4 ms·

Motion sensors make way more sense imo. All you need to know is that someone's there who shouldn't be. What's the value of seeing them sneaking around your home

by kypro 3y ago

Motion sensors make way more sense imo. All you need to know is that someone's there who shouldn't be. What's the value of seeing them sneaking around your home in a balaclava?

_a_a_a_ 3y ago
then you call the police
bluefirebrand 3y ago
The obvious answer is that motion can be made by more things than humans and knowing "there is a person in my house" is more urgent than "something moved in my house" People have pets, etc
- morkalork 3y ago
  People have pets and use the speakers on the camera to yell at their dog to get off the couch while at work! Still seems a bit crazy to me. You can't always be watching.
- LinuxBender 3y ago
  Anecdotally my motion sensors go off all the time from non humans. Mostly deer. Sometimes a dust-twister that moves the heated dirt. Cameras on the other hand are useful for capturing a burglars face, their license plate, things they said to each other if the camera has audio, make and model of their car and last known direction. I am in a one party consent state that allows capturing audio.
  - quickthrowman 3y ago
    Even if you give the police a video, it’s probably a stolen car and they aren’t going to lift a finger to find your stuff. This is what insurance is for. I’m not sure why people think just because they have cameras that the police will follow up on the video evidence and make arrests. They’ll tell you to file an insurance claim and move on. I’m guessing you’ve never had a break-in before? I’ve been burglarized and knew who did it and the police didn’t do anything about it.
    - mindslight 3y ago
      Sure, let's just write off two whole societal institutions because of your one poor experience. No point in trying to do something if it could fail, amirite? Of course then someone else can chime in with how they got stiffed by insurance and how you should just get a dog, then the next person says I had a dog but it was too friendly so just get a gun and stay home all the time, etc etc etc. Exit can be a strong check, but asserting it as a foregone conclusion is its own oppressive hell. Anecdotally, I had a break in where the perp was stopped in the act and they even ended up getting prosecuted. The system can work, too. I've also been kidnapped by the police, ransomed, and then harassed for a year by the "justice" system. So this is certainly not some "I love the police" comment.
      - quickthrowman 3y ago
        I’m certainly not the first person to be cynical about the police investigating property crime, here’s a scene from the 1998 film, The Big Lebowski which echoes my position: https://youtu.be/GvT_VOJaXvs https://youtu.be/GvT_VOJaXvs I’m not saying the police are worthless or irrelevant, simply that using insurance is how you get made whole after a burglary or theft. It’s a crapshoot whether the perpetrator is found, which in some cases, they are. I’m also not suggesting anything in particular to prevent burglaries, I don’t have home security, a gun, or a dog. My cat isn’t going to stop a burglar. My position is that sometimes theft and burglary happens, and insurance is the best tool to mitigate the risk because the police don’t have the time or the inclination to fully investigate every property crime.
        mindslight 3y ago
        > I’m not sure why people think just because they have cameras that the police will follow up on the video evidence and make arrests The plain answer to your question is that because some times they do. But the implication of your rhetoric is that they never will. That's the problem. Being "made whole" is actually a separate concern from helping to catch the perp, and it doesn't help to brush off one concern in favor of another. Like for example if someone stole most of my computing gear, financial compensation by insurance could not possibly make me whole (months of bespoke setup and customization). But it would be nice to know that the perp got punished, regardless of whether they had already sold my stuff. And personally, I'd double down on the cynicism and point to having video evidence as a good way of documenting the incident for insurance purposes, lest they attempt to screw you some how. (Nothing in my comments should be construed as condoning having Internet connected cameras running proprietary crapware. Rather I'm just talking about the general motivation for cameras, and unfortunately many people are insensitive to the crapware)
voakbasda 3y ago
The imagery tells you how many guns to take with you when you go to confront them, as well as the expected body count. If you do not confront them, the odds are that no one ever will. The police have passed far beyond useless when it comes to property crime.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> What's the value of seeing them sneaking around your home in a balaclava? That’s what I went with, as well as water and window-open detectors. It still doesn’t cover e.g. something smoking in the corner or a pest finding its way in.

by kypro 3y ago

Motion sensors make way more sense imo. All you need to know is that someone's there who shouldn't be. What's the value of seeing them sneaking around your home in a balaclava?

_a_a_a_ 3y ago

then you call the police

bluefirebrand 3y ago

The obvious answer is that motion can be made by more things than humans and knowing "there is a person in my house" is more urgent than "something moved in my house" People have pets, etc

morkalork 3y ago
People have pets and use the speakers on the camera to yell at their dog to get off the couch while at work! Still seems a bit crazy to me. You can't always be watching.
LinuxBender 3y ago
Anecdotally my motion sensors go off all the time from non humans. Mostly deer. Sometimes a dust-twister that moves the heated dirt. Cameras on the other hand are useful for capturing a burglars face, their license plate, things they said to each other if the camera has audio, make and model of their car and last known direction. I am in a one party consent state that allows capturing audio.
- quickthrowman 3y ago
  Even if you give the police a video, it’s probably a stolen car and they aren’t going to lift a finger to find your stuff. This is what insurance is for. I’m not sure why people think just because they have cameras that the police will follow up on the video evidence and make arrests. They’ll tell you to file an insurance claim and move on. I’m guessing you’ve never had a break-in before? I’ve been burglarized and knew who did it and the police didn’t do anything about it.
  - mindslight 3y ago
    Sure, let's just write off two whole societal institutions because of your one poor experience. No point in trying to do something if it could fail, amirite? Of course then someone else can chime in with how they got stiffed by insurance and how you should just get a dog, then the next person says I had a dog but it was too friendly so just get a gun and stay home all the time, etc etc etc. Exit can be a strong check, but asserting it as a foregone conclusion is its own oppressive hell. Anecdotally, I had a break in where the perp was stopped in the act and they even ended up getting prosecuted. The system can work, too. I've also been kidnapped by the police, ransomed, and then harassed for a year by the "justice" system. So this is certainly not some "I love the police" comment.
    - quickthrowman 3y ago
      I’m certainly not the first person to be cynical about the police investigating property crime, here’s a scene from the 1998 film, The Big Lebowski which echoes my position: https://youtu.be/GvT_VOJaXvs https://youtu.be/GvT_VOJaXvs I’m not saying the police are worthless or irrelevant, simply that using insurance is how you get made whole after a burglary or theft. It’s a crapshoot whether the perpetrator is found, which in some cases, they are. I’m also not suggesting anything in particular to prevent burglaries, I don’t have home security, a gun, or a dog. My cat isn’t going to stop a burglar. My position is that sometimes theft and burglary happens, and insurance is the best tool to mitigate the risk because the police don’t have the time or the inclination to fully investigate every property crime.
      - mindslight 3y ago
        > I’m not sure why people think just because they have cameras that the police will follow up on the video evidence and make arrests The plain answer to your question is that because some times they do. But the implication of your rhetoric is that they never will. That's the problem. Being "made whole" is actually a separate concern from helping to catch the perp, and it doesn't help to brush off one concern in favor of another. Like for example if someone stole most of my computing gear, financial compensation by insurance could not possibly make me whole (months of bespoke setup and customization). But it would be nice to know that the perp got punished, regardless of whether they had already sold my stuff. And personally, I'd double down on the cynicism and point to having video evidence as a good way of documenting the incident for insurance purposes, lest they attempt to screw you some how. (Nothing in my comments should be construed as condoning having Internet connected cameras running proprietary crapware. Rather I'm just talking about the general motivation for cameras, and unfortunately many people are insensitive to the crapware)

voakbasda 3y ago

The imagery tells you how many guns to take with you when you go to confront them, as well as the expected body count. If you do not confront them, the odds are that no one ever will. The police have passed far beyond useless when it comes to property crime.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> What's the value of seeing them sneaking around your home in a balaclava? That’s what I went with, as well as water and window-open detectors. It still doesn’t cover e.g. something smoking in the corner or a pest finding its way in.