
But your argument also doesn't hold because it's clear that there are property crimes that are investigated with zeal. For example, in the SF Bay Area, a person was recently charged with "hate crimes" for taking down some pro-Palestine signs. I'm not making some political point here, but we can agree that the investigation wasn't motivated by the severity of the crime, right?
What size is the city with 1000+ burglaries in a year? What is the value of the houses they target? If there are several million houses in the city than 1000 might be close enough to nothing to ignore. However if there are only 2000 houses in the city 1000 is half and enough to get attention - you bet the police care about solving at least some of them.
Often the police know who the criminals in town are. However they lack evidence to prove anything. Thus a camera feed showing an already known criminal is enough to get their attention as while they might not care about you directly they criminal who hit you may have also hit a high importance target but they cannot prove it in court - thus convicting them of hitting you helps them for cases they cannot prove.
If football players get robbed while on tv playing in a game, you or I have zero hope to prevent a burglary short of an armed guard or a few dogs.
I'm always astonished when a cop shoots someone, the body camera video is released within a week. I was nearly killed by a bad driver and it took 5+ months to get the video and the driver was already processed by the kangaroo court.
This is probably the answer. And so how can we exploit that to get OUR case worked on? Involve the journalists sounds like one. Message your city hall people might be another. Take to twitter? What else? Offer a reward (thus getting more response from all the rest - not to claim the reward but to blab about it) What else?
Not true at all. Police love footage that provides anything useful when they have time to work on a case and, importantly, the footage is actually useful.
A lot of DIY security camera installs provide useless footage: Cameras are mounted too high to catch faces, lighting is bad, license plates are blurry, and the list goes on. If you can actually catch faces, license plates, or anything else identifiable then it goes into the case.
That's a polite way of saying your case isn't a priority for them. Caseload is high and most departments have to filter and prioritize aggressively.
Unfortunately, anything involving e-mail evidence gets messy very quickly because e-mails require legwork from specialists to verify and admit with a proper chain of evidence. Forwarding an e-mail to a police officer or sending them a screenshot of something might be useful as a hint in an active case, but it's not going to meet the bar for admissable evidence unless they can get more resources on it.
The first points make a lot of sense, but the email problem you raise is not a real issue - if they wanted a digital forensic chain of evidence, they could easily ask for the disks from the camera system.
I was responding to the parent commenter's complaints that police wouldn't look at e-mails in some case (not related to video).
The police don't have any procedural rules against looking at emails, those rules are for juries.
but your assumption to this point was incorrect.
Nice you mention "Cameras too high to catch faces". Also AI detection of people will work better if filmed more horizontally. I lot of people are afraid their cameras will be damaged and want to mount them higher. In reality theives most likely don't give a shit about the cameras. And they are cheap enough they could be considered sacrificial.
i guess i could have worded that more clearly. the email wasn't the evidence. the email was just providing information for the detective on who to talk to with much more information that would not have a questionable chain as you're suggesting.
Your detective in your city on that day may have been too busy, but that’s just an anecdote, not a survey of the thousands of cities and police departments and their response to home burglary footage.
The majority of murders go unsolved. The vast majority of rapes go unsolved. Police regularly don’t even spend the money to process DNA samples. I’m not an expert on this topic but it seems to me that the police in big cities largely don’t do their job.
The problems you mention are extremely hard.
Rape is s notoriously hard crime to prove and murders are either done in gang neighbourhoods where there sre few cameras and people don't talk to police.
I don't know of any actually actionable improvement ideas to improve solve rate.
I believe your knowledge of how police actually work is at odds with the reality of the situation. Your reference to "either done in gang neighboourhoods.." indicates that at least as it pertains to the U.S. you are ill informed.
Police juke stats and in a number of urban centers are effectively a legalized gang.
you must of have read over the "detectives"--pural--part of that sentence. I have had a burglary in one home, and then a few years later had a home invasion where the person was very obviously identified to the police. The responding officers were able to look him up, have a positive witness ID made, and then see that this was a "bad guy". No arrest made.
Only if crime isn’t punished. If it is, I.e. the video is used to track down the thief and put them in jail for 20 years, it definitely stops the problem.
20 years for burglary? Sheesh
What the West refuses to learn from other countries is that you can literally eradicate crime by eradicating criminals
Which countries would you suggest emulating?
Singapore
And the best way to address that is the root cause of why the criminals are criminals in the first place and imprison the few that refuse to change.
Also, non-Western countries generally don't have a great track record with things like gay rights, women's right, etc. So I'm mostly happy that we do things the Western way and not otherwise.
Poor Asian seniors in San Francisco go around and collect cans for refund. Other people break into cars and still others mug people.
Give the car thieves 3 chances and the muggers zero.
What non-west country has no crime?
Singapore
its not like you just do it by accident?
neither was your posting of a comment that didn't further the conversation in a meaningful way.
assault gets less time than that, and i'd hope that getting attacked physically would rate worse than the loss of possessions on your chart
oh we do agree that assault should be way higher in ranking. That being said, burglary can quickly turn to violence. I just dont see why we should entertain that normal well behaved people should tolerate even a tiny risk from people who clearly does not know how to behave, but I guess I am just weird, valuing the rights of people who behave properly over those who commit violent crimes (and yes, burglary is violent)
Who said or implied that?
I guess thats kinda implied when thinking burglars should be let out faster than 20 years(or at all). Unless there is a way to garantuee no re-offending
nah out the same-day and released on a plea or technicality as long as no-one was hurt and no weapons involved.
I had 2 (stolen) cars pull up out the front of my house and 6 teenagers swarm my house (whilst several stayed in the cars) in Brisbane, Australia.
I was notified by the motion alarm in my driveway and then my front door and was able to hit the Siren button and scare them off.
Without that, I would have had 6 "armed" intruders inside my house with myself+partner+4 year old.
The camera system prevented the crime being far more serious than it would have been (both cars+valuables stolen and maybe a stabbing or 3).
We just got new windows in our home, replacing aging double-pane glass with newer, much better insulating triple-pane glass. However there was an option to get added sound insulation and my SO is sensitive to noise, we added that.
I was also considering the safety glass option, given that we had a porch door with "all" glass (just a small wooden frame). I'm a distracted and clumsy at times so I was worried about running through the glass in the door. After talking to the window manufacturer, I learned that I didn't need the safety glass option since the extra sound insulation meant the construction was laminated, hence acted much like a laminated safety glass.
Haven't tried to break them yet, but after helping getting them mounted (about 50kg for a 1x1m window, heavy!) it seems to me it'll take some effort to get through them. Proper anti-burglary glass is likely much better, but wouldn't surprise me if a group of teens would struggle.
Anyway, wasn't my primary consideration but I sleep slightly better at night compared to the old windows which could easily have been shattered with a simple rock, including the porch door.
edit: Also sleeping much better due to the sound insulation. The triple-pane does most of the damping I imagine, but between them it was a vast difference. I had three ~10 yo boys running around screaming (or playing as they'd say) 10m from my wall, and once I closed the new window to my room I could barely hear them. Not at all like the old windows.
edit 2: We also got the option for IR blocking, it adds just the slightest blue tint but cuts 60% of the IR. Made a massive difference in keeping especially the living room cool during summer.
You’re a salesman’s dream. You bought into all these features that are incrementally dubious in value, but magnitudes higher in price.
The three-pane glass and IR filter were definitely not of dubious value.
The windows have a U value that's significant lower than what the old would be due to the three-pane glass. The lack of cold flowing compared to the old windows was very noticeable as we got them mounted during the winter, so had an almost direct comparison. This winter we had a week below -25C and even then it was hardly any noticeable "cold shower".
The IR filter was incredibly noticeable when opening the porch door on a bright and sunny day when outside temps were roughly same as inside temps, holding one hand behind the main window and one in the door opening in direct sunlight. The difference in radiant heat from the sun on each hand was striking. It was also very noticeable on the living room floor during summer if the porch door was left open for a while, standing with one foot on a patch lit by the window and the other on a patch lit by direct sunlight. Though it wasn't unexpected given the blackbody radiation from the sun[1].
The additional sound proofing I'll agree on though. It wasn't that significant on paper, IIRC listed as 5-6 dB reduction, maybe less.
But we had waited and bought them during a 50% off campaign which included the extra options, so we went for it as it didn't add that much after the 50% reduction and my SO is really affected by noise.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#Composition_and_power
You’d be surprised, good windows add so much qualitatively but also quantitatively (reduced heating and cooling). It’s hard to imagine it but it’s real. I’ve been experienced it first hand.
Woah are things out of control down there? Sounds like GTA Los Angeles.
Super cool! I have a proactive security system as well and can also set off alarms. I've set this up for other people, but it seems that people tend to stop with setting up the detection system and I've yet to see someone I know take it to the response stage.
Inspiring, thanks for sharing!
Having a photo of my hot and run driver at least got me insurance coverage.
I propose HN have a smart edit detection feature where it allows small edits for a longer period, to correct spelling without xhanching the manning.
You should be covered by your own insurance who turns to the other driver's insurance to get back the money. And your insurance will send you the money even if the drivers is not known, provided you have called the police so that hit and run is registered. So that photo isn't usually necessary although it helps your insurance getting its money back.
We have security cameras (that can read license plates) which caught a woman who backed into my car and drove away just last week.
I hear this a lot and it's the wrong expectation. Cameras are not security theater, AND they often won't stop a crime. I don't think people in security industry expect that or sell it to do that. That said, I have seen a dumb ass thief who assumed no cameras were present in a commercial building suddenly notice a camera staring right at him, who then aborted his operation. We had great pics of his unprotected face, which helped police identify and charge said thief. So the value of surveillance is partially preventative, but almost always the value comes in understanding definitively what happened and how it happened. Often this can be the observation of entry attempts that inform an iterative improvement process for security. Hardly theater.
Yep.
Dashcams don't prevent traffic accidents. But they _do_ make it much much easier for the not-at-fault party to make their insurance claim.
It'd be nice of home security cameras "stopped crime", but they are much more useful in documenting your insurance claim. Which is still worthwhile (assuming you have insurance to claim on).
What else do you need except that you got stolen n items when doing your insurance claim?
Literally a police report would be sufficient for burglary claim and you’ve never needed video evidence for that.
I know of at least 2 countries where police will be immediately dispatched to a robbery in progress if a person is caught on camera by the alarm system and the owner confirms it's a robbery (e.g. on a phone call). By law, police won't be dispatched unless a person is caught on video, due to false alarms.
I know this because that's what happened when my home was robbed and I was out of town. Fortunately, since the police response was quick the thief didn't have enough time to take anything (!), as he must have been in and out in 2 minutes at most.
It also helped that there was no jewelry or cash inside the house, of course.
Sadly it is becoming kind of moot nowadays with so much spam that less and less people are answering to unsollicited calls. I know I don't so the police would just ring my phone and I wouldn't know about it. Not that I would want to but having a security system in my house would probably not be an high enough incentive to start answering these kind of calls.
That's why my alarm company's call center number is on my contact list. I even configured it to bypass "do not disturb" mode.
Although unsolicited calls are not a problem here, fortunately.
To add to sister comments, solving a burglary is rarely tracking the thieves down in their agit and getting back the goods Hollywood style.
What people expect:
- triggering an alarm so the theives don't spend the night looking at every nook and cranny of the house
- having proof that it was burglars and not the drunk neighboor forcing his way to the wrong house (if so, you'd also want proof of that though)
- get the cops and insurance to be on board and have the incident processed swiftly. "solving" here basically means getting the insurance monney to buy the missing stuff.
Or just the police not even trying to solve it. In my city, it's inconsistent. A neighbor's alarm activated by accident and 3-4 policemen arrived quickly. Yet a friend's house was actually burgled, they took an ipad which tracked itself to two addresses in a nearby suburb and the police said "sorry, we won't check that out, you should have had cameras". I have a feeling the police prefer to solve crimes by talking to people and browbeating them into revealing things rather than using technology, so I was surprised they recommended cameras.
I have the cameras to prevent surprises. If someone walks near my house I immediately get their picture on my phone and/or tv using home assistant with frigate.
This is my use case and setup also. If there's someone in my yard I want to know. If I'm not home it additionally kicks off other automations that make my place look less tempting for an attack.
Edit: it's also very useful to me to keep video logs of my shop and other areas. I can easily go back to see what happened if something goes wrong (stuff falling, me forgetting stuff somewhere, figuring out why there were big car tire tracks across my yard, etc).
Could be useful for insurance/liability purposes though. Same reason for a dashcam.
1) Deterrent alone is not too shabby.
2) You might be right about some places and are definitely wrong about quite a few others.
Having clear face images of "troubled youth" known to the cops has led to arrests in Australia, for one.
"video verification" by a monitoring center via cameras can greatly improve police response times, and private security companies are often specifically in the business of video verification systems. There isn't really a dichotomy here and cameras can be an important compliment to a security response arrangement.
Increasingly, cameras are the way that security companies dispatch their guards. They are far more actionable than traditional intrusion alarms. Depending on the police department, alarm reports with video may be treated as crimes in progress while intrusion alarm activations alone are not.
Unfortunately the technical standards around video verification are not widely implemented and so in practice it usually requires getting your intrusion alarm, surveillance, and security response all from the same vendor. There are common standards but the consumer security industry today is heavily organized around walled gardens and there isn't much adoption of the industry standards outside of commercial.
In the commercial world these types of systems are often referred to as "pre-intrusion" since the monitoring center observes the cameras in realtime and, in theory, could dispatch guards to suspicious activity before any intrusion alarm would be triggered. In the consumer world, for cost and privacy reasons, the monitoring center usually only receives video after the activation of an intrusion alarm.
Can always use dummy cameras with a led. First it started with the ADT signs and now people are putting up cameras. If your place has neither then you’re a greater target.
Generally they are in and out in a few minutes long before police or a security service can dispatch someone.
My system has a large battery backup for an old lantern or something, recording, 4G fallback, is wired, and I regularly spend time outside.
All of which is invalidated by people staking out a place and wearing a mask.
I saw a burglar with almost all of my neighbors things and appliances. Thought they were moving or upgrading and waved.
My favorite part of the beginning of the pandemic was going to the bank in a hankerchief like an Old West bank robber. Just as effective today as back then...for hiding your identity just slightly better than Clark Kent taking off his glasses.
They also didn't do anything from a disease perspective either, unless it was a disease transmitted by large quantities of spittle.
WTF? Did I accidentally make enemies of the Bandana Fashion Gang?
On a health-level, how is this remotely controversial? Bandanas--especially draped "bank robber" style--are simply a bad choice:
-- https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pof/article/32/6/061708/1068115/Vis...
you brought the health thing to the conversation trying to drum up whatever. nobody wants to have the mask conversation here. again. you're either for or against and nothing anyone here says will change your mind. so just don't go there.
There was another HackerNews story about smelling diseases. I have the rare ability to smell coronavirus, (I've diagnosed probably a dozen people correctly.) That said, if I'm wearing an n95 mask it's harder for me to detect and with n99-n100 masks I don't perceive anything at all.
From that observation I infer masks are effective at eliminating virus transmission, which is quite extraordinary given the virus is so small.
Do you have a sense of whether you can distinguish between the five endemic named coronaviruses?
And whether you can distinguish between those and rhinoviruses / adenoviruses / etc?
There was another poster on that thread who said they were able to smell colds. I wonder if this is just extremely common and / or if we can all be trained to do it like with wine?
This inference doesn't really make sense to me. I bet putting a cigarette in your mouth, or a chopped onion in front of your face, would achieve the same frustration of this ability.
Dude, re-read the thread:
1. You specifically framed it as during "the beginning of the pandemic."
2. You brought up people wearing masks (implicitly for health concerns.)
3. You said those particular masks were amusingly ineffective (for disguising identity in the bank.)
4. I wryly noted those particular low-quality masks were indeed ineffective in multiple ways. (The health concerns that motivated them in #2.)
I can't make you enjoy my reply, but stop acting like this is some kind of shocking non-sequitur leap into forced realms of conversation. You more than set the stage yourself.
not once did i mention health. i compared them to clark kent and glasses as a disguise. not really sure what you're reading, but you're really wanting to push something that's not there. enjoy
This brings up another point, which is that one of the best things you can do for your security is to be well known by your neighbors. If no one knows your appearance and habits then all kinds of crazy stuff can go down while you're away and your neighbors won't know anything's wrong.
It is not always enough. Like for example my ex sister in law once held the door open for the burglar who were getting out of the building with her own TV. She only realized that when she went upstairs and found her door open.
Doesn't this actually support the argument? If she had known her neighbors she maybe would have questioned this stranger carrying out a TV, or at least given notice to their appearance.
It is quite common to seek help from friends when moving in and out, it could be the result of a sale in the second hand market, etc. I don't think knowing your neighbours is enough. The burglars were quite polite and I have to clarify it happened in Switzerland where most people don't necessarily assume malice by default. Not a country where you risk being shot for stepping in a property.
On the other hand, if a place has visible cameras and ADT signs, do they have valuables worthy of protection and worth the risk?
Yes. I saw an interview with a burglar in the UK. He said he preferred properties with alarms and other security features because they were much more likely to have valuables worth stealing. And, as he pointed out, nobody cares about an alarm going off in a city. It just gets ignored.
Here we live in a surveillance state where the cops don’t arrest anyone unless they have money to steal. Worst of three worlds.
With security ops like this, it is important to understand that they are not targeting joe schmoe. They are targeting specific orgs/people that have a lot to lose.
Using the "Lockpicking Lawyer" as an example: "Oh they can get into a security shed, who cares." It's not about meemaw's security shed, its about a cop's trunk with guns in it.
They did that too. Neighbor was a cop. Took all his gear, uniform, weapons, etc. Was demoted to motorcycle cop after that.
People should by now have learned from all the footage on NextDoor of burglars ignoring obvious cameras. Mine are wired, but I'm not fooling myself that they're going to be all that useful if something happens.
The other glaring flaw with cameras is that they always face perpendicular to the street, so even if the getaway car has plates you'll never get a shot of them. Not that the car isn't stolen anyway...
It is good for insurance claims.
Approximately 6 years ago, I saw a face detection demo, which detected the face of a man behind a snow mask while running in the night with minimal lighting from a side-shot. I think seeing the eye and nose geometry was enough.
The only time the system saw the face was from another camera in the same system head-on. I don't remember whether it was masked or not.
If this is available for defense, it can be made available for civilian applications, too, but it won't be, because then you won't be able sold it to that price because of depreciation.
$200 gets you a PoE camera. Solves your wifi and battery complaints with a single cable.
glibly ignoring the easy to install part.
There are wifi cameras that will store video locally when the wifi is out, although I can see it'd be a problem if they get stolen while the network is jammed and they don't have a chance to upload.
This is something Eufy can't make up their mind on. The doorbells and some cams transmit wirelessly to a base. Then they released new cams that do it locally and don't work with the base.