D.I.Y. Home Security 377
theodp writes "The NYTimes reports that pre-wired home security installations by alarm companies are on the way out. Thanks to wireless window and door sensors and motion detectors, installing and maintaining one's own security system is becoming a do-it-yourself project, with kits available from companies like InGrid and LaserShield. Time to start cranking out some new iPhone and Android apps, kids?"
Wireless = less secure (Score:2, Insightful)
Either by jamming or by spoofing.
Or trigger them often enough remotely so that they eventually get disabled
Cellphones (Score:5, Insightful)
If you could figure out a way to hook an old cellphone into your homebrew security system, you could have it auto-dial 911, since any cellphone, even one without a service plan, has to be able to make that call.
Add in a pre-recorded message and you have replicated most of what the home security companies do with their monitoring.
I for one... (Score:5, Insightful)
I did this because I had some equipment stolen a while ago. I don't mind if people break into my house, as long as they leave everything how they found it. So instead of securing my house, I secured my property by having everything of value phone home when it's out and about. It's an alternate (cheaper) approach people might want to think about.
Problems... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lasershield Hack (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This isn't news... (Score:3, Insightful)
You have just identified a new service for alarm.com or some new start-up - monitoring home installed alarms systems. Can't be that hard as the protocols are not exactly rocket science. Build a cheap-ish modem for Internet connection and you're off to success. Damn, forgot
1 - identify simple interface protocol ....
2 - build modem to connect user's alarm system to
3 - set up monitoring data center(s)
4 -
5 - profit
I'm just wondering what I'm going to do with that 8 foot long flexible shaft 3/4 inch auger drill bit I bought! damn!
Dog + Gun works good too... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lasershield Hack (Score:3, Insightful)
If that's true, then LS is run by a bunch of idiots. The default state for any alarm system should be ALARM. If the telephone line is cut, the CO should get an ALARM signal. If the batteries in the base station die, the CO should get an ALARM signal. If there is interference between the sensors and the base station, the BS should send ALARM to the CO.
Re:Not work it (Score:4, Insightful)
Hold up alarm? For less than $100 every four years, you can get a carry permit, which will not only keep you from being held up at home, but equip you to protect yourself away from home!
Also, from my personal experience and the word of many cops, the authorities will dispatch a unit faster to a homeowner reporting a break-in than an alarm company reporting that an alarm has been tripped.
So though I'd never rush home to try and stop anything myself (we pay young guys who really want to catch burglars for us), being notified and calling the cops myself probably has a better chance of getting an officer there within 45 minutes.
Re:Wireless = less secure (Score:3, Insightful)
Creating what seemed to be false alarms was once a common method for defeating car alarms. Eventually, the owner would think that the unit was too sensitive and disarm it.
Re:Yeah, no more ADT... (Score:3, Insightful)
ADT sent me a great* scare ad a few years back. It read something like "SUMMER IS BURGLAR SEASON! DID YOU KNOW THAT 28% OF ALL BURGLARIES OCCUR BETWEEN MEMORIAL DAY AND LABOR DAY?"
Well, I know that on average about 28% of all days in a year occur between Memorial Day and Labor Day. That either means the burglary rate is essentially flat year-round, or that any rise in the rate at some other time of year is offset by a corresponding decline in the rate at another point in the year. But in no case does any of the math yield the insight that makes summer "burglar season."
* by great I mean so stupid that it stood head and shoulders above the rest of their stupid ads.
Re:Wireless = less secure (Score:5, Insightful)
Not easily. But anyway, you're missing the most obvious thing.
Most burglars are, infact, STUPID.
You don't need to be secure as in perfectly protected, you just need to be secure as in "more trouble than it's worth", or "more trouble than the house next door".
If you've got the kind of stuff that would attract the non-stupid burglars, then this changes somewhat. If that's you, you can afford a professional alarm easily enough, though.
My highly effective DIY security setup: (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, if a burglar sees or hears a dog, he'll move on to other houses until he finds one without a dog. If you have secret plans and chests filled with treasure, and everyone in town knows about it, maybe you need something more sophisticated, but a canine deterrent system is more than effective for the average home. And an alarm system won't wag its tail or lick your face when you come home from work. Or, go whole-hog and get four dogs, and a monkey that can dial a phone.
Re:Lasershield Hack (Score:3, Insightful)
If my neighbor blamed me for his house getting robbed because I had an alarm and he didn't, then he basically deserved to get robbed for being such an ass.
Re:Wireless = less secure (Score:4, Insightful)
Honestly most break ins are by desperate thieves who more than likely have zero technical know-how. My house was broken some years ago and my neighbor saw the guy run away, a skinny looking junkie. Same thing last month when some guy made a laughable attempt to break into my grandmothers house. He was so messed up he couldn't even aim rocks at a window 10 feet away. He also cut five screens and ripped two out but never broke a single window. He was that disoriented. A neighbor chased him away before he could do anymore damage. My aunts house was robbed as well, her cordless phone and jewelery were taken. Simple and fast grabs.
These people don't give a shit about fancy alarm systems. They will keep trying to break into one home after another until they find one that is empty and unprotected. This isn't Hollywood, there isn't a James Bond trying to steal secrets off your computer. Just junkies and desperate people trying to snatch as many small and expensive items they can find. They then turn them in for quick cash and get high. Sure there are more elaborate schemes but they are far and few between (any examples?). Those stupid shows on cable showing "professional" thieves stealing fucking chandeliers and furniture are over exaggerated nonsense.
Want to know what I lost when I was robbed? Three SLR cameras, a Playstation and two cable boxes. They are small, easy to carry and will get them enough money to feed their habit. How did the thief get in? He smashed a window and crawled in while we were school and work. Would an alarm have foiled him? Maybe but the cost of the items lost was far less then an alarm system. The less cover a thief has the less likely he is to target your house. Lights that keep vulnerable areas lit at night help allot, so do motion lights. Also keep shrubs trimmed down, don't give them cover. My home is now pretty sucky to break into by taking a few simple steps to keep it less enticing. Also don't leave objects around that act as a ladder allowing them to reach windows. I know this isn't always practical but it can help.
Re:Why bother (Score:1, Insightful)
At the very least, an electronic system won't shit on your carpet.
WTF ! (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's an unknown person in my driveway I slip a gun onto my belt
Christ, where the fuck do you live. Bagdhad or The Congo?
FWIW, I live in a rural area and have a shotgun for vermin and bagging the odd rabbit. You my friend, have issues.
Besides, an electronic security system won't shit on the carpet
Re:Wireless = less secure (Score:3, Insightful)
People install surveillance cameras because they work, not because they expect to be robbed by someone they know.
Re:Wireless = less secure (Score:4, Insightful)
Then he has a high res camera for the backdoor where they will more than likely enter since it's easy to get into.
Instead a HiRes-Cam.. wouldnt he better invet that money into a stronger backdoor? you know.. like.. with a lock?
Re:Old and Tested (Score:5, Insightful)
However, I really don't get the gun thing. I'm not anti-guns (we have 3 in the house), but the idea that one will somehow protect you is nonsense. For the 2 parties (you and your burglar) involved there are 4 possibilities, neither party armed, you armed, him armed, both parties armed.
Where you are armed and he is not, sure you have the advantage. But generally unarmed burglars aren't confrontational, and you have your dog anyway (which also covers you for the neither party armed scenario).
So basically it's fair to say when you have your gun, it's protection against an armed assailant.
By their nature armed assailants will be confrontational (why would they risk bringing the gun otherwise?) So you're basically facing a shootout. Your fancy tuned gun with special ammo sounds lovely, but unfortunately your burglar isn't going to be taking time to examine your superior firearm, so despite it your still relying on getting the first shot off, and hoping your nice equipment does its job.
Finally you have the situation where he's armed and you're not. You stick your hands up and hope he doesn't shoot. But when you think about this, why would he shoot? He wants your VCR not the risk of a second degree murder conviction (although speculatively he might be persuaded if he's caught you off guard and spots your wingmaster hanging out of your belt).
Basically, (by this reasoning at least) the only thing your gun does is increase the chance of a shootout. And even if you're successful, your vcr is safe, you've showed that guy that broke in, but you've also killed someone, and I'm not sure whether the consequences of that are worth your VCR.
Re:Wireless = less secure (Score:3, Insightful)
And it's easy to case the joint as the Gas meter reading guy. wear overalls and a hat and you'll never get a good face shot.
Case the place, come back with a ski maks and a spray can of black paint and your buddies cameras are all toast.
Oh he has some mounted high? An extenda pole to spray wasp nests fixes that. I always giggle hard when I see "vandal proof" cameras... yeah right, they cant stop spraypaint.
So simply show up during the day when service people would be around and he's hosed. Very easy to get around. Or better yet, wait to watch him leave and attack at that time.
Hell most homes are broken into in broad daylight.
Re:Wireless = less secure (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wireless = less secure (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure I put my money on a system that can be beaten with a simple ski mask.
They work in business because the crook doesn't know if the camera is being monitored. The chances of 24 hour monitoring at a house is next to none.
ADT, cellular problems, brand awareness (Score:3, Insightful)
What this article does not address is the actual cost of having an alarm system, crime prevention statistics and technical problems associated with different systems.
Truthfully, most professionally installed, professionally monitored alarm systems end up being almost free. Free, as in speech, or beer. Most insurance companies will give you discounts on your homeowners policy if you present a certificate from a national brand monitored alarm service. This discount can end up being as high as $30-40/mo., which essentially pays for the monitoring fees charged by your alarm company. Toss in free installation specials (or $99 installation, which ADT runs frequently) and the cost is tough to beat.
I've seen statistics that show that having the large yard signs from a recognizable, national brand monitored alarm service will roughly reduce the likelihood of a break in at your residence by 80%. Most robbers are poor & dumb. They want to cut a window screen at the back of your house, slip in, smash, grab & ransack through your house for 5 minutes looking for firearms, cash & jewelry and GTFO. That monitored alarm gives them a pretty good chance of egressing just as Johnny Law pulls up, they know it, and they'll pass by your house without trying.
There are drawbacks. We use Vonage for our primary phone service at our house. ADT will not install on Vonage, as they claim it's unreliable and incompatible with some of the signals they send to the monitoring service, so they like to put a module in the basement with a digital cell phone card in it + battery backup. The problem we have been having is, about once a week, usually around 1-3 AM Monday or Tuesday mornings, the alarm panel starts screaming as though it's about to go off. Repeated calls to ADT tech support produced this finding: The cell companies "reboot" their towers roughly once a week, and the alarm module in the basement is seeing the loss of signal to the tower, it is assuming that tampering is taking place and is causing an immediate alarm - without any way of actually reaching the monitoring service. Will ADT send someone to the house to investigate a possible workaround? Yes, for a $200 truck roll fee + $100/hour labor. And we are prepaid two years ahead.
Being a good American, I vigorously exercise my second amendment rights, and also own a bionically sensitive 3 year old lab-hound mix. My wife and I aren't concerned about evening break-ins. It's the daylight "house is empty, everyone at work" smash & grab that we worry about, particularly that they will hurt, kill or release our animals and generally just make a mess of things, leaving that charming sense of violation and insecurity behind. I'm sure most of the readers share this concern.
My problem with homebrew DIY security systems is.. the DIY part. Hours and hours of time spent installing an alarm system that may not get the same quality response from the police as a human being at ADT's monitoring center (we've had 1 false alarm at our house, and I can vouch for the response time being very satisfactory.) ADT has spent millions of dollars on a quality program designed to reduce false alarms, and have blitzed the police with publicity trumpeting this fact - the goal being to impress upon them that ADT customers rarely have false alarms, when we call you, you had better get there quick.
I'm not sure that user installed security systems are worth the installation time and lack of name recognition with the most important demographic - would be burglars.
Re:Old and Tested (Score:3, Insightful)
The flaw in your reasoning is the presumption that an intruder is only there for your stuff.
Most break-ins are junkies looking for something to pawn for drug money. Just someone home tends to deter them.
However, those that see someone home and continue to break in seem far more dangerous. That indicates a willingness to use force against anyone home... rather different than just a smash and grab. Perhaps you're the wrong color, and they've decided you need a beat down or your head cracked open. Maybe you're a woman... any why not have a little fun?
Armed people trying to break in moves from "burglary" to "home invasion". That implies a much different motivation than your stuff.
In any event, at best an armed homeowner has one more method to deter a burglary. At worst, an armed homeowner has the means to defend themselves from death or grievous bodily harm.
the error in your logic (Score:3, Insightful)
is not giving value to and considering the range of different possible negative outcomes. there is not one outcome in all of scenarios, but different outcomes depending upon the existence of a gun or not in the hands of the victim
the most obvious difference is being robbery victim versus being dead
when you don't own a gun, your chance of being victimized goes skyhigh to almost certainty, absolutely. but also when you own a gun, your chance of being dead actually goes down appreciably
in this calculus of possible outcomes is the difference between the entrenched difference in opinion of the perceived value gun ownership between gun owners versus gun nonowners
certainly, there are sick fucks in this world who kill without reason, and would shoot an unarmed victim simply for the thrill, or a number of other sick reasons. these people are real. but they are also quite rare. your chance of meeting one of them in a confrontation is far smaller than meeting a garden variety armed thief who just wants your vcr. if you have a gun, you then enter into an ok corral scenario where your life is at risk that you would not have entered into had you not owned a gun
a gun increases your ability to control confrontations, but it also escalates what is at stake in a confrontation. sometimes, it is just better to be a victim, to be powerless, to lose your vcr, than raise your chance of losing your life, simply for having a gun, just for the sake of a stupid vcr
but its a psychological difference: i think a psychological profile of your average gun enthusiast would reveal issues with power, and the need to be certain they had the ultimate upper hand. this need to remain in power, viscerally, on matters of life or death, i think points to a history of vioent victimization or ongoing abuse in the psychological history of the average gun enthusiast. such that they vow never to be victimized again, because staying in power is more important to them than losing their life
meanwhile, the average non gun owner simply wants to live, go ahead, have the damn vcr. they have no issues with losing power temporarily if it means they get to have a better chance at staying alive
Re:Wireless = less secure (Score:3, Insightful)
Cameras don't work and never have. Study after study shows cameras in London don't prevent theft.
People I know in my town with nearly one hundred monitoring cameras LIVE in their music store still get robbed regularly. Sometimes they manage to catch the person.
Cameras are NOT a deterant to most people. The people who think cameras work are the same people who wouldn't rob you anyway.