Camera alert system for home burglary

Archived From: Finance
  • Text Only
Voting History
rated:
Zen's unfortunate episode made me remember this youtube video I saw posted the other day. It's from a man's home camera system.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_YUw7KxrZk




I looked into the cameras he was using. He used a Nest camera and Yi cameras.
Apparently, these cameras (Yi cameras being extremely cheap at approx $30) will wirelessly alert you if there's a disconnect or movement within the field of view. The man in the youtube video's alarm system was smashed by a hammer, and it didn't call out. But the cameras communicated a disconnect, and he called the police. 
I ordered 2 Yi cameras after watching the video.

Member Summary
Most Recent Posts
You were a ratshack employee 2? <high five>

ZenNUTS (Jan. 01, 2017 @ 1:42a) |

CLICK ME

​More of a security system than most people will ever need. Wireless, and runs on battery for 2 years.

dirtrat (Jan. 01, 2017 @ 4:12p) |

Yep, until I took a job selling commo equipment for my managers brother.  I sold a LOT of alarm systems out in Mesquite.... (more)

RedWolfe01 (Jan. 02, 2017 @ 9:30p) |

Staff Summary
Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

The guy's security system wasn't set up correctly. A properly set up security system should have glass breakage sensors and motion detectors.

Cameras are great, but they should be recording to a hidden DVR. If you're just relying on their streams, most burglars will cut your telephone and internet lines, so the video stream will be immediately interrupted. Sure, you should get a camera alert notification, but over time you're unlikely to pay very close attention to it, as the number of false alerts will be high, and most home burglaries would be over before you get a chance to do something about it.

The guy had dogs, so motion sensors are right out. Adding glass and door reeds is much better, but also more expensive. He probably had them, his alarm system went off.

Note that he still had a true alarm panel system, which was disabled with a hammer.

My alarm system is based on internet. It sends me an alert on motion detection. However, the internet connection to the house can be cut-off very easily as it is exposed at the side of the house (FIOS box). Just wondering, what should I do? or the burglars are just not that smart?

delhel said:   My alarm system is based on internet. It sends me an alert on motion detection. However, the internet connection to the house can be cut-off very easily as it is exposed at the side of the house (FIOS box). Just wondering, what should I do? or the burglars are just not that smart?
You can get a cellular security system add-on, which won't be affected if and when the burglar cuts your internet line. The hardware isn't expensive, but cellular will probably add a little bit to your monthly monitoring costs.

This is not bulletproof, as a burglar can jam the signal, but that's way less likely than a burglar cutting off your phone and internet lines, which most of them do right away.

I'm zeroing in on Nest or Arlo. I'm not familiar with Yi but something to be aware of is the a lot of the cheap IP IOT devices have security loophole that can not be patched. For me, I'll have to find out a bit more about who made the firmware on it and also see if the firmware is able to be updated. However, at $30, I may just get one to play around with. thanks OP for bring it to our attention.

This might be a good place to discuss home-security. A few people point out the flaws with cheap security system. If you do enough reading on the topic, especially those form engineers (I'm one) and alarm techs. You will see that all system have flaws. I remember looking at a professionally installed home system with another engineer and we are both control-system guys; We just looked at each other and said that it's quite easy for someone who knows control concept to disable it. That's the ugly reality. You can also smash and grab before any system and the monitoring responds. The best defense concept, also used in cyber-security, is a layered approach. Locks, lights, camera, and alarms.

I've been very happy with Arlo so far - 2 months in.

Feedback:
1. Easy to setup and app is great
2. Limited conditional automation - i.e. want it to stay on geofencing for a certain period of time, but then switch to alarmed mode over night. Right now, this must be manually set up. 
3. Quality is good and free 7 day retention
4. Local base station allows local recording 

Some minor cons:
1. It's on the pricey side, but you get what you pay for. 
2. Quality is not as good as a Nest Cam - but I have it adjusted to the "balanced" setting which balances between battery usage and recording quality. Moreover, Nest Cam is wired, so probably not a fair comparison. 
3. As stated above, wish it had a little more conditional automation - but I'm sure it'll get there. 

r. 
2. Quality is not as good as a Nest Cam - but I have it adjusted to the "balanced" setting which balances between battery usage and recording quality. Moreover, Nest Cam is wired, so probably not a fair comparison. 

Nest is wired for USB power, but it uses wifi for video. You could hook it into a ups for battery backup.

I use the Alfred app and cheap prepaid cell phones. It sends me motion detection alerts. Only costs, the price of cheap PP phone..$10 X number of cameras..or free if you have old phones.

rufflesinc said:   
r. 
2. Quality is not as good as a Nest Cam - but I have it adjusted to the "balanced" setting which balances between battery usage and recording quality. Moreover, Nest Cam is wired, so probably not a fair comparison. 
 

Nest is wired for USB power, but it uses wifi for video. You could hook it into a ups for battery backup.

  
Correct - but the quality is better comparing to the Nest Cam - I have one in another location. 

Where to buy the Yi camera? Any link? It's darn good!

RedWolfe01 said:   The guy had dogs, so motion sensors are right out. Adding glass and door reeds is much better, but also more expensive. He probably had them, his alarm system went off.You don't need motion sensors -- cameras can do motion detection.

As I posted in Zen's thread, I've been experimenting with Amcrest ProHD cams, which have been a top seller in dome cameras on Amazon for quite some time. For the same or almost the same price as the Yi 1080p camera, you get 1080p at 30fps (vs 15fps with Yi), a RJ45 connector (use it for easier initial setup or hard-wiring instead of wifi), and an external alarm connector. The firmware is upgradable (though I've only received one update in a year). I have one set up in the garage with motion detection. It instantly sends me an email (or three) with a snapshot and records the motion video to a local FTP server. I can access the cams from my phone using the free Amcrest View Pro app (but nobody else could, because my home network is as impenetrable as I know how to make it such). Supposedly you also get 4 hours of free Amcrest cloud, but I haven't tried it.

ZenNUTS said:   I'm zeroing in on Nest or Arlo.I don't know anything about Nest (other than a high price tag and no pan/tilt), but Arlo looks like a terrible product. No wires means frequent battery replacements (at $2+/battery, that's $8+/camera per 4-6 months) or even more frequent recharging (non-rechargeable is ~1500mAh at 3V, while rechargeable is ~900mAh at 3.7-4.2V, assuming they'll even work due to higher voltage and multiple warnings in product documentation against using them), and the system won't survive a power outage anyway if your network goes down. Some reviews and questions on Amazon imply that the video goes to the cloud and you don't have a choice in the matter -- you can't write the video to your own drive.

Netgear products are terrible in general -- I've had a couple Netgear routers die after only a few years of use, while my Linksys has been reliable for over a decade. Plus there have been multiple security advisories (like this most recent one) about bugs in some Netgear routers that render them insecure.

goddyben said:   Where to buy the Yi camera? Any link? It's darn good!
  Amazon ... around $30

drew2money said:   I use the Alfred app and cheap prepaid cell phones. It sends me motion detection alerts. Only costs, the price of cheap PP phone..$10 X number of cameras..or free if you have old phones.Which cheap phones do you know that work well? I think the most basic requirement is for them to not lag, remain plugged in all the time with a battery without overheating.

drew2money said:   I use the Alfred app and cheap prepaid cell phones. It sends me motion detection alerts. Only costs, the price of cheap PP phone..$10 X number of cameras..or free if you have old phones.
  So if your wifi goes down and you have an active data plan , it would default to 3G/4G and keep going right? Cost would go up a little then by the price of the data plan.

NIce work around for the burglar-cutting-phone-line problem 

I was a patrolman in a city working in bad neighborhoods. If I had to make an estimation based on my experiences over 7 years driving a radio car, I would say about 1/10 of the houses on my beat had an alarm system or some sort of monitoring (plus 1 apartment complex that had them, ~15 others didn't). Between 1/10 to 1/15 of the burglaries I responded to was on a home with a security system. In 7 years of responding to burglaries, I never had an occasion where a burglar successfully disarmed or cut the lines of the system, so I don't know where that belief comes from. Maybe if you live in a really nice neighborhood and have really sophisticated burglars. But burglars by definition aren't sophisticated. In nearly 95% of the homes with audible alarms, the burglar left without getting much, presumably because the audible alarm scared him off and meant we were on our way. Cameras are great, especially now that they are so cheap, but an audible alarm will scare the bad guys away more consistently.

If you are paranoid about exposed phone/cable lines on the side of your house being cut by a burglar, I would suggest that figuring out a way that those lines can't be tampered with would be a much cheaper solution than some complicated backup monitoring system. A simple decoy phone/cable box could do the trick too.

scripta,

I'm not a fan of Netgear in general. I remember the suit against the reseller here on FWF.

However, it is one of the better solution out there right NOW. it's designed from ground up as a security system with separate motion sensor to conserve power. The battery is a pain but for most homes, running wire, even just power is a bigger pain. You can always use the micro-usb jack to power the Arlo, FYI. The base Arlo station can be fitted with a USB drive for local video storage in addition to the FREE 7 days cloud storage.

There is another all-in-one system called Canary, which started out as a crowd funded effort. The reviews are even worse because all the false alarms due to its horrible motion detection program. Overall, I'm disappointed with the lack of advancement in this area and I'm sure something better will be around the corner, soon.

If you are going to invest in a camera system, take a look at Hikvision before you purchase anything.
Hardwired, Poe, IP based, HD cameras feeding a NVR or nothing.

The majority of people that will attempt to burglarize a home are simply not smart (MAJORITY of them, 99%).

Why? because anyone that is smart wouldn't be stealing TVs. They would be going after banks, credit cards, money transfers, etc.. etc...

How many cases of home robbery did they actually cut power and such to the house? i would think most times it's just smash and grab just like when thieves do it to gas stations and other stupid places.

beware...arlo doesn't do motion detection thru windows

Im currently using Amcrest Pro HD in conjunction with ADT, been pretty happy with it so far paid $80 for each camera

meade18 said:   If you are paranoid about exposed phone/cable lines on the side of your house being cut by a burglar, I would suggest that figuring out a way that those lines can't be tampered with would be a much cheaper solution than some complicated backup monitoring system. A simple decoy phone/cable box could do the trick too.I've always liked the decoy idea, but in my experience, cellular monitoring only adds $5-$10/month to the monitoring bill. A number of HO insurance companies out there provide an additional discount for having it, which essentially makes the net cost of cellular monitoring rather negligible.
  

Homeboy cameras, I love them... can b connected to other wifi devices, battery last about 2-3 mts, free storage or cheap monitoring don't work through windows or outdoors. I combine w cheap motion alarms from harbor freight and window alarms... u can use my discount code lasonnaismyhomegirl

Also, I wanna checkout the new guardzilla for outdoors ( different company than homeboy)

I work in Downtown Dallas, with Oak Cliff (OP's video) being only a couple of miles away. It's a mix of quaint older homes Boxed in by thugville. Personally, I'd move, rather than spend my $ on cameras. A camera just tells the after-story, and fortunately this was only a property crime.

Luniz97 said:   beware...arlo doesn't do motion detection thru windows
  It's a PIR type sensor that sense heat moving to various "slots".  So , no, it will not work through windows.  They did that way to save power on a battery powered unit.

The other type of motion sensing is software that look at the video to determine if something moved but in order to do that the camera needs to be 'watching' all the time even if it's not recording or transmitting the video.  Yi appears to be this type but the downside is you need power to it from an outlet, but it's a thin wire that carries low current so it's easier to run than normal power cable.

The advantage of an always-on camera is that the recorded video starts a few seconds before the motion detection event. Conversely, the disadvantage of having the camera off until motion is detected by PIR is that there's a lag, as evidenced by some of the camera reviews I read on Amazon today. Just something to be aware of.

meade18 said:   I was a patrolman in a city working in bad neighborhoods. If I had to make an estimation based on my experiences over 7 years driving a radio car, I would say about 1/10 of the houses on my beat had an alarm system or some sort of monitoring (plus 1 apartment complex that had them, ~15 others didn't). Between 1/10 to 1/15 of the burglaries I responded to was on a home with a security system. In 7 years of responding to burglaries, I never had an occasion where a burglar successfully disarmed or cut the lines of the system, so I don't know where that belief comes from. Maybe if you live in a really nice neighborhood and have really sophisticated burglars. But burglars by definition aren't sophisticated. In nearly 95% of the homes with audible alarms, the burglar left without getting much, presumably because the audible alarm scared him off and meant we were on our way. Cameras are great, especially now that they are so cheap, but an audible alarm will scare the bad guys away more consistently.

If you are paranoid about exposed phone/cable lines on the side of your house being cut by a burglar, I would suggest that figuring out a way that those lines can't be tampered with would be a much cheaper solution than some complicated backup monitoring system. A simple decoy phone/cable box could do the trick too.

  I'm surprised that the homes with alarms were hit at about the same rate as ones without alarms. I would have guessed that it would be much less as the burglars would be less inclined to hit a home with a security system unless they didn't have signs/stickers outside indicating that there was a security system in place.

At my country house I use Foscam cameras with their streams recorded online by Mangocam. If the internet is cut, the streams stop, but the alarm has a failover to GSM (that's Europe), so it will still send all alerts, and the 3 sirens are independent of the alarm box, if you break it they don't stop. Also, for people with dogs there are dual-beam sensors for outside areas which won't record pets, however a commando-burglar would pass these But the main aim is that a burglar will prefer a house that is not defended by alarms and cameras, I don't leave much at the country house, so most of the damage would be breaking doors and stuff... So far I've been lucky...

elfrozo said:   
meade18 said:   I was a patrolman in a city working in bad neighborhoods. If I had to make an estimation based on my experiences over 7 years driving a radio car, I would say about 1/10 of the houses on my beat had an alarm system or some sort of monitoring (plus 1 apartment complex that had them, ~15 others didn't). Between 1/10 to 1/15 of the burglaries I responded to was on a home with a security system. In 7 years of responding to burglaries, I never had an occasion where a burglar successfully disarmed or cut the lines of the system, so I don't know where that belief comes from. Maybe if you live in a really nice neighborhood and have really sophisticated burglars. But burglars by definition aren't sophisticated. In nearly 95% of the homes with audible alarms, the burglar left without getting much, presumably because the audible alarm scared him off and meant we were on our way. Cameras are great, especially now that they are so cheap, but an audible alarm will scare the bad guys away more consistently.

If you are paranoid about exposed phone/cable lines on the side of your house being cut by a burglar, I would suggest that figuring out a way that those lines can't be tampered with would be a much cheaper solution than some complicated backup monitoring system. A simple decoy phone/cable box could do the trick too.

  I'm surprised that the homes with alarms were hit at about the same rate as ones without alarms. I would have guessed that it would be much less as the burglars would be less inclined to hit a home with a security system unless they didn't have signs/stickers outside indicating that there was a security system in place.

  Where are you getting that they were "hit at about the same rate as ones without alarms"?  I see 1/10 to 1/15 had alarms.  My math is rusty but that means homes with security systems were orders of magnitude less affected.

CowbellMaster said:   
elfrozo said:   
meade18 said:   I was a patrolman in a city working in bad neighborhoods. If I had to make an estimation based on my experiences over 7 years driving a radio car, I would say about 1/10 of the houses on my beat had an alarm system or some sort of monitoring (plus 1 apartment complex that had them, ~15 others didn't). Between 1/10 to 1/15 of the burglaries I responded to was on a home with a security system. In 7 years of responding to burglaries, I never had an occasion where a burglar successfully disarmed or cut the lines of the system, so I don't know where that belief comes from. Maybe if you live in a really nice neighborhood and have really sophisticated burglars. But burglars by definition aren't sophisticated. In nearly 95% of the homes with audible alarms, the burglar left without getting much, presumably because the audible alarm scared him off and meant we were on our way. Cameras are great, especially now that they are so cheap, but an audible alarm will scare the bad guys away more consistently.

If you are paranoid about exposed phone/cable lines on the side of your house being cut by a burglar, I would suggest that figuring out a way that those lines can't be tampered with would be a much cheaper solution than some complicated backup monitoring system. A simple decoy phone/cable box could do the trick too.

  I'm surprised that the homes with alarms were hit at about the same rate as ones without alarms. I would have guessed that it would be much less as the burglars would be less inclined to hit a home with a security system unless they didn't have signs/stickers outside indicating that there was a security system in place.

  Where are you getting that they were "hit at about the same rate as ones without alarms"?  I see 1/10 to 1/15 had alarms.  My math is rusty but that means homes with security systems were orders of magnitude less affected.

  

He said that 1/10 of the homes in the area had alarms.

Then he said that 1/10 to 1/15 of the homes that he responded to burglary at had alarms.

So its almost equal % of homes with alarms vs burglarized homes with alarms.

CowbellMaster said:   
elfrozo said:   
meade18 said:   I was a patrolman in a city working in bad neighborhoods. If I had to make an estimation based on my experiences over 7 years driving a radio car, I would say about 1/10 of the houses on my beat had an alarm system or some sort of monitoring (plus 1 apartment complex that had them, ~15 others didn't). Between 1/10 to 1/15 of the burglaries I responded to was on a home with a security system. In 7 years of responding to burglaries, I never had an occasion where a burglar successfully disarmed or cut the lines of the system, so I don't know where that belief comes from. Maybe if you live in a really nice neighborhood and have really sophisticated burglars. But burglars by definition aren't sophisticated. In nearly 95% of the homes with audible alarms, the burglar left without getting much, presumably because the audible alarm scared him off and meant we were on our way. Cameras are great, especially now that they are so cheap, but an audible alarm will scare the bad guys away more consistently.

If you are paranoid about exposed phone/cable lines on the side of your house being cut by a burglar, I would suggest that figuring out a way that those lines can't be tampered with would be a much cheaper solution than some complicated backup monitoring system. A simple decoy phone/cable box could do the trick too.

  I'm surprised that the homes with alarms were hit at about the same rate as ones without alarms. I would have guessed that it would be much less as the burglars would be less inclined to hit a home with a security system unless they didn't have signs/stickers outside indicating that there was a security system in place.

  Where are you getting that they were "hit at about the same rate as ones without alarms"?  I see 1/10 to 1/15 had alarms.  My math is rusty but that means homes with security systems were orders of magnitude less affected.

   1/10 of the homes had security alarms. 
   1/10 of the burglaries occurred at homes with security alarms.

 The above would indicate that homes with security alarms are being burgled at the same rate as those that don't have them.  

 1/15 is a little lower but still I would have expected something like 1/50 as that would show that burglars are trying to stay away from homes with security.
   

elfrozo said:   
meade18 said:   I was a patrolman in a city working in bad neighborhoods. If I had to make an estimation based on my experiences over 7 years driving a radio car, I would say about 1/10 of the houses on my beat had an alarm system or some sort of monitoring (plus 1 apartment complex that had them, ~15 others didn't). Between 1/10 to 1/15 of the burglaries I responded to was on a home with a security system. In 7 years of responding to burglaries, I never had an occasion where a burglar successfully disarmed or cut the lines of the system, so I don't know where that belief comes from. Maybe if you live in a really nice neighborhood and have really sophisticated burglars. But burglars by definition aren't sophisticated. In nearly 95% of the homes with audible alarms, the burglar left without getting much, presumably because the audible alarm scared him off and meant we were on our way. Cameras are great, especially now that they are so cheap, but an audible alarm will scare the bad guys away more consistently.

If you are paranoid about exposed phone/cable lines on the side of your house being cut by a burglar, I would suggest that figuring out a way that those lines can't be tampered with would be a much cheaper solution than some complicated backup monitoring system. A simple decoy phone/cable box could do the trick too.

  I'm surprised that the homes with alarms were hit at about the same rate as ones without alarms. I would have guessed that it would be much less as the burglars would be less inclined to hit a home with a security system unless they didn't have signs/stickers outside indicating that there was a security system in place.

  I would think the opposite (at least where police response is slow).

If you advertised your alarm, I'd think you had stuff worth stealing.  In some cities, 95%+ of burglar alarms are false alarms.  And demand for police assistance outweighs police resources.  For those reasons, response time can exceed 20 minutes.  (Sometimes, police don't show up for hours  Example). 

An average burglar spends 8-12 minutes in a house.  How long would it take 2 above-average burglars to search  for cash, jewelry and cards?  5 minutes?

So why not do this: Bring 3 guys, and kick open door.  That buys sometime until alarm goes off.  2 guys ransack key areas of house, while 1 guy waits by phone.  When alarm company calls, he gives some BS story about forgetting alarm code.  He also says he's trying to get in touch with his wife, since she remembers everything.  that might buy an extra minute or two, since alarm operators know that 95%+ of burglar alarms are false.  3rd guy subsequently helps the other 2 put loot in bags.  then out the door everybody goes.

meade18 said:   I was a patrolman in a city working in bad neighborhoods. If I had to make an estimation based on my experiences over 7 years driving a radio car, I would say about 1/10 of the houses on my beat had an alarm system or some sort of monitoring (plus 1 apartment complex that had them, ~15 others didn't). Between 1/10 to 1/15 of the burglaries I responded to was on a home with a security system. In 7 years of responding to burglaries, I never had an occasion where a burglar successfully disarmed or cut the lines of the system, so I don't know where that belief comes from. Maybe if you live in a really nice neighborhood and have really sophisticated burglars. But burglars by definition aren't sophisticated. In nearly 95% of the homes with audible alarms, the burglar left without getting much, presumably because the audible alarm scared him off and meant we were on our way. Cameras are great, especially now that they are so cheap, but an audible alarm will scare the bad guys away more consistently.

If you are paranoid about exposed phone/cable lines on the side of your house being cut by a burglar, I would suggest that figuring out a way that those lines can't be tampered with would be a much cheaper solution than some complicated backup monitoring system. A simple decoy phone/cable box could do the trick too.

  Yeah, this.  I'm a prosecutor and have been handling burglary cases for over a decade.  Burglars aren't going all mission impossible style and cutting your phone lines or hacking your wifi.  They're kicking in your door or breaking and coming in through a window and stealing as much as possible as fast as possible so they can quickly fence it for heroin.  An audible alarm is absolutely the best for scaring them off, and cameras are great if you want to help us catch and prosecute the guy who did it after the fact.  Actually, most of the time they're just checking for unlocked doors and walking right in.

elfrozo said:   
meade18 said:   I was a patrolman in a city working in bad neighborhoods. If I had to make an estimation based on my experiences over 7 years driving a radio car, I would say about 1/10 of the houses on my beat had an alarm system or some sort of monitoring (plus 1 apartment complex that had them, ~15 others didn't). Between 1/10 to 1/15 of the burglaries I responded to was on a home with a security system. In 7 years of responding to burglaries, I never had an occasion where a burglar successfully disarmed or cut the lines of the system, so I don't know where that belief comes from. Maybe if you live in a really nice neighborhood and have really sophisticated burglars. But burglars by definition aren't sophisticated. In nearly 95% of the homes with audible alarms, the burglar left without getting much, presumably because the audible alarm scared him off and meant we were on our way. Cameras are great, especially now that they are so cheap, but an audible alarm will scare the bad guys away more consistently.

If you are paranoid about exposed phone/cable lines on the side of your house being cut by a burglar, I would suggest that figuring out a way that those lines can't be tampered with would be a much cheaper solution than some complicated backup monitoring system. A simple decoy phone/cable box could do the trick too.

  I'm surprised that the homes with alarms were hit at about the same rate as ones without alarms. I would have guessed that it would be much less as the burglars would be less inclined to hit a home with a security system unless they didn't have signs/stickers outside indicating that there was a security system in place.

  Most of the burglars are heroin addicts who don't really think much further then "need to quickly steal something to fence for heroin."  They don't have a long term master-plan to not go to jail, and if they get into and leave a house fast enough they're not going to get caught in the immediate short term, which is all they care about.

i got these LINKS from here (fatwallet) years ago when we were discussing what a rip off it is for monitoring.
https://info.nextalarm.com/  9$ a month if u want to go that route but they only notify u .. not real time monitoring

http://www.doityourself.com/forum/electronic-home-security-syste...  
these ppl have great info for do it yourselfers

I worked at a firm that did a lot of insurance litigation. The only really sophisticated burglaries I ever saw were gold heists from a commercial or residential location. The robbers knew exactly what was hidden and where... one time they brought a tow truck so after they beat the client half to death, they just yanked the safe out of the wall. 9/10 of the thefts were either staged or planned by family members in the household. Most of them to this day, I don't know if they were staged or what. One of them was an inside job where everything got so confused the business owner thought his worker was in on the robbery so after shooting the robbers (and taking a few himself), he shot the employee for good measure. That one was interesting because when the cops showed up they said in the report that there was so much blood that assuming two robbers who escaped, there was no way that this was a survivable incident... so who knows where those bodies got buried... because they were of the wrong ethnic group from the organized crime associates that likely made the play complete with a fake bomb, hostages, etc. The worst one was the one where the client got beat and the client's life savings in gold were stolen. I looked up the spouse and the spouse had a secret life where they were living a millionaire lifestyle that they clearly couldn't afford... and the two hated each other. But the client refused to believe that the spouse set it up. PROTIP: Don't keep gold in the house.

elfrozo said:   
meade18 said:   I was a patrolman in a city working in bad neighborhoods. If I had to make an estimation based on my experiences over 7 years driving a radio car, I would say about 1/10 of the houses on my beat had an alarm system or some sort of monitoring (plus 1 apartment complex that had them, ~15 others didn't). Between 1/10 to 1/15 of the burglaries I responded to was on a home with a security system. In 7 years of responding to burglaries, I never had an occasion where a burglar successfully disarmed or cut the lines of the system, so I don't know where that belief comes from. Maybe if you live in a really nice neighborhood and have really sophisticated burglars. But burglars by definition aren't sophisticated. In nearly 95% of the homes with audible alarms, the burglar left without getting much, presumably because the audible alarm scared him off and meant we were on our way. Cameras are great, especially now that they are so cheap, but an audible alarm will scare the bad guys away more consistently.

If you are paranoid about exposed phone/cable lines on the side of your house being cut by a burglar, I would suggest that figuring out a way that those lines can't be tampered with would be a much cheaper solution than some complicated backup monitoring system. A simple decoy phone/cable box could do the trick too.

  I'm surprised that the homes with alarms were hit at about the same rate as ones without alarms. I would have guessed that it would be much less as the burglars would be less inclined to hit a home with a security system unless they didn't have signs/stickers outside indicating that there was a security system in place.

I think it was just because I worked in a low-income area and the burglars were about as unsophisticated as they come. For the 5% of "smart" burglars that figured out it was dumb to hit a house with an ADT sign out front, there were probably another 5% that were greedy and figured a house with an ADT sign out front means they have stuff worth stealing. That, and as soon as you hit a house with an ADT sign out front and no alarm ever goes off, you realize that the sign out front doesn't necessarily indicate a real (or armed) alarm system.

And +1 to what Jman said. Burglars on my beat were either junkies or kids that are just taking a tablet/playstation.

Crazytree said:   PROTIP: Don't keep gold in the house.
  
+1 to this.  There are a number of gold hawking firms that imply you should own physical gold to protect against a weak dollar, or the federal reserve, or conspiracies, or the government, or whatever, and they offer private shipping to your home.  Great idea....

Skipping 28 Messages...
ZenNUTS said:   You were a ratshack employee 2? <high five>
  
Yep, until I took a job selling commo equipment for my managers brother.  I sold a LOT of alarm systems out in Mesquite.  I actually saw my store in a commercial once for calculators.  (outside shot)

Both the brothers left at the same time, and offered me a job where they ended up.  I am still in touch with them every now and then - the brother I worked for actually owns the business now.



 



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2017