Slashdot Mirror


Is Cheap Video Surveillance Possible?

timholman writes "After a series of burglaries and auto break-ins in my neighborhood, I'm thinking about adding some video security cameras to my home. To me, the object isn't just deterrence — if someone tries to break into my house or my car (parked on the street in front of my house), I'd like to provide a high-quality image of the perpetrator to the police. Inexpensive video surveillance systems, with their atrocious image quality, are nearly useless. The problem is being able to get good image quality at an affordable price. After some research, I've decided that using network cameras to FTP images to a central server over a HomePlug network is the best solution. However, good megapixel network cameras (e.g. Stardot or Axis cameras) can easily cost more than $1,000 each. Has any of you dealt with a similar situation? Is there any way to get reasonable quality (preferably open source) daytime and nighttime video surveillance equipment for home use without paying an arm and a leg? Is it better to go with a couple of expensive cameras, or a multitude of inexpensive cameras? Is paying two to three thousand dollars simply unavoidable if I want to monitor my front and back yards?"

700 comments

  1. IQeye by kmsigel · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've been working with IQinvision's IQEye 511 camera (www.iqeye.com) for the past couple of months. It is a 1.3MP camera capable of 15 fps. It communicates over and is powered by 100mbit PoE. I think the street price is somewhere around 600-700 dollars, depending on what you get with it (PoE injector, lens, etc). The camera seems to take pretty good pictures and can deal with pretty varied lighting conditions. It has various ways to retrieve images, like emailing or ftping them to you on a set schedule. Hope this helps.

    1. Re:IQeye by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm surprised it has to be 600-700 dollars when 8mp consumer digicams are $180 and have an intricate zoom lens you don't even want for surveillance. What we need is a 6mp monchrome sensor with no IR filter, a fixed-length lens, and wifi, for about $100. OK, $130 with a motion sensor. Come on China, you can do it!

    2. Re:IQeye by Xzzy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's pretty good motion detecting software out there already.. a bit of time with google should solve that problem.

      I've solved the security camera problem with a $50 webcam, but I was only monitoring a desk in a cubicle that had a bad habit of things going missing. Worked pretty well, though lighting wasn't an issue in that case. Neither was cable length, because the camera only had to be a couple feet from the host PC.

      Maybe one could rig up something like that, get a couple Fit-PC's (they run around $300 each) and a couple webcams and go from there.

      Not sure how to solve low light situations.. but it's a long shot cheaper than $1000 if you can live without it.

    3. Re:IQeye by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Not sure how to solve low light situations.. but it's a long shot cheaper than $1000 if you can live without it.
      My understanding is normal CCDs are IR-sensitive (until they put a filter over them block it). So it just needs an IR light on it. Seems like camcorders used to come with a nighttime mode just like this.
    4. Re:IQeye by hdon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Imagine that! Video cameras more expensive than still cameras!

      Incidentally, timholman, I recommend you invest in a quality still-picture digital camera if you want an economic solution for high quality digital imaging.

      I'd take a look at buying one of the cheaper Canon Powershot cameras between $100 and $200 for which there exists open source firmware. For networking, you might explore whether or not the USB mechanism in the camera can be coerced into the host role (as opposed to acting as a device) which has been accomplished in similar situations for devices such as the BlackDog and many iPods with Linux installed. With USB device hosting capability in hand, you could then easily connect it to a USB Ethernet NIC for a little over $20.

      With your own firmware installed, you might even do something really novel and program the camera to do something that will get the intruder's attention before snapping a photo so that they are sure to be looking right at it, giving you an excellent shot of his or her identity.

      Let us know how it goes!

    5. Re:IQeye by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 1

      I'd assume that a large part of the price difference is that a take-pretty-pictures camera has a *flash* for low-light conditions, or can alternatively use long exposure times. Surveillance cameras tend to be video cameras and not have flashes, which probably make low-light operation harder.

    6. Re:IQeye by innerweb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Camcorders, and other digital optics used to not have the IR blocked. It was not until it became popular to post IR pictures of people in normal clothing became popular. The problem was/is that IR tends to let us imagine we are seeing through the clothing. As one could understand, not something most people want being done. So, congress rattled its saber and the camera manufacturers removed or filtered the IR. This is also related to why digital cameras make clicking sounds that in many cases you can not disable. It was to warn victims of someone taking illicit photographs.

      Which just goes to show, anything can be used in ways that were never intended by the inventor/manufacturer.

      InnerWeb

      --
      Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
    7. Re:IQeye by Clay+Pigeon+-TPF-VS- · · Score: 0, Troll

      Buy a shotgun and learn how to responsibly use it. Cameras will not save you from a violent felon. Proper use of fireams will.

      --
      Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
    8. Re:IQeye by mmarlett · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, but a shotgun won't save you from a non-violent thief. It will just give them something extra to take.

    9. Re:IQeye by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, contrary to some of the posts here, security cameras are quite sensitive in the near-IR and they don't use a flash. They use near-IR LEDs to provide illumination.

      Anyone interested in security cameras and equipment ought to check out http://www.supercircuits.com/

    10. Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "do something that will get the intruder's attention before snapping a photo so that they are sure to be looking right at it, giving you an excellent shot of his or her identity."

      Hint: Pictures of good looking naked women.

    11. Re:IQeye by debatem1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I live in a pretty bad area of town, so, for my part I agree with you: screw the cameras and buy a Remington- but the question seems more concerned about gathering evidence, and frankly, video tape and self defense don't seem to mix well in the US of A. So my only advice would be this: get a gun XOR a camera, but expect to go to jail if you use them both.

    12. Re:IQeye by L4m3rthanyou · · Score: 1

      Be sure to program it to take a second photo about a second later, so you can also laugh at the ensuing "OH SHIT" expression on the thug's face.

      --
      One of these days, I'm going to cut you into little pieces.
    13. Re:IQeye by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you're in the UK, make sure you write a disclaimer on the front door of your apartment that says "By breaking into this apartment you consent to be photographed and have the evidence used in court". Or rather some version of that agreed to by a lawyer.

      I've actually been in a situation where some company tried to get out of paying me for some work I did. I taped a conversation in which my contact person at the the company admitted that their claimed reason for not paying me was not true and the fuck up was not my fault. But my solicitor told me that since I hadn't got her agreement for recording her, it was inadmissable evidence. So amateur surveillance might not help you much. It's also illegal, though I don't think the burglar would be able to sue you even in the hippy criminal's rights obsessed UK.

      On the other hand I know someone who's house was burgled. The police fit a wireless camera system there - she could disable it when she was at home. I think they actually caught the burglars using one of the other cameras they installed in the neighbourhood. So the government can use video evidence. Then again, this was a very, very good camera from what I've heard. So as well as getting a lawyer approved weasel words for your front door, get a lawyer approved camera too. Webcams I think would be useless.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    14. Re:IQeye by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Nice flinch you got there, buddy. He wants to ID thieves who visit when he isn't around. How he handles them when he is home is not under discussion.

      Learn how to read responsibly. Knee jerk responses won't save you from "overrated" mods. Proper comprehension of the English language will.

    15. Re:IQeye by SolidAltar · · Score: 1
      I think you are spewing urban legends about the camera sounds and IR filters. I know the Japanese government was talking about the snap sounds on camera phones but never the US.

      I have never ever found a camera or phone that you can not turn the sound off of in the United States. Even if you couldn't people would just cut the electrical leads to the speaker.

      As for the claim of removing IR functionality from cameras can you cite some examples?

    16. Re:IQeye by SolidAltar · · Score: 1
      I'm not putting you down but can you explain to me what the difference is in real life?

      Even the crappiest cameras these days can take full motion video and are not THAT bad at it. My Kodak from 4 years ago does a pretty nice job! It will run until the battery goes or my memory card is full.

    17. Re:IQeye by double07 · · Score: 1

      ...program the camera to do something that will get the intruder's attention before snapping a photo... Just forcing the camera to use red eye reduction should do the trick. Though once the burglar realises the camera is there they may try to destroy it.
    18. Re:IQeye by bendodge · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Lighting isn't that hard; get a B&W CCD camera and use a lot of infrared LEDs. Invisible to the naked eye, but they work fine for many video cams.

      Also, using a still cam with custom housing and a motion sensor is a pretty good idea. But when it comes down to the nitty gritty, a firearm is your best bet. ;)

      --
      The government can't save you.
    19. Re:IQeye by thynk · · Score: 1

      I've been working with IQinvision's IQEye 511 camethe street price is somewhere around 600-700 dollars, depending on what you get with it (PoE injector, lens, etc). Now maybe I'm just a cheapskate, but I didn't drop that much on my whole video setup, much less per camera cost. I got a LOT of 6 or 7 used X10 cameras on Ebay for like $200, a used P4 computer to capture the video on for around $100 and maybe $50 on the wireless motion sensors. The down side to the X10 cams is that you can only watch one feed at a time. I also spent a good 50 hours writing the code for MisterHouse (http://misterhouse.sourceforge.net/) to switch the camera on a rotation cycle, trigger lights and handle the alarm events. The color cameras have a fair picture in daylight, the black and white ones do remarkably well in low light. It was enough of a system to keep my psyco ex from coming around the house when I wasn't home (or when I was) and that was all I needed it for.

      Guess what I'm saying is that if you have the time, you can home brew a set up that works for a lot less than you'd pay for the higher end stuff. If I had it to over again, I would have gotten some wired cameras and a multi port video capture card and set it up with zoneminder. The X10 wireless cameras can be troublesome when placing the receiver.

      --

      Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
    20. Re:IQeye by theheadlessrabbit · · Score: 1

      step 1: take a $100 digi-cam
      step 2: break off the shutter button
      step 3: attach a motion sensor (about $10 each from sites like http://www.hvwtech.com/products_list.asp?CatID=114&SubCatD=186
      (I don't work for them, but i've had good experiences, and i got free stuff when a shipment was late and i complained)
      step 4: send a constant voltage to the connector that detects when you have pushed the shutter half way down.
      step 5: hook up the motion sensor to the shutter button.
      step 6: you how have a cheep motion sensing digital camera for cheep.
      step 7: ???
      step 8: profit

      --
      -I only code in BASIC.-
    21. Re:IQeye by Unnamed+Chickenheart · · Score: 1

      The 'eye' of that camera could well be the Toshiba $9 http://www.sparkfun.com/commerce/product_info.php?products_id=8668

      You can buy 10 of them for $80.

      You need to hack everything else around them, though: figure out what 'standard data+I2C interface' is* and how it works, how they can communicate with a 'server' or sorts (one NI to all the cameras and connect all to a PC?) , and you may need to make waterproof cases for [some of] them, too.

      I am not sure if I'd be up to it, but it could be a fun project.

      * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%C2%B2C

      --
      urd
    22. Re:IQeye by Idiomatick · · Score: 0, Troll

      This is why the world is afraid of the states. In no other first world country do you need to 'defend' your home its purely an american thing. Getting a gun to do so would be entirely unheard of were it not for movies glorifying guns.
       
        If your home is such a big problem that you NEED a shotgun to protect yourself you really NEED to move. Apparently you are living in some sort of post-apocalyptic nightmare where firearms are needed to stop your neighbors.
       
      Honestly, just move to where its not needed.

    23. Re:IQeye by arivanov · · Score: 2, Interesting

      After that you need 200£ on vandalproof housing for it.

      A good security camera can take pictures quietly, unobtrusively, without any extra light and send them somewhere else.

      I recently looked at the same problem and this is what I ended up with:

      1. I have played with the low-end Axis and IMO the older model used to be useless. It did not have sensitivity under low lighting conditions. Same is the case for most other webcams. Using them unless you have security lighting triggered by a different sensor is pointless.

      2. There is not that much difference between CMOS and CCD any more. Many CMOS cameras are as good as CCD.

      3. There are plenty of sub-120$ (60£) kits on the market that are waterproof, have 10m+ cabling as standard. A proper capture card is around 30£ per channel. The overall result ends up being way cheaper than going IP for the cameras.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    24. Re:IQeye by Eivind · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's worse than that.

      For every -1- person who saves his home and/or family because he has a gun at home, knows how to, and actually is there to use it in the correct way at a breakin, there are -10- who then experience one of those family-members hurt by that gun because of improper use.

      So buying a gun to make your family safe is MUCH more likely to end up putting a bullet in some body-part of a member of that family than it is to end up putting a bullet in a criminal.

    25. Re:IQeye by mea_culpa · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've done something similar using a wifi SD memory card that automatically uploads the pictures to your PC or favorite photo sharing site, like flickr, etc.

      The Eye-Fi is a novel idea but getting a camera to stay on long enough has been a challenge, most have power save features that only let you select a minute or two. I suppose a way around this would be to wire something to press a button every 30 secs to keep it awake.
      Being on a limited budget I purchased a $80 7MP Camera from Walmart and found that it had the option to stay on. Opened it up, soldered wires for power (3VDC) and two for the shutter control. A cheap PIR motion detector with a relay will close the connection and snap a picture. Bought a $15 mini tripod and removed the legs and mounted it to the ceiling. Everytime motion is detected the camera snaps a pic and the Eye-Fi transfers a high resolution jpeg to the PC via Wifi.

      For the most part it works really good, other than the camera was too cheap to do wide angle, and had no focus control, so the images are blurry. Cameras that enclose the SD card in a metal chassis will present a challenge for range.
      I think enough tinkering with other cameras will do the trick. When I called Eye-Fi tech support they never heard of anyone using their product for security and couldn't recommend a cheap, but good camera that will have the 'stay on' feature.

    26. Re:IQeye by richardellisjr · · Score: 1

      Guns protected people long before TV. My great grandfather was shot by my great grandmother's brother's, the only think that kept them from getting away was my great great grandfather's good aim with the pistol he was carrying, (he managed to shoot the driver). This was in 1920, and unfortunately he was unable to get in shooting range in time and my great grandfather didn't survive. So using a gun to defend your property or family wasn't an invention of the movies.

    27. Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [Citation Needed]

    28. Re:IQeye by Skylinux · · Score: 1
      Digital Cameras have IR filters to increase image quality but some clothing may become invisible as well :)

      Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_photography

      Digital camera sensors are inherently sensitive to infrared light, which would interfere with the normal photography by confusing the autofocus calculations or softening the image (because infrared light is focused differently than visible light), or oversaturating the red channel. Also, some clothing is transparent in the infrared, leading to unintended (at least to the manufacturer) uses of video cameras.[4] Thus, to improve image quality and protect privacy, many digital cameras employ infrared blockers.
      --
      Everyone who buys Wild Hunt will receive 16 specially prepared DLCs absolutely for free, regardless of platform.
    29. Re:IQeye by Skylinux · · Score: 1

      I could not help myself, here is an example
      http://www.kaya-optics.com/products/voyuerism.shtml

      --
      Everyone who buys Wild Hunt will receive 16 specially prepared DLCs absolutely for free, regardless of platform.
    30. Re:IQeye by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1, Troll

      This is why the world is afraid of the states. In no other first world country do you need to 'defend' your home its purely an american thing.

      No, this is why the rest of the world *pities* the US.

      If your home is such a big problem that you NEED a shotgun to protect yourself you really NEED to move. Apparently you are living in some sort of post-apocalyptic nightmare where firearms are needed to stop your neighbors.

      Yes indeed. That must be a really horrible way to live. I really can't imagine having to live in such a climate of fear.

    31. Re:IQeye by Skylinux · · Score: 1

      Some countries distinguish between voice and video recordings, so it may be perfectly legal to record somebody without audio but recording audio with video may render the video inadmissible in court. If I remember correctly the USA is one of those countries, I remember hearing about a case on TV where an abusive police officer was filmed and his verbal abuse was recorded along with the abuse.
      Since recording the audio is not permitted he was never punished and still "abuses and serves as he pleases"

      --
      Everyone who buys Wild Hunt will receive 16 specially prepared DLCs absolutely for free, regardless of platform.
    32. Re:IQeye by Ihlosi · · Score: 4, Funny
      If your home is such a big problem that you NEED a shotgun to protect yourself you really NEED to move.



      The only other available places require machine guns or anti-tank weaponry ...

    33. Re:IQeye by Xeirxes · · Score: 1

      Oh, okay. I was wondering why they're so afraid of us.

      I know that it seems like a good idea to just move, and maybe that is the most reasonable plan. But I know quite a few people who are stuck where they live because of finances. Is it really unreasonable to own some kind of weapon when you live in a neighborhood with gang issues?

    34. Re:IQeye by pubjames · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've never really understood this point of view. If some kid breaks into your home to steal your TV - are you really going to shoot them, potentially kill them? You would potentially kill someone to keep your $1000 TV?

      And lets say someone violent breaks in, with a gun. Don't I considerably increase my chances of getting killed if I have a gun myself?

      I once did a self-defence course with a martial arts expert, one guy asked him what to do if a mugger pulled a gun on him.

      He said - give them your wallet.

      Guy - And if I had a gun?

      Martial arts expert - Don't carry a gun. Just give them your wallet.

      Real life isn't like the movies.

    35. Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never really understood this point of view. If some kid breaks into your home to steal your TV - are you really going to shoot them, potentially kill them? You would potentially kill someone to keep your $1000 TV?

      In other words, we should just let anyone come into our house and do whatever they want. That kid is a less likely to break into your house and steal your TV if he sees a gun. And even if comes anyway, the worst he will probably do is make off with your TV.

      That kid is more likely to break into your home and do worse than stealing your TV if he knows you don't have a gun. Hope you don't mind watching your wife and daughters be raped.

      And lets say someone violent breaks in, with a gun. Don't I considerably increase my chances of getting killed if I have a gun myself?

      Even if your ridiculous rhetorical question had any truth to it, wouldn't it also considerably increase the criminal's chances of getting killed?

      A criminal breaking into your home has one of two purposes: to do you harm or to make off with your stuff. Any criminal wanting to make off with your stuff probably values his life a lot more than your stuff. If you both have guns, he's probably going to run before starting a firefight - and if he doesn't at least you have equal odds.

      A criminal breaking into your home to do you harm won't care if you have a gun or not. The gun helps you even the odds assuming he has a gun and if he doesn't, he's completely screwed.

      I once did a self-defence course with a martial arts expert, one guy asked him what to do if a mugger pulled a gun on him.

      He said - give them your wallet.


      Of course. Who would say differently? Why would you imperil those around you - even the mugger - over a few bucks?

      Guy - And if I had a gun?

      Martial arts expert - Don't carry a gun. Just give them your wallet.

      Real life isn't like the movies.


      In real life people prey on those weaker than them and we're not all martial arts experts. Guns help to even the odds. A gang of young men raping single women in a park might think twice if they know the women are packing heat. If they know the women are completely defenseless except for perhaps some self defence skills (which will be worthless against 3 or 4 men), they can act with impunity.

    36. Re:IQeye by Eivind · · Score: 1

      Not really. If my claim was that -precisely- 1:10 is the proper ratio, then fine.

      But the cases where a thief is discouraged at gunpoint, or shot, are so few they're essentially ignorable, while the number of gun-in-home accidents of various types (even if you exclude suicides) are high.

    37. Re:IQeye by hairyfeet · · Score: 1
      The problem with that is this-a lot of criminals will just shoot you FIRST,then take the wallet off your corpse.Less risk of a witness ID that way. That is why I'm glad I live in a nice apartment with a hallway camera system. But if I lived in a bad neighborhood,then yeah,carrying a gun wouldn't be a bad idea. Criminals have just gotten too vicious.True story-Last year nearby the temp place I was working at a guy robbed a nail salon.He walk in,shoots all 4 girls in the place,then goes over an empties the cash register and the purses. Does anyone think that a couple of girls getting their nails done is going to put up a fight? Later when they caught this a-hole he reportedly said "I just didn't want to f*cking deal with no screaming b*tches".


      Unfortunately this is the kind of criminals we are seeing more and more of,at least here in the south. I personally think it is because of all the bathtub crank as I never never seen anyone meaner than someone on that garbage. But that is my 02c,YMMV.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    38. Re:IQeye by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, really. Citation needed.

      Here is a blog where someone's mentioned a lot of the statistics. The number of gun accidents, as he discovered, is somewhere around 1150/year. The number of crimes prevented is apparently somewhere around 1.5 MILLION per year.

      So, yes. Citation needed. Your gut feeling that guns are evil is not, in any way, proof.

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    39. Re:IQeye by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Here is a wireless color spycam for under $40. While I haven't messed with surveillance much,I have bought a ton of stuff from this company over the years and never had a bit of trouble from them. If you would rather go wired,here is a wired camera from the same company alongwith a capture card designed for surveillance. I hope this helps and good luck!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    40. Re:IQeye by shotgunefx · · Score: 1

      Well for one, you don't have to go right to shooting them if you're feeling hospitable. Two, yes, someone breaks in my house, and I'm home, I'm going to do whatever I can to stop them.

      That's not to say I'm going to get shot over a TV (if they get the drop on me), but I'm not going to be, "Hey, here's my shit" either, if they don't. Comparing getting robbed in public, as compared to the sanctity of your own home, isn't exactly apples to apples.

      As far as the original poster, get an 8ch quad on ebay for like $90 USD, add cameras to taste.

      --

      -William Shatner can be neither created nor destroyed.
    41. Re:IQeye by pla · · Score: 1

      Imagine that! Video cameras more expensive than still cameras!

      Except, the described purpose doesn't actually require 30fps video, just a high enough frame rate that you'll get at least a few of the criminal at various angles.

      And that $180 6MP camera can take pictures "fast enough" for the purpose described, usually limited only by the speed of writing to its storage medium (my own, not all that far from the stated "$180 6MP", can take 4-5 pictures per second).



      I recommend you invest in a quality still-picture digital camera if you want an economic solution for high quality digital imaging.

      You may have more experience in this area than I do, but I've looked, on occasion (for the same purpose as the FP), and we have one slight problem - None exist designed for the power/mounting/enclosure/control styles suitable for security cameras. For want of a $0.50 bracket and a $1.50 servo, we have to go from "cheap digital camera with pretty good quality images" to "extremely expensive crap (for an extra $2 in hardware) in glorious QVGA or NTSC quality".

      Yes, plenty of other security-camera specific features exist, and we might find them worth paying for (IR illumination, variable focus, weatherproof/ruggedizes, etc) on top of a reasonable base price. But as a geek, I just can't compare the two and call the "security" camera market anything more than thieves preying on the other end of the same set of victims.

    42. Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm... yeah I would, tell the asshole to fund his own plasma. Giving the homeless bloke $1 is bad enough, I'm not gonna give some punk $1k.

    43. Re:IQeye by dogger · · Score: 1

      Who is to say they are just there for the TV? Why should I give them my $1000 TV, perhaps because they were so brave to break into my house?

      I agree with your mugging situation, you should never mess around with a gun pointed at you, regardless it is a stupid question, like the MA expert is going to try and teach some retard how to disarm a man at a self-defense course.

    44. Re:IQeye by Lusitania+River · · Score: 1

      Sometimes I wonder why people even bother to send emails like this. "You NEED to move" ?!??! Do you realise that some people cannot afford to move ?

      And no, it is not only in the states. Many places in the UK (some council housing in London for example), France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, etc are incredibly unsafe. And not to mention Africa (South Africa is particularly scary).

      Maybe you live in Sweden or you live in a good area (like me) but don't realise that security is the major problem for many poor people.

    45. Re:IQeye by montyzooooma · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But long story short, your great grandfather still got shot. Having a gun didn't protect him at all.

    46. Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's worse than that.

      For every -1- person who saves his home and/or family because he has a gun at home, knows how to, and actually is there to use it in the correct way at a breakin, there are -10- who then experience one of those family-members hurt by that gun because of improper use.

      Whose asshole did you pull your statistic out of? It's pure bullshit.

      Supply just one citation from a reputable, non-hysterical organization supporting that number.

      Not some Police Officers' Association, because their purpose is just to make sure citizens are disarmed. Not one of those "Boo, hoo, my brother accidentally shot my sister, so I set up an anti-gun foundation to make myself feel important and I know I am the only one with a morally defensible point of view" bullshit outfits.

      If we didn't have all these nanny state laws disarming the population, the looney at VA Tech would have been dropped in his tracks within less than a minute. The people in the 9/11 plane who took action instead of sitting like sheep were the only ones who stopped a hijacking. It was only because they were at altitude that they died anyway.

      Personally, I'll give up packing heat when that bitch Diane Feinstein, who votes for every handgun control bill that crosses her desk, gives up her concealed carry permit.

    47. Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your link is broken to the open source firmware

    48. Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *** I've never really understood this point of view. If some kid breaks into your home to steal your TV - are you really going to shoot them, potentially kill them? You would potentially kill someone to keep your $1000 TV? ***

      Yup - I have no problem with this at all.

      *** And lets say someone violent breaks in, with a gun. Don't I considerably increase my chances of getting killed if I have a gun myself? ***

      That depends on how "violent" that person is. If they are coming in with intent to use the gun, regardless, then you'll likely be dead (or bleeding to death) and it won't matter because you didn't have a gun to respond with. If you do have a gun to respond with, then it comes down to a lot more variables.

      In most states, you have to have no other recourse. Shooting someone, even in your own home, if you could have just as easily left the premises, can result in you being charged.

      This is why I love living in Texas. We have a Castle law on the books here. If you are being threatened in your own home, you can shoot an intruder, and not be charged.

      Personally, the easiest deterrence is open carrying of weapons for everyone. If that mugger doesn't know if someone around has a gun and WILL use it, perhaps he won't mug ya of your wallet. Arm the populace and let God sort em out.

    49. Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you might want to check your statistics. The U.S. has a lower robbery rate (per capita) than:
      Poland, Italy, UK, Australia, Slovenia, Portugal, France, Belgium, Sweden, Canada, Netherlands, Denmark, and Switzerland.

      http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rob_vic-crime-robbery-victims

      Perhaps the reason the U.S. is doing so well with crime is that our citizens take steps to defend themselves and our criminals know that.

    50. Re:IQeye by mike2R · · Score: 1

      You certainly need to tell someone they are being recorded if you are taping a phone conversation. I've never heard of that being a problem with using security camera footage, from inside your own home, as evidence in a criminal prosecution.

      IANAL but it seems a little unlikely to me.

      --
      This sig all sigs devours
    51. Re:IQeye by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      Where do you live? Now that I know that you are a wuss that will bend over and give me all your stuff I might just stop by and help myself to your toys. Repeatedly.

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
    52. Re:IQeye by usasma · · Score: 1

      I've done this at the wife's office, even with good quality cameras (in the $100 range) the image quality is questionable. In the 2 instances where we've needed it, it has failed for us. The first one was just that it was too grainy to make out the license number of the car. The second was a failure of the automatic parking lot lighting - but even when the police came we couldn't read their license plates. We get a lot more "mileage" out of the signs that we have posted. :0)

    53. Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you looking forward to spending time in jail?

    54. Re:IQeye by MickLinux · · Score: 1

      Just an idea here, and a question...

      Suppose you went down to the thrift store, and got a bunch of those 0.3 MPx PenCams (as termed from the Linux driver that runs them). Those cams typically run about $2.50-$3.00 at the thrift store, though they run something like $20 new.

      Then you pair them together like a pair of eyes.

      Now, for every picture you download, you actually download a pair -- one from each camera.

      If you want to view them, you view them through two polarized filters, one turned horizontally, and the other turned vertically. And you view them with glasses set the same way.

      So now you have a total resolution of 0.3 MPx+0.3 Mpx= 0.6 Mpx, with 3-d imaging.

      Of course, you could go with one of the newer VGA pencams instead, for 1.2+1.2 = 2.4 MPx.

      With either of these, you need to maintain good lighting, of course.

      But there is one other thought I have... couldn't you take successive images and combine them, to raise the resolution?
      As the targeted person moves, he's going to switch from one pixel to another, crossing pixel boundaries. So a good piece of software might be able to track that, and come up with a high resolution image from a whole series of low resolution images.

      --
      Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
    55. Re:IQeye by djmartins · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      We have a couple of Eurofags who have been brainwashed into relying on the state to protect them. Citizens own guns, slaves are not permitted to own guns by their owners. The subject here is cameras so stop with all your anti-gun BS or I WILL turn up the opposing rhetoric to a high flame.

    56. Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *** I've never really understood this point of view. If some kid breaks into your home to steal your TV - are you really going to shoot them, potentially kill them? You would potentially kill someone to keep your $1000 TV? ***

      Yup - I have no problem with this at all. For exactly this reason, you have always been involved in wars since 1940, and now your economy is collapsing. Your "John Wayne" behavior is _annoying_ to the rest of the world.

      First it was "shoot the nazi", then "shoot the japanese", then "shoot the viet", then "shoot the commie", then "shoot the yugoslavian", then "shoot the terrorist".

      May I suggest you to take it easier? When will you realize that what you currently have is just the consequence of your fucked up society and lifestyle? you americans are just plain pathetic.

      Have a nice decadence.
    57. Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > If some kid breaks into your home to steal your TV - are you really going to shoot them, potentially kill them?

      The moment someone breaks into my home; I shoot to kill and have legal right to do so. How do I know they are only there to steal a TV? "Breaking" into my home is a violent crime. Although I might not be a fan of violence, I have a duty to protect my wife and kids.

    58. Re:IQeye by Kugrian · · Score: 1

      Personally, the easiest deterrence is open carrying of weapons for everyone. If that mugger doesn't know if someone around has a gun and WILL use it, perhaps he won't mug ya of your wallet. Arm the populace and let God sort em out.


      Or just don't allow guns? I've got a phone. If anyone breaks into my place, I have a choice of the police (station is 5 minutes away), or neighbours in the apartments around me (8 football-player sized guys within two minutes). Maybe I'm just lucky living somewhere that has more of a respect culture than a fear culture?
    59. Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Several things - unlike tv, if someone has a gun pointed at you, you are not going to reliably disarm them. I studied martial arts and I would also hand then my wallet. I do not take 50/50 chances with my life.

      The second thing - you are not trying to stop the burglary - you call the police and while waiting the ten or so minutes for them to arrive, you hide behind your bed or get to your kids bedroom and prevent the criminal from getting to them. Last I heard, people breaking in do not announce their intentions -"don't mind me, I am just taking the tv".

      Here in NY, we have had a series of home invasions - they break in, tie you up, rob your house and then kill you.

    60. Re:IQeye by cyxxon · · Score: 1

      As some other people have already replied above, if that was the nation or city I lived in I would get the heck out of it. The rest of the world really pities people who live in these civil war countries and the US.

    61. Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am surprised that you feel so willing to be a victim. If you are out and about you should watch the surroundings you are in an avoid dangerous areas as a way to preserve life and limb. As to a home invasion situtaion: If they are willing to break in, they are willing to harm or kill you. Shoot them at the door. You can argue the fine points of law in court. If you are dead you cannot go to court to argue the fine points of home invasion law. A corpse does not get a day in court.

    62. Re:IQeye by fishboiler · · Score: 2, Funny

      Come on and live with us in Sweden. There's no need to get a gun since the almost only criminals get killed by other criminals. And if you should defend yourself with your gun it's you who goes to jail. We get an insurance instead and just accept the fact that our cars get stolen and our homes plundered. And forget about owning a bike more expensive that it's lock for more than a week. I guess you would expect a working police force with >60% taxes, but swedes are not that demanding.

    63. Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, yes I would. There's no telling as to what that kid might do to you or your family. Specially if he's violent and has a gun.

      As far as for mugging I'd agree with you that the safest option is to give them your wallet provided you know that's all they want. But if they pull out a knife and order you to go to that side alley or whatever, then what are you going to do without a gun?

      A gun is the ultimate equalizer. You with a gun won't be better off than a bad guy with a gun (modulo training), but you won't be worse in any case.

      You may not like it but it is your responsability to keep your family safe. Cops are just there to clean up.

    64. Re:IQeye by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      But if they pull out a knife and order you to go to that side alley or whatever, then what are you going to do without a gun?



      Run (and hope that they're neither master knife-throwers nor have any Olympic medals in 100m dash). I'd do the same if I was carrying a gun. Do you think you could draw faster than they need to stick that knife in your chest ?

    65. Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously have not lived in South Africa. Compared to South Africa, the USA is a crime free paradise. Here, the local savages not only invade your home, they rape you, your children (does not matter if male or female, they swing all ways), they may decide just to kill you or, as is more common than you might think, they torture you in various ways before killing you. Don't believe me, just do some searching. Oh yeah, the government here is savage friendly, they have made it impossible for you to defend yourself. They have pretty much banned guns of all forms by making it impossible to get one legally, but I can go to some areas and buy one for a few hundred rands. They have also tabled a law that would require licenses to purchase sharp knives, throwing stars, batons, basically anything that could be used to defend oneself. Then there are laws that make you a criminal for killing the savage in your home whilst defending your family. {sarc} Yeah, the US is soooo bad, it is the only country in the world that is evil and out to get you {/sarc}. Stupid lefty idiot.

    66. Re:IQeye by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

      when you make guns illegal, then the only people that have them are the people that don't mind breaking laws. like criminals. you know? the people that rob other people? the people that kill people? for a living? of fun? yea, THOSE guys. good luck clubbing they guy your phone while he's shooting you.

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    67. Re:IQeye by PhotoGuy · · Score: 1

      With your own firmware installed, you might even do something really novel and program the camera to do something that will get the intruder's attention before snapping a photo so that they are sure to be looking right at it, giving you an excellent shot of his or her identity.

      I guess this technique is not uncommon in the surveillance industry. I was at a local U-Store a year or so ago, and they had red spinning light near the ceiling. I asked if there was some alarm going off or something. They said "no, that's just to get you to look nearly straight into the camera" [that happened to be next to the light].

      I think that might be a bit obvious for home surveillance, though.

      I am in the process of setting up something similar at my home, and I agree it is frustrating, pricewise. There are some nice outdoor cameras that work well in low/infrared light, but they are pricey. I've settled for a couple of good quality Logitech webcams pointing through the windows (to avoid weatherization issues). With proper yard lighting and motion-detecting lights, it works surprisingly well. Any movement is immediately uploaded to an offsite web server. It's comforting when I'm away from home, being able to check in and see everything's fine (and how many cats have visited that week).

      That being said, don't assume the police will magically find your culprit, even with video. I know someone who worked for a water utility, who had some trucks broken into. They provided high quality video to the police, who didn't care, and didn't follow things up (perhaps out of habit, due to robberies being mostly hopeless to track, unless they find a stash of stolen goods by chance). Your mileage may vary by police department, but it isn't a magic bullet.

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    68. Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please quote your sources. Otherwise, you sound like you just pulled number out of your arse. It seems your source (or your study) has went largely unnoticed. It is great the odds came out to such an even number too. Easy to remember! This should be quite a thorn to those silly gun folk.

    69. Re:IQeye by Lord+Byron+II · · Score: 1

      And if you read the attached DOJ report you find that it calls the statistic that guns prevented 1.5 million crimes "absurd" and questions the validity of that number (page 9).

    70. Re:IQeye by Jerry · · Score: 2, Funny

      mmmm... I wasn't aware that a "non-violent" thief was immune to shotgun pellets or slugs. Is that just the .410 shells or does the immunity include 12 gage as well?

      Perhaps you should inform the Police and security agencies that their favorite choice of weapon is useless against such a well shielded adversary. I'm sure they will be glad to know BEFORE they trust their lives to such a useless weapon.

      --

      Running with Linux for over 20 years!

    71. Re:IQeye by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      You would potentially kill someone to keep your $1000 TV?

      Every time I've shot someone taking my TV, they dropped the damn thing as they were dying, and broke it.

    72. Re:IQeye by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 1

      And if you read this branch of comments, you'd find that I mention that.

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    73. Re:IQeye by Jerry · · Score: 1

      The cases of people protecting their homes, stores, property or person with firearms aren't "few in number", they are just under reported by a media that is anti 2nd Amendment.
      http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1746

      --

      Running with Linux for over 20 years!

    74. Re:IQeye by pubjames · · Score: 1

      It is very interesting reading the responses to my post. I live in the center of a big European city, and people getting violently assaulted or killed in their own homes is practically unheard of here, it is certainly not something that people are generally afraid of.

      It seems that living in a city in the USA is a bit like living in Bogota* or some other lawless hell-hole, which is sad. I guess if I did live in such a place I might keep a gun at home, but I prefer not to live in such places.

      *footnote - I just looked up Bogata on Wikipedia and found this: ...the city today has a lower murder rate than Washington, D.C., Caracas, Sao Paulo, Mexico City, Panama City, Detroit, Chicago and Rio de Janeiro. The situation in Bogota seems to be "greatly improved in terms of security and public safety from five years ago, and the atmosphere is much more relaxed", said Marshall Louis, a spokesman for the United States Embassy.

    75. Re:IQeye by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      As a matter of fact, $200 are usually able to capture 30fps at 640x480. The one i bought recently does 848x480+h264 encoding.
      There is no reason for a motion camera to be more expensive than a still one, when using ccds.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    76. Re:IQeye by Peter+La+Casse · · Score: 1

      If your home is such a big problem that you NEED a shotgun to protect yourself you really NEED to move. Apparently you are living in some sort of post-apocalyptic nightmare where firearms are needed to stop your neighbors.

      The BBC disagrees:

      They will occasionally kill each other in anger or by mistake, but you never feel as unsafe as you can feel in south London.

      It is a paradox. Along with the guns there is a tranquillity and civility about American life of which most British people can only dream.

    77. Re:IQeye by Berserker · · Score: 1

      www.x10.com

    78. Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/03/31/home.invasion.arrest.ap/

      http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290542,00.html

      'nuff said.

    79. Re:IQeye by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Holy wars have been fought for thousands of years. I'd pretty much say that level and reasons of violence surpasses your hollow Hollywood accusations. As far as your comments regarding "first world" countries, perhaps you need to ask yourself what tools were used to obtain your first world status? Don't be shocked if you see a gun or two in your History books. You don't NEED a shotgun any more than you NEED the Internet. However, when USED properly, they are both useful tools.

    80. Re:IQeye by umrguy76 · · Score: 1

      It's all a matter of perspective. I am from rural Missouri, USA and think nothing of having guns in the house. It is a normal part of life.

      I remember driving back to my parents house late one night with my city born and raised girlfriend (now wife) and having some engine problems on my truck. We were out in the middle of nowhere so I pulled over into a farm field field entrance and proceeded to investigate. There was a house up the road a bit and soon the farmer came down to see what was going on. He was carrying a rifle.

      I thought nothing of it and told him what was going on and that my father was on his way down to help us get the truck going again (turned out to be some loose screws in the carburetor). My girlfriend later told me she was totally freaked out because the guy had a gun. Two people in the same situation had two very different reactions.

      The farmer told me he came down to check because he had been having trouble with rustlers trying to steal his cattle (yes, that still happens). It seems reasonable to me to take a rifle when investigating possible thievery on your farm at night.

      I think my point is, you don't have to be living in "some sort of post-apocalyptic nightmare" to need a firearm. In some parts of the world they are essential tools.

    81. Re:IQeye by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 1

      Actually the statistic I remember reading (admittedly long ago and I can't recall at all where) was that the number of home owners shot in their own homes by criminals USING THE HOME OWNER'S GUN was higher than the number of criminals shot BY the homeowner with the homeowner's gun.

      Take it from a person with a bit of personal experience with guns and people getting shot. You have NO idea what that kind of situation is like, or what you will or will not do or how it will turn out. The probability of a criminal harming you if they break into your place is VERY small. Once you introduce lethal weapons into that equation, the chances go up HUGELY. And in a close in situation where you're likely not well prepared for trouble, there is a very good chance your gun is going to end up out of your control.

      This is one of the main reasons why law enforcement favors gun control for the most part. Untrained idiots with fire arms are a lot more danger to themselves than to anyone else, and a lot more danger to the innocent people around them than to criminals. Any criminal who is armed and willing to kill is FAR more than a match for anyone in this forum.

      Finally, anyone that is stupid enough to believe it is ever worth killing someone hasn't had to scrape the guts off the floor afterwords. You have NO concept.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    82. Re:IQeye by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      Yes indeed. That must be a really horrible way to live. I really can't imagine having to live in such a climate of fear.

      Neither can I. Fortunately, I don't live in a climate of fear, merely preparedness.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    83. Re:IQeye by c0p0n · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry dude but the guy you cite as a source not only has taken the data out of his arse, but also his analysis on this data is well twisted. Truth is that US statistics on firearm deaths are equivalent to those on small countries in war. Far greater than all of the EU put together a few times.

      --

      Your head a splode
    84. Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The world is overpopulated. Someone breaking into my house is choosing to volunteer to help reduce that. It has nothing to do with how valuable anything of mine is, although I do value my wife and son somewhat more than any random stranger. It is important to make clear though that I do not have or keep guns specifically to deal with crime or the fear of it - A armed man is free, and unarmed man is a slave. When ideology counts, it usually does that counting with a sword. And finally, just because you have a gun, doesn't mean you need to/or should use it. It's a fricking tool people, judgement is required.

    85. Re:IQeye by zazzel · · Score: 1

      You're right. Guns make sense in movies, as they allow to trade in realism for interesting plots (except for movies like Lord of War, sadly).

      I mean, the worst thing most 1st world country citizens experience (I am German) are scratches on their cars, or a missing car audio system. I have an electronic door lock, yes - but only because I kept forgetting my keys. My door's hardly ever locked anyways. I need *indoor* video surveillance to be able to watch myself burying my wallet under newspapers, not *outdoor* cams to catch nonexistant thiefs.

    86. Re:IQeye by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 1

      [citation needed]

      (I can do this all day if I have to, at least I found some evidence such as DOJ reports.)

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    87. Re:IQeye by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1

      This is why the world is afraid of the states. In no other first world country do you need to 'defend' your home its purely an american thing.

      Is that a fact? Home burglaries have been eriadicated in the rest of the first world? I'm glad to hear it. Somehow, though, I think you're mistaken.

      If your home is such a big problem that you NEED a shotgun to protect yourself you really NEED to move.

      Not everyone has the luxury. Not to mention which, criminals have caught on to the fact that nice expensive homes in the suburbs have the best loot. Nice try, though.

      Apparently you are living in some sort of post-apocalyptic nightmare where firearms are needed to stop your neighbors.

      Read the original submission. It's not some sort of post-apocalyptic nightmare, it's burglars. Beyond simple robbery, riots happen too, like most US cities in 1968. And LA 1992. And lest you think this is an American thing, I'll show you some pictures of Paris last year where things got quite a bit out of hand.

      Before I get accused of being a gun nut, I'll disclose that I've never owned nor fired a gun. I personally think the risk isn't worth it with two small children in my home, but if the crime rate in my area went up dramatically I might think about it - though I'd buy a hell of a safe and put trigger locks on the gun. But I take offense at the typical condescending anti-American attitude, as well as the naive, idyllic notion that all problems can be solved without violence. 99.99%+ of the time, they can. But the problem is that other 0.01%. If I get to the point that I believe my family would be safer with a gun in the house, I'll buy one and be trained in its use.

    88. Re:IQeye by Shadowed_Stranger · · Score: 1

      What about the people that cannot afford to move? This "post-apocalyptic nightmare" sound like any ghetto I have ever been in. Here is the real problem: Criminals will ALWAYS have guns. It is also about deterrance. If they think you may have guns, they sure as hell won't break in to your house will they?

    89. Re:IQeye by solitas · · Score: 1

      Yes, definitely consider Supercircuits. I've used their products for most of my security needs at home.

      Reasonable prices, good service, and good advice from them - even to the point of "yes, [so-and[so]'s product is better for your application than ours is because...".

      --
      "It's time to take life by the cans." ~ Bender ("Bendin' in the Wind", ep. 3-13)
    90. Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember Jim Brady? Shot during the Reagan administration? From his website, you can find the following:
      In 2004, guns murdered 5 people in New Zealand, 37 in Sweden, 56 in Australia, 73 in England and Wales, 184 in Canada, and 11,344 in the United States.

      If you really want proof of the problem with guns, and you are really a slashdot reader, then do a google search. If you really, really want to be convinced by someone that guns are a problem, then there is no lack of evidence. There is abundant evidence that you can find everywhere. Proof of a gun problem is not a problem.

      Start by trying to understand that there really is a tax on guns. The tax is the cost in lives of people in every community in the U.S. Guns cost lives. The simple existence of guns costs lives. People who die from guns don't need gut feelings anymore. They are the proof. Dead people are the proof of the problem of guns.

    91. Re:IQeye by lamer01 · · Score: 1

      That is so lame. How do you know what their intentions are? Criminals don't like witnesses. How do you know they won't kill you regardless of your actions? Are you willing to take that risk with your life? Or your wife's? or your kids'? I don't

    92. Re:IQeye by nosfucious · · Score: 1

      Give a rats.

      Insurance is cheap. Let the kid have the TV.

      I'm generally more aware of the cops, cop-likes and cop-lites, generally anyone from the guvnmint.

      For that I want something to record the spooks when they get in to my apartment. Multiply recorded off site (preferably to bittorrent). I'm happily prepared to record a weeks worth of someone elses if they do the same for me.

      Government now is the big danger, not some junkie looking for a hit (unless directly confronted). The government can take your house, reputation, freedom, livelihood, car and possibly your life. The junkie will just grab your TV and DVD player.

      (Man does that sound paranoid, but cops are people too. And are not above lying given enough motivation. Honest cops are not the problem)

      --
      Q:I was listening to a CD in Grip and it sounded horrible! What's up? A:Perhaps you are listening to country music
    93. Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did not realize open-source firmware available was available for certain Canon cameras. That's cool. Unfortunately the link you provided was broken, but I googled for it:

      Wired article

      link to CHDK from above article

      The system can be scripted to do things such as time-lapse and very long exposures.

    94. Re:IQeye by kabocox · · Score: 1

      This is why the world is afraid of the states. In no other first world country do you need to 'defend' your home its purely an american thing. Getting a gun to do so would be entirely unheard of were it not for movies glorifying guns.

          If your home is such a big problem that you NEED a shotgun to protect yourself you really NEED to move. Apparently you are living in some sort of post-apocalyptic nightmare where firearms are needed to stop your neighbors.


      Actually, it's a great way to move crime to other areas. In towns where its required for everyone to have a gun of some sort, criminals move. It's much safer for them to do crime against unarmed families in other communities than go into a community where everyone is armed and most of them are idiots in their use.

      It really comes down to that its a cultural meme. The whole the home is a my castle thing. You can't have a castle without a cannon or moat. Well, cannons aren't practical and we have flooding issues so a handgun satisfies the whole being armed bit. We still depend on the police though there are days where I think that most of us should be trained to take better care of ourselves.

    95. Re:IQeye by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Criminals will ALWAYS have guns. It is also about deterrance. If they think you may have guns, they sure as hell won't break in to your house will they?

      Why should a criminal with a gun and the initiative on his side _not_ break into your house ? They just need to shoot you first.

    96. Re:IQeye by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      You obviously don't have children.

    97. Re:IQeye by kabocox · · Score: 1

      I've never really understood this point of view. If some kid breaks into your home to steal your TV - are you really going to shoot them, potentially kill them? You would potentially kill someone to keep your $1000 TV?

      Short answer. Yes. Have a nice day. What is this hang up that human life is sacred or that criminals should live full natural lives?

    98. Re:IQeye by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      Excellent response. One of the first things you learn in a good tactical shooting class is that you're not going to be able to control every situation and that there are times when it's best to just boogie. The idea is to keep yourself and your family safe, and if running away like a little girl is tactically the best choice, then toss that pride aside and do it even if you're armed to the teeth.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    99. Re:IQeye by xgr3gx · · Score: 1

      Just stab the kid in the spine, then don't install a wheel chair ramp. He'll never get in your house again, and probably won't rob anyone else either.
      I have 0 sympathy for home invaders.

      --
      Shameless plug alert: Game server control panel
    100. Re:IQeye by innerweb · · Score: 1

      Yeah. You are right... It is an urban legend, and it was an article on here in the past, but I can not find the link to it. I added the clicking sound thing in to see who was asleep. lol

      InnerWeb

      --
      Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
    101. Re:IQeye by rtb61 · · Score: 2
      It is all the result of an overly competitive dog eat dog culture with a break down in the social welfare net. Those who are incapable of effectively competing simply resort to violent crime and that combined with a gun culture results in a huge number of violent deaths and a world record prison population.

      They have locked themselves into the idea that the cost of all that violence and the massive prison population is cheaper than an effective social welfare net and the marginal risks of decriminalising but regulating currently illegal drugs.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    102. Re:IQeye by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You have proven that guns kill people. Congratulations.

      Duh.

      Of course guns kill people. That's all they're capable of doing. That is what they are designed to do, period. So of course you can find statistics that relatively a large number of people are killed by guns in what is, by far, the largest country with any significant gun ownership. This should be obvious to you.

      Your statistics say nothing about how many crimes they stop. Your statistics say nothing about how many people are killed by other things when guns are not available.

      Does the good outweigh the bad? I think so. I can't prove it, of course, but I think so.

      But even assuming I'm wrong, the fact that 11,344 people are killed by guns in the US every year is not a proof of such. It's barely a data point.

      48 thousand people were killed in car accidents in 2004 (page 33). Let's ban cars!

      If you want to prove that guns are a problem, you'll have to sit down and figure out exactly what good it is that they provide, quantize that, and compare it to the harm. Also, remember to not include deaths that would have been caused by other means if guns weren't available, appropriately pro-rated by likelihood. Good luck, because you'll need it.

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    103. Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can see a discussion on the second amendment coming.

      Most of these people are mistaken. The whole reason for the second amendment right is not to protect ourselves from other individuals; it's to protect ourselves from a potentially corrupt government.

    104. Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In no other first world country do you need to 'defend' your home its purely an american thing. "There is no theft in my country. The government takes it all."

      "There is no need for guns in my country. The government has all it needs."

      "There is no need for freedom of speech in my country. The government [...suddenly disconnected...]"

      You are either naive or live in a tyranny already.
    105. Re:IQeye by q-the-impaler · · Score: 3, Insightful
      A large majority of gun owners, DO NOT USE GUNS FOR PROTECTION. They keep them locked in a case with a gun lock and the ammunition in a separate location.

      Yes indeed. That must be a really horrible way to live. I really can't imagine having to live in such a climate of fear. I assume you are not from the States because of your absolutely idiotic idea that everyone in the States lives in fear and owns guns. Fine, perpetuate that myth. Please don't ever bother visiting. You may get shot.
      --
      Sierra Tango Foxtrot Uniform
    106. Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Dar de dar dar. Good comeback, idiot. He was referring to the fact that you are not home 24x7, and if someone comes around looking for things to steal when you are at work, the shotgun will be just another thing to steal. Whereas a well designed security system will at least gather evidence up until the point where it's stolen (if you're clever and have your footage uploaded during an incident).

    107. Re:IQeye by zazzel · · Score: 1

      Maybe comparison to a different country, one with strict gun laws, helps. I am German, so choosing Germany seems natural.

      Germany has a population of roughly 80 million, the US roughly 300 million. That's a ratio of 1 : 3.75.

      Germany has no guns, but, according to 2004 statistical data, 211,000 "violent crimes" (of which 139,000 were assault, 60,000 robbery, 8,900 rape 792 (first degree) murder, 1808 manslaughter), and an additional 124,000 non-violent cases of burglary.

      Together (335,000), this should cover almost every crime you could hope to prevent with a gun (burglary - if you happen to be at home. But the statistic also includes stolen cars and bikes, cell phones etc.).

      Now, if we deduct (1.5 million / 3.75=) 400.000 crimes that we should have *less* once we allowed for free gun ownership, we'd live in Utopia, where the only crimes left are tax evasion, corruption and parking offenses.

      Yes, that certainly is a convincing argument. Riiight.

    108. Re:IQeye by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      What you're talking about is called image stacking and is often used by amateur astronomers to make up for blur in images due to atmospheric distortion. This only works well with a large number of frames with fairly small frame-to-frame differences though - it's good for creating a sharp composite image of Jupiter from a couple hundred frames, but not so good for sharpening a blurred photo of a moving car from only 2-3 frames, for instance.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    109. Re:IQeye by Ihlosi · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Germany has no guns,

      I wouldn't be so sure of that. There's about 10 million registered ones, and police estimates that there are about 20 million unregistered, illegal ones (not necessarily owned by people who would use them to commit other crimes, there's enough crazed "collectors" out there).

    110. Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, here's another perspective: would someone increase the chances of killing/hurting a loving one to increase the chances of preventing a robbery?

      It seems obvious to me that the number of prevented crimes are higher than the number of innocent victims. But I don't think it is fair to present it like "1.5 million of crimes have been prevented against _just_ 1150 of gun accidents". I mean, it makes it sound like these 1150 accidents are meaningless.

      It would be fairer to find out how many potential murdering situations have been prevented. Because if these 1.5 million crimes were just robbery, you'd be putting a material price on the risk hurting a dear person. It seems you actually think that the chances of hurting a dear person is a fair price to pay to protect, say, your TV.

      The article points out that most crimes would be prevented by just displaying the gun. So, what if it is a toy gun? What if you'd use some fireworks to make it "sound" that you have a gun? Wouldn't it also prevent the crime? And it would not increase the chances of hurting a loving one!

      In fact, most of crimes doesn't even require displaying any sort of weapon, just by shouting or making the thief know that you know he's there would probably scare most thieves. If that's not enough, then you might actually be facing an extremelly dangerous person who probably also has a gun. In this case, having a gun yourself may actually increase the chances of getting shot. In fact, if a perpetrator is not afraid you, you'd seriously be looking for professional protection (body guards and so on)!

      I think it makes sense having a gun IF the protection it provides outweights the risk it poses. But then, the gun should actually help PREVENT the invader from hurting your dear ones.

    111. Re:IQeye by Kintanon · · Score: 1

      I personally have to make the assumption that if you have so little regard for my, my property, and the law that you will break into my home and try to take what is mine then you will probably also kill me to avoid having me report the crime and your description to the police.
      Once someone has broken into my home I must assume that they are bent on murder.
      If you choose to cast aside your right to defend yourself then that is your business, but don't throw mine away along with it.

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
    112. Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and what if they came in to kill you and rape your wife?
      Or does that shit not happen?

      I'll be the first one to admit nobody should die over $$.
      But if more people were taughted to defend themselves we'd all be safer.

      Police are here to document, arrest and bear witness against people that break the law.
      No officer has ever gone to jail for failing to save your live.

      Think of these things before you decide that you can't be bothered with learning how to defend yourself.

    113. Re:IQeye by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Or just don't allow guns? I've got a phone. If anyone breaks into my place, I have a choice of the police (station is 5 minutes away), or neighbours in the apartments around me (8 football-player sized guys within two minutes). Maybe I'm just lucky living somewhere that has more of a respect culture than a fear culture?


      I live about 5 minutes from a police station too, but it still takes them 15-60 minutes to get here on a 911 call. An intruder could do a lot of damage in 15-60 minutes. As for your 8 football players, I assume the criminal's gun has at least 8 bullets.
      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    114. Re:IQeye by dex22 · · Score: 1

      That is not the statistic you were looking for...

      When a household contains a firearm, for each time that firearm injures an intruder, it injures an occupant of the home 44 times.

    115. Re:IQeye by Applekid · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that crime doesn't exist in the world outside the US? Really?

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    116. Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in good ole' Virginia. VA is a right to own, right to carry state. This means that as long as it's in plain sight, I can carry my pistol in public. Do I want to? no. That's pretty impractical. Why do I have one? Two reasons- recreation (I love going to the firing range), and self defense/home defense.

      So would I shoot a kid who breaks into my house? You're damn right. It's the middle of the night, my front door gets kicked in (or a window broken). All I know is that somebody is intruding into my home. Do you really think I'm going to stop to ask why this person is in my house? Nope. Granted, I have a rational brain. If I can subdue them without killing them I might try.

      Think- that 1000 tv is money off my table. I have to call the insurance company to cover the costs of replacing what was stolen and for repairs to my door/window. That's money that i could be using to improve my house to make it worth more. That could be money for a vacation. Hell. That money could be that month's mortgage payment, which I then can't pay because I had to fix my window/door which somebody broke.

      So yeah, I'd probably shoot first and ask questions later. There is no need for me to question why somebody is breaking into my house in the middle of the night.

    117. Re:IQeye by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, combining this and this suggests that, if you took US crime statistics and imported it directly into Germany's population numbers, you would have approximately 380,000 violent crimes, of which slightly under 110,000 are committed with assistance of a firearm. Leaving 270,000 violent crimes if firearms vanished and so did every crime ever committed with use of a gun, while Germany actually, apparently, had around 211,000, as you said. Almost a 30% difference.

      Perhaps the two countries are different in more than just population? Nah. Couldn't be.

      Also, I'm not arguing that easy accessibility to guns doesn't also make some crimes more likely. (You'll notice that this debate started with someone making a claim that accidental gun-related deaths vastly outstripped any useful use of guns. This new point, whether guns are actually an improvement or not, is a point I haven't touched on before.) I do think that it's a net profit, but it's extremely hard to come up with meaningful arguments on either side due simply to the impossibility of a good test.

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    118. Re:IQeye by Raistlin77 · · Score: 1

      Something tells me Germany doesn't have anywhere near the population of just gangs alone that the US has. I'd like to see some statistics on deaths caused by legally owned guns in use by the legal owners. Strict gun laws is only going to keep the average law-abiding Joe from owning a gun, but it is certainly not going to affect the existing scumbag population toting guns obtained illegally.

    119. Re:IQeye by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 1

      Well, now you're getting into both philosophy and a very curious game theory area. For example, if the robber knew that you couldn't possibly have a real gun, waving a plastic gun in his face would be unlikely to do much . . . while if the robber thought there was a 10% chance of your gun being real, then plastic ones would be largely ineffective and (I suspect) real ones would be used more often with more fatal results.

      However, as tough as statistics for the previous debate were to get, statistics for this one are barely even imaginable. I don't even know where you'd start with this, send a thousand hookers through parks at midnight, with various levels of fake guns, and see which of them get raped and/or murdered?

      There is an argument against fake guns, though - if people grow up around fake guns, they might start to believe that all guns are fake, leading to a series of inevitable and darkly hilarious"hey look I found Jim's fake gun! Watch me pretend to shoot myself!" Darwin moments. I believe this is one of the arguments used for making fake guns brighly-colored and easily-recognizable. Now, how valid is this argument, and how often will this happen?

      Man, I have no fucking clue.

      I've been largely arguing against bad logic here - the people saying "omg guns kill people! ban guns" and the like. Actually weighing the relative values . . . well, that's tough. Good luck.

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    120. Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its the middle of the night and I don't know if an intruder in my house is just going to take my tv or to try and kill me and rape my family and kids. I hear the intruder approaching and have a mere few seconds to decide what to do. Should I grab my gun and shoot the intruder who shouldn't be in my home in the first place. Or should I think of the safety of the intruder, and put my whole family at risk?

      Easy choice.

      Oh if someone hurts themselves with a gun (besides kids who shouldn't have access to guns in the first place) to f'in bad. Its called PERSONAL FREEDOM, deal with it.

    121. Re:IQeye by clary · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I apologize for feeding the troll, but idiotic moderation has him pushed up to "3, Insightful," and I just can't stand it.

      No, this is why the rest of the world *pities* the US. This profound utterance deserves a well-considered response, one that will bridge the obvious and unfortunate cultural gap. How about this: Why don't you stick your pity up your ass?

      Yes indeed. That must be a really horrible way to live. I really can't imagine having to live in such a climate of fear. I have traveled internationally enough to understand that the United States is blessed with great natural resources and with a history of freedom and opportunity. I am humbled and grateful to live here.

      That said, there are places in this country with crime rates high enough that gun ownership for protection is an obvious and reasonable choice. What I really don't understand is the response of those to whom using the best tool for the job is somehow unthinkable. Would these same people oppose table saws for woodworking because they can accidentally take off fingers?

      By the way, I have had formal gun safety training. I make sure my children also get it at an appropriate age. I reinforce that training during recreational shooting. Life is full of risks, but owning a gun need not be any more dangerous than owning an automobile, a table saw, a swimming pool, or any other useful but potentially dangerous objects.
      --

      "Rub her feet." -- L.L.

    122. Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why the world is afraid of the states.


      Firstly, who cares. Secondly, afraid why? Are Jimmy, Bubba, and Jamal going to invade another nation using hunting rifles and Glocks?

      In no other first world country do you need to 'defend' your home its purely an american thing. Getting a gun to do so would be entirely unheard of were it not for movies glorifying guns.


      It is part of our history, dumbshit.

      If your home is such a big problem that you NEED a shotgun to protect yourself you really NEED to move. Apparently you are living in some sort of post-apocalyptic nightmare where firearms are needed to stop your neighbors.

      Honestly, just move to where its not needed.


      Yes, because we all have the money we need to live in a good neighborhood.

      Being fearful of firearms is not only a sign of ignorance, it is a sign of effeminacy. If you're that fearful of them, simply do not come to the states and remain in your respective irrelevant little socialist paradise. Do not attempt to lecture us on what should and should not be done here. And don't even let me find out that you're Eurotrash... we all know that getting shanked is so much better than being shot.

      And to Elvind in the following post, of course your sorry emotive little ass eschews statistics. It wouldn't fit your agenda, now would it?
    123. Re:IQeye by mrb73 · · Score: 1

      Yes, guns might not be that dangerous, but I wonder how the 1.5 million crimes prevented per year is calculated. I've been told an much better way of preventing harm to ones person than by using a gun: A friend says, Buy a gasoline chain saw and keep it in your bedroom. When you first hear someone trying to break into you home (or in your home already) simply start the chain saw: Hrummmm, HRUMMM, RARRRR! Look out the window and see a criminal running away. (Would YOU hang around if you heard someone start a chain saw?) I laughed so hard when I first heard this. But it really does sound like a good idea! --MRB73

    124. Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you source that 1 vs 10 figure or is it, much like most gun-abolitionist numbers, just coming out of your ass?

    125. Re:IQeye by mckyj57 · · Score: 1


      You don't need to defend your home in America either, you dufus. Most parts are very safe. How many people do you know who have visited and been stolen from?

      And with regard to not having to defend their homes, then how come my friend in Germany had his laptop stolen? Along with a friend from the Netherlands, and one from Slovenia? I don't know anyone from around here, in rural America, who has had that happen. And no one in the city, either, for that matter.

    126. Re:IQeye by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      Okay, I'll bite. Point by point:

      "I've never really understood this point of view. If some kid breaks into your home to steal your TV - are you really going to shoot them, potentially kill them? You would potentially kill someone to keep your $1000 TV?"

      "Yes. Why? Because I don't KNOW that he is only there for the TV - he could be there for my daughter or my wife or me. Apparently you would be willing to wait and ask him what his intentions are. Good luck with that.

      "And lets say someone violent breaks in, with a gun. Don't I considerably increase my chances of getting killed if I have a gun myself?"

      Huh? It appears that your premise is that if you "just cooperate" or if the intruder feels you are not a threat, then you won't get killed. First, I'd like to see some evidence of this, not just some theoretical logic train. Second, you act as if getting killed is the only violence that matters. Is not breaking into your domicile a violent act? Is not pulling a gun and threatening you a violent act? Is not forcing your cooperation with the threat of force a violent act? You seem willing to allows all kinds of violence against you, as long as it doesn't affect your physical person. Do some research on PTSD - it doesn't take physical injury to be damaged by violence.

      And my favorite:

      "I once did a self-defence course with a martial arts expert, one guy asked him what to do if a mugger pulled a gun on him.
      He said - give them your wallet.
      Guy - And if I had a gun?
      Martial arts expert - Don't carry a gun. Just give them your wallet.
      Real life isn't like the movies."

      So you took a self defense course where you were told NOT to defend yourself? Why did you bother? What was his advise if the mugger was unarmed? Fight back then? Where is your limit?

      Let me clue you in - real life isn't like the dojo. If you are worried about your physical safety, DO NOT try hand to hand combat with an unknown opponent based on a "self defense course". You WILL feel pain, get injured, and possibly die. So if anyone asks for your wallet, just give it to him, armed or not, because if someone is willing to demand what is not theirs, they are more likely than you to be able to back that demand up with force. You can submit to others using force upon you, or not. But if you choose to submit, don't pretend that you are somehow morally superior or tactically better than those who choose not to submit.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    127. Re:IQeye by Hatta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've never really understood this point of view. If some kid breaks into your home to steal your TV - are you really going to shoot them, potentially kill them? You would potentially kill someone to keep your $1000 TV?

      How do you know what the kid is in your house for? Are you really going to let some kid rape your wife or daughter because you thought he just wanted your TV?

      If someone is in your house, you have to assume that your life is in danger and respond appropriately. Anything else would be insanely irresponsible.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    128. Re:IQeye by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      Martial arts expert - Don't carry a gun. Just give them your wallet.

      "Real life isn't like the movies" indeed. Lift your shirt to reveal a handgun and you'll see if he's still asking for your wallet. You think the mugger may shoot you for that? Yeah, fat chance, everyone knows that jackers love to shot people who will shoot them back instead of walking away when they pose no imminent threat (that is, don't try to reach for your gun, just show it).

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    129. Re:IQeye by sribe · · Score: 1

      I've never really understood this point of view. If some kid breaks into your home to steal your TV - are you really going to shoot them, potentially kill them?

      Somebody breaks into an occupied house in the middle of the night? Do you really think it's safe to assume the only objective is the TV or other personal property? Do you really think it's morally correct to force this assumption on the homeowner? What would you, sit down for a nice chat with the fellow to try to determine whether or not his intentions were violent?

      The real world doesn't work that way. Violent felons attack quickly and ruthlessly in order to gain the upper hand. And in the U.S. the non-violent burglars try like heck to avoid breaking into occupied houses--something about homeowners with guns ;-) Unlike some other countries, where thugs don't need to care at all.

    130. Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      So yes, the criminals have won. Just throw your hands in the air and let them take whatever they want....they will by the way.

      Next be prepared for your loving government to do what is best for you.

    131. Re:IQeye by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Yeah, fat chance, everyone knows that jackers love to shot people who will shoot them back



      I'd like to see you shoot back when you've been shot first a couple of times. Otherwise, just get in line for your Darwin award.

    132. Re:IQeye by a803redman · · Score: 1

      OK, you move. Do you think that the house and the problem will disappear? What about the poor folks who move in behind you, just their problem huh? Do we not have a responsibility to those around to stand up to the hoodlums, if we do not who will. Will the rich of us retreat to the crystalline towers and to hell with the rest of humanity. Do you truly think you will be safe there?

      I own my home, its not in the best neighborhood but it has good and vigilante people would stand up to those who would bring us all down. And yes I own guns and my permit allows me to take them, concealed, with me as long as I do so under the rules set down by the law and yes that does give me a little peace of mind.

      Cowering is always the easy road, the world did it to Hitler when they conceded Poland. If the US would have conceded England how many american lives would have been saved? After all could we have not just "moved" our interests, protected by the great oceans. How big a threat was a non nuclear germany?

      The US is a gun culture, the minute men had no movies, Nor did the buffalo soldiers, nor did my ancestors who fought them both to keep native lands and heritage alive. I learned to shoot a shot gun when I was about three, as did my father and his before. I have taught a dozen women who travel or work late how to shoot safely and they walk a little straighter and safer because of it.

      I encourage you sir or lady to think deeply on this, the castle is not always as safe you might think, and people are measured in the end for what they stood for not what they run from.

      Take this as you will from a proud american would loves his country and the great things it does (diversity, the people, free religion, WWII, freedom, Star Wars) though not always the government (underfunding of education, Iraq, foreign policy).

      Lets blame American Idol on the government as well

    133. Re:IQeye by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      And what do I do when there aren't any more places where I can move? What if my financial status prevents me from moving? I live in a very good neighborhood but there are not so good areas near me. My wife's car was just ransacked last night and there are frequent reports of suspicious or criminal activity in the community. When they do catch somebody it is always someone from the surrounding area. It doesn't matter where you live because criminals go where the stuff they want is.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    134. Re:IQeye by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      For every -1- person who saves his home and/or family because he has a gun at home, knows how to, and actually is there to use it in the correct way at a breakin, there are -10- who then experience one of those family-members hurt by that gun because of improper use.

      Is that like 90% of all statistics can be made to say anything 50% of the time?

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    135. Re:IQeye by pubjames · · Score: 1

      Help me understand this... A mugger is pointing a gun at you, and you show them that you have a gun in your trousers, in the knowledge that they can pull the trigger much faster than you can get the gun and pull the trigger, and that makes you safer? How does that work? And you expect the guy to run away knowing you could shoot him at any moment?

      I'm glad I don't live in the USA. You guys are nuts.

    136. Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's this sort of thinking that allowed planes to be used as weapons on 9/11. Policy back then was to let the "hijacker" have what ever they wanted and take them where ever they wanted to go. There was never a case of a hijacker destroying a plane so policy never thought of it and never accounted for it. oops.

      Now, times have changed. We now lock the cabin door (The single most important thing EVER done to prevent hijacking.) so that it's much harder for hijackers to get to the cabin.

      We've stopped the "Just hand over your wallet" thinking. We've figured out better ways to protect ourselves.

      Check out the NRA's "Project Exile". This is where a criminal bypasses local/state laws and is charged with a federal crime with way more time. Any city that has implemented PE has seen a drop in gun crime because it was a greater deterrent.

      Don't take things away from law abiding citizens, punish the criminals.

    137. Re:IQeye by pubjames · · Score: 1

      It appears that your premise is that if you "just cooperate" or if the intruder feels you are not a threat, then you won't get killed.

      Yep. That's the way it works here in Europe, but I guess where you live it may be different.

    138. Re:IQeye by pubjames · · Score: 1

      True story-Last year nearby the temp place I was working at a guy robbed a nail salon.He walk in,shoots all 4 girls in the place,then goes over an empties the cash register and the purses.

      Here's my true story: last year, nobody I know of got shot. Or the year before that. In fact, I've never known anyone get shot, not even an acquaintance of a friend of a friend.

      Oh wait a minute! Several years ago, a friend of my parents had their bag snatched. A guy just grabbed it and ran away. And I do recall that a friend of mine once went into a shop where they gave him change from a 10 rather than a 20, and he didn't realise until after. He was really angry about that.

      It's hell living in Europe. We don't have the freedom to carry guns like you do in the USA -- that would make everything sooo much safer.

    139. Re:IQeye by Hawk00 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but I find that hard to swallow. When you read international news, it is easy to see things like this happening in many other corners of the globe. In some places (like Africa), they just kill the whole village and take things after the fact. And you can't possibly expect me to believe that all places in South America (Where drug cartels run rampant) are nice and peaceful and never hurt the average citizen. So, what color is the sky where you live? And who are the little short guys with the axe picks going to mine singing their song?

    140. Re:IQeye by goarilla · · Score: 1

      huh ?
      so your great grandfather was killed by your great granduncles ??? and your great great grandfather took revenge at a drive-by shooting ?
      please elaborate this doesn't make much sense

      do notice however that all these killings were at the hands of gunowners.

    141. Re:IQeye by mikael_j · · Score: 1
      Imagine that! Video cameras more expensive than still cameras!

      Of course the problem isn't that a decent video camera is more expensive than a decent still image camera, the problem is that a $50 webcam from six or seven years ago has the same max resolution and low framerate that a new webcam for $50 has, really. I was recently shopping around for a couple of webcams to set up home surveillance as I thought that by now surely they would have progressed beyond 640x480@15fps or 320x240@30fps but I found that almost all of the cameras available had those same limitations that my old webam from 2001 has (and it was by no means top of the line when I bought it). The only difference seems to be that the image quality is slightly less grainy these days, but the resolution is still horribly low, and there's still a lot more noise in the images produced by a new webcam than there is in the images produced by my parents' old digital camera from around 2000 when it's set to "low resolution mode".

      What we need is for webcam manufacturers to stop marketing inferior products when everyone else has improved their products.

      /Mikael

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    142. Re:IQeye by pubjames · · Score: 1

      Thanks for your considered response. I really seem to have touched a nerve with my original post.

      I think what many people from the USA (at least the kind that have responded here) don't appreciate is how alien gun culture is in other first world countries.

      I'm nearly 40 and I've never heard of anyone being shot in the street or their home, I've never known anyone get shot, I've never seen a gun pulled in the street (even by police), I've never known anyone who has had a gun pointed at them.

      The only criminal violence I've ever come across is people getting beaten up, and that's pretty rare. And I've lived most of my life in the center of various big European cities.

    143. Re:IQeye by Applekid · · Score: 1

      This is one of the main reasons why law enforcement favors gun control for the most part. I'm sure it has nothing to do with cops, even retired ones, being immune from just about all gun control laws. Of course, since they're not legally liable for losses when they fail to protect those which they swore an oath to protect, having victims completely unable to defend themselves will make sure crime keeps happening and that people will always need (or think they need) police.

      Finally, anyone that is stupid enough to believe it is ever worth killing someone hasn't had to scrape the guts off the floor afterwords. You have NO concept. Finally, anyone that is stupid enough to believe it is ever worth flushing the toilet hasn't had to scrape the gunk off the sides of the septic tank afterwords. You have NO concept.

      What does a gross job have to do with the event that caused the grossness to happen in the first place? Are we supposed to feel sorry for you?
      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    144. Re:IQeye by Redwin · · Score: 1

      "I once did a self-defence course with a martial arts expert, one guy asked him what to do if a mugger pulled a gun on him.
      He said - give them your wallet.
      Guy - And if I had a gun?
      Martial arts expert - Don't carry a gun. Just give them your wallet.
      Real life isn't like the movies."

      So you took a self defense course where you were told NOT to defend yourself? Why did you bother? What was his advise if the mugger was unarmed? Fight back then? Where is your limit?


      I have also studied martial arts and I have had this same advice, although more along the lines of "If he pulls a knife and demands your wallet, give him the wallet. You can always get more money, vital organs are harder to come by". Unless you are of a high level (1st Kyu/Brown belt or above) it is highly unlikely you will have developed the mindset to use any training to good effect, more likely the initial thinking will be "Oh crap, he has a knife" instead of "his body positioning suggests that he will attack with a downward sweep from the left I can counter with moving my body forward and to my right etc".

      The vast majority of techniques you learn in most martial arts (I can only vouch for what I have trained in, YMMV) the early stages are along the lines of Attacker A moves in with this attack, to counter do X. That is they initiate an attack and you counter.

      As you train you become familiar with common patterns that new beginners start with (even if they are allowed to free spar, they often resort to a two punch one kick combination or a varient of that), and your counters to them become more instinctive. This helps both yourself and whomever you are training with as you learn what works and what doesn't (this is an enforcement to other training at the dojo obviously). The training you learn at the instinctive level is often what saves you from an attack eg drunk guy at the pub swinging at you with a beer bottle, someone grabing you etc.

      A direct confrontation with an armed attacker does not use an instinctive defence and thus, unless you have the mindset of a highly controlled individual (read, high level kyu or dan level) you are more likely to freeze than do something useful. Those who have trained a little may mistake this perfectly normal reaction to one where they need to act, and dive into to an attack usually resulting to injury to themselves. Thus the sensi's recommendation, "If you can avoid the conflict (ie they are not actively attacking at this moment and you have to instinctively block and counter), try to do it, your overal survival will be better for it".

      --
      Warning, comments may not have been passed by the sanity department of my brain.
    145. Re:IQeye by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      It isn't a problem that you think it is. It is that in the states, we have the ability to do something about it and most people think it is a fundemental right to protect your own property. In the US, we have have differing laws from state to state based on how much defense you can get away with and so on. In Europe, it seems to be a crime to hurt someone when protecting your property.

      In other words, the thing that make this a problem unique to the US is that for the most part, the government doesn't expect it's citizens to lay down and let people take something that they worked hard for unless it is taxes. We have heard the reports of home invasions in the rise in the Europe and Australia after their gun bans took effect. The same arguments where made there too, if you need a gun to protect yourself you need to move. Moving doesn't stop the crime, it just moves it around to where the victim are currently at. Now don't take that as some sort of support for shooting a person dead for stealing your TV or stereo, But when there is a fear of that being a possibility, then it raises the bar for would-be criminals. If not taking people robbing you laying down liking it is a crime or something other countries should fear, then let them be very afraid of us. I don't like their way any better and it is their way that probably encourages them to be afraid of us.

    146. Re:IQeye by jonadab · · Score: 1

      The thing is, that's not the whole United States. It's pretty much just a few neighborhoods, really, most of them in southern California (which is *technically* a part of the US but culturally a completely alien universe).

      Where I live in Ohio, we don't lock the house, because it would be too much of a bother to have to carry a house key around all the time. (I'm not saying nobody locks their house. Some people do, sure. But at my house we don't.)

      Guns? People who go hunting usually use those (though there is also bow hunting).

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    147. Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For every -1- person who saves his home and/or family because he has a gun at home, knows how to, and actually is there to use it in the correct way at a breakin, there are -10- who then experience one of those family-members hurt by that gun because of improper use. You're a retard. You provide nothing to back up your claim.

      I know why though, because completely fucking wrong.
    148. Re:IQeye by lupis42 · · Score: 1

      If the theft occurs when you aren't there, the shotgun is useless. This isn't related to the ability to defend yourself. This is about being able to monitor when you aren't there. A shotgun will not help with that. At all. -Not that I'm against shotguns per se. I just don't see how one would help here.

    149. Re:IQeye by bugnuts · · Score: 1

      You certainly need to tell someone they are being recorded if you are taping a phone conversation. Negative. It depends where you are.

      It's illegal to do it in california, iirc, but quite legal in new mexico as long as you're one of the participants and not an eavesdropper.

      In some areas, it's illegal to record sound but video is okay, and we've seen plenty of examples this past year on /. We've seen a guy get charged with federal wiretapping laws for recording a traffic stop and not being a card-carrying member of the press.

      There are wonky laws out there, and anyone, even attorneys, who make blanket universal statements like that are probably wrong unless it's a federal crime. And even then, federal law is very different in the US than, say, the UK.
    150. Re:IQeye by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/3009769.stm
      There's your citation -- the BBC version doesn't appear to be slanted against Tony, but provides a lot more detail. Not so cut and dried as the above story makes it seem.

    151. Re:IQeye by MickLinux · · Score: 1

      What I was actually thinking of was more along the lines of fractal compression and interpolation, rather than image-stacking. However, it's basically the same idea.

      I rather suspect that the compression and interpolation would give a higher resolution interpolated image, especially if the video image is compressed as a 3-space pixel (d,d,t) set instead of a series of 2-space (d,d) (d,d)... pixel sets..

      --
      Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
    152. Re:IQeye by Kazrath · · Score: 1

      Obviously it is not a good idea to shoot an unarmed person breaking into your house. Legally in "most" states shooting that kid dead is fine.

      However, it is also not a good idea to break into other peoples houses and try to take their stuff. Condoning criminal activity just leads to more criminal activity.

      The problem with many who share your view is you are enabling the criminals by condoning gun ownership/use. If someone is in my house without my permissions they need to leave and I have a means to enforce that. Calling the Police means "If they had the intention of killing you, you will be long dead before they arrive". Everyone that has a key to my home knows to vocally announce themselves when they enter as it prevents mishaps.

    153. Re:IQeye by Kazrath · · Score: 1

      Really wish they had an edit on slash dot...

      "The problem with many who share your view is you are enabling the criminals by !condoning gun ownership/use."

      Condemning

    154. Re:IQeye by Devv · · Score: 1

      The way you cite those statistics is as close to lying you can get without crossing the line.

      Guns for protection are wrong because they are based upon the idea that each person should get to defend their own. Then what happens when someone feels that it is much more important to kill his(sadly, yes) wife than to do anything the gun was originally intended for?

      --
      +1 Agree -1 Disagree
    155. Re:IQeye by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 2, Informative

      Then he should be arrested and tried for murder?

      I'm not quite sure what logic you're trying to follow here. Are you saying that people should [i]not[/i] be allowed to defend themselves? Because if so, I don't want to live in any country that you have any ability to set laws in.

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    156. Re:IQeye by rworne · · Score: 1

      The distinctive sound of a shotgun cocking is a remarkably effective deterrent, and it more clean than firing up a gas-powered tool in the bedroom.

      If you happen to disapprove of shooting intruders, keep one around with no shells. They are cheap to buy, the cocking sound would make any thief piss themself. If you wound up getting a crazy thief and regret not having shells, you can always club them with it.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    157. Re:IQeye by swb · · Score: 1

      I've never really understood this point of view. If some kid breaks into your home to steal your TV - are you really going to shoot them, potentially kill them? You would potentially kill someone to keep your $1000 TV?

      Why wouldn't I? Because I feel bad about someone who very likely has multiple felony arrests and who would very likely harm me physically if given a chance?

      Martial arts expert - Don't carry a gun. Just give them your wallet.

      Martial arts "experts" are inherently biased against firearms because they negate very nearly all the martial art skills and allow a person with relatively little training to defend themselves.

    158. Re:IQeye by R2.0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't fundamentally disagree with the concept of retreat/capitulation when confronted with a disparity of force. I have taken martial arts courses and they mainly use the same line - "Use situational awareness to keep out of trouble, and don't initiate force in a mugging situation, because you don't know what you are doing yet. If you don't believe that, come out on the floor and spar with the sensei and see how long you last." Good rules to follow.

      My problem is with the second part of the advise that the GP stated - "Don't carry a gun". The "Guy" was saying not only to yield to superior force, but to not even attempt to equalize that force. If this was his true outlook, why was he bothering to teach intro level "self defense" courses? Ostensibly, their purpose is to allow one to defend ones self by teaching special skills that will balance out the attacker's presumed experience with violence. But as you (and I) have pointed out, such a low level of training is likely to INCREASE, not decrease, the odds of getting hurt. So why is he teaching something that he KNOWS will likely get people hurt worse, but counseling AGAINST carrying a firearm?

      The reality is that, here and now (and not in some Utopia that never existed and will never exist), force and violence can and will be visited upon people, whether they like it or not. It waxes and wanes, but it will ALWAYS be there. There have been a few posts regarding how Europe isn't like that, or how it is only in the States that there are such levels of violence. While it may be true that there is more violence in the US, does that mean that there are no rapes in the EU? No murders? No muggings, no robberies? Rioters burned a significant portion of France a few years ago - no one died, but residents lived in fear for a few weeks. Is this not the use of force to affect other people's lives?

      Telling people that they cannot defend themselves is sometimes the cold truth; telling people they *should* not defend themselves is corrupt; telling people they MAY not defend themselves is evil.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    159. Re:IQeye by giorgiofr · · Score: 1

      While I agree with your sensei, I would like to point out that it only takes a random guy off the street a few weeks of training at a military facility to learn basic fighting. I can't possibly be that hard. Most of their techniques are very simple 1-2-3 full out assaults that leave you unconscious or severely disabled; and they work because frankly, the first one to attack is usually the one who "wins". (Obviously we're talking about mere street fighting here)
      That's my opinion, as an amateur martial artist who likes to look at many different ways to manage a fight.

      --
      Global warming is a cube.
    160. Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why the world is afraid of the states. In no other first world country do you need to 'defend' your home its purely an american thing. Getting a gun to do so would be entirely unheard of were it not for movies glorifying guns.

      That's easy for you to say, commie, leftist, liberal... did I say commie already?

          If your home is such a big problem that you NEED a shotgun to protect yourself you really NEED to move. Apparently you are living in some sort of post-apocalyptic nightmare where firearms are needed to stop your neighbors.

      Honestly, just move to where its not needed.


      I live next to a graveyard. A f#$ing GRAVEYARD! When the dead rise from their graves, I want to be ready. When President McCain nukes the gooks back to the stoneage and the whole world is experiencing nuclear winter, I want to be prepared to defend my cans of Dinty Moore Beef Stew and toilet paper from the radiation ravaged hordes.

    161. Re:IQeye by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      does that mean that there are no rapes in the EU?

      No. But the people most likely to rape you are people you know or are even related with.

      No murders?

      No. But some of the more spectacular murders lately involved dropping heavy objects off highway overpasses onto cars. Hardly something you can defend against with a gun. Otherwise, the people most likely to murder you are your relatives and "friends".

      No muggings, no robberies?

      Not as many, thieves prefer pickpocketing instead.

    162. Re:IQeye by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      There is no need for a separate motion sensor as motion can be detected by differential analysis of consecutive frames in the video stream (this can be done in either hardware or software). The usual setup for video surveillance is to continuously record the video stream into a fixed sized buffer, generally five (5) minutes worth or so equivalent with size given in KB. If motion is detected in several consecutive frames above a threshold then the entire buffer is dumped to a permanent file (which captures the segment immediately preceding the beginning of the motion and the beginning of motion) and the recording continues adding to both the buffer and the permanent file as long as the motion continues and for the remainder of the buffer after the motion ceases. The hardware and software camera systems that I have encountered for basic home and business surveillance all implement some variation of these methods and usually include an option for continuous recording, regardless of motion, if desired (although this is not necessary in my experience since the motion detection scheme works quite well and you really only care about the portions where something interesting happened...something moved).

      I would suggest high quality black and white cameras that can see clearly (particularly in very low light situations) and deliver sharp images. The full color cameras that can achieve the same resolution and low light capabilities cost a fortune and don't really add anything much over the black and white models. The cheap color cameras are to be avoided because in low light situations they are generally worthless for identifying the individuals or objects in the frames. There are probably Casinos with excellent full color and low light surveillance but for them money is, for all practical purposes, no object.

    163. Re:IQeye by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      That's OK - if the US had spent 50 years bribing it's underclass to keep it quiet, I'm sure things would be different as well. Instead we spent our money subsidizing European defense, freeing up the money they used to bribe their underclass.

      Good luck on the next 50 years. Europe is going to burn (see Southern France Riots) and there's not dick all you can do about it - you are running out of money for bread and circuses. And the brown people are fucking a lot faster than the pale people. Oh, I forgot - Europe doesn't have racial or ethnic problems. Yet.

      We have plenty of problems over here, but worrying about Europe is no longer one of them. You are going to need to deal with your problems all by yourself. (But I'm sure the EU will come to everyone's rescue) Have fun with that.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    164. Re:IQeye by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      You say "most", "some", "most likely", and "not as many". So what? What about "some", "most", less likely, and "the rest"? You seem to be saying that, if violence happens to someone, because it is rare, that person should just accept it? They won the cosmic lottery?

      Statistically correct. Morally repugnant.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    165. Re:IQeye by torkus · · Score: 1

      I sincerely doubt this is true on a realistic scale. Sure if you compare the number of gun-related deaths in the US (with our what, 100 million people?) to a 3rd world country the size of a postage stamp at war with 50,000 total people we might be about equal.

      Statistics that don't explicitly define the conditions are worth spit. How else does every car manufacturer have the #1 selling or #1 rated car in America?

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    166. Re:IQeye by torkus · · Score: 1

      Something to ponder:

      If you removed control gun laws (and did provide gun education) would crime go up or down? At first, perhaps you'd think crimians could go buy lots of guns and take over. Except...your average citizen isn't afraid of guns, knows how to be safe with them, and probably owns at least one and perhaps carrys it around?

      If half the population was armed at any given time or place, who would ever EVER pull out a gun to commit a violent crime that they wouldn't otherwise commit regardless? Seriously. Who would rob a grocery store if you know that the clerk was almost definitely armed (perhaps better than you are) as well as at least several other patrons in the store? You pull out your gun and 5 other people pull out theirs. Sure, you might kill someone but then you're CERTAINLY dead yourself. This kind of problem has a very fast way of working itself out.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    167. Re:IQeye by TheSeventh · · Score: 1

      This isn't true, it's uninformed speculation. Try looking up other countries that have liberal gun ownership laws, and look at their crime and death rates.

      Such as wikipedia, for Gun Politics in Switzerland:
      Police statistics for the year 2006 records 34 killings or attempted killings involving firearms, compared to 69 cases involving bladed weapons and 16 cases of unarmed assault. Cases of assault resulting in bodily harm numbered 89 (firearms) and 526 (bladed weapons). This represents a decline of aggravated assaults involving firearms since the early 1990s. Some 300 deaths per year are due to legally held army ordinance weapons, the large majority of these being suicides. The majority of gun crimes involving domestic violence are perpetrated with army ordinance weapons, while the majority of gun crime outside the domestic sphere involves illegally held firearms.

      The number of guns in Switzerland? Between 1.2 and 3 Million in private homes. Number of homicides? 1.52 per 100,000 people, with 37% of those by firearms. So, most homicides are committed WITHOUT guns. Imagine that.

      I know this is a novel idea, and assuming you have an internet connection, but how about you look something up before spouting random information about it on /.?

      I know dozens of people very well that own guns. And none of them have ever killed anybody with them (outside of military service.) Should I start telling everyone that people with guns don't murder others because of this small sample of gun-owners?

      --
      Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean that they're not out to get you.
    168. Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your home is such a big problem that you NEED a shotgun to protect yourself you really NEED to move.



      The only other available places require machine guns or anti-tank weaponry ...

      modded as Funny, but in a very strange way, it's also true
    169. Re:IQeye by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 1

      You may be entertained by this news story.

      I don't know if it would work as well in a larger community, but I would personally be quite willing to live in such a community.

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    170. Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The law varies from state to state.

    171. Re:IQeye by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "If some kid breaks into your home to steal your TV"

      You don't know that's what they came for, and a youthful ("kid") offender is hardly a guarantee they are just out for a lark! They might have come for the telly, then decide they'll have a Clockwork Orange moment since you are there and failed to defend yourself.

      If they break into my home while I am there, that means that they are willing to disable or kill me and my wife to accomplish their goal. I have no obligation to value the life or health of someone who is attacking my home. I have no obligation to chase them off so they can return at leisure.

      Now, as to my property. Killing someone in order to protect property rights is more important than the property itself. IMSHO my right to be secure in my person and property matters far more than the life of someone who
      is trying to violate my home.

      My home is MY castle. It belongs to ME and not some shitbag who wants what I earned. Said shitbag will be presumed hostile if they break into it while I'm there. If he/she/it values their safety, they will find a different hobby. The right to defend yourself is so basic that even the US forces in Iraq allow one AK per household!

      "And lets say someone violent breaks in, with a gun. Don't I considerably increase my chances of getting killed if I have a gun myself?"

      Not if you bothered to get training and practice using your weapon.
      When you cede iniatiatve to your attacker you depend on THEIR good will. Have fun with that during a home invasion, but I'll pass!

      There is AMPLE documentation of the efficacy of armed self-defense available on the NRA Institute for Legislative Action website. I have both firearms and fire extinguishers. I'd rather not have to use them, but
      it is better to have them and not need them than need them and not have them.

      I haven't had to shoot anyone in self-defense, but I and my wife have both used firearms to ensure situations did not escalate.

      In the first instance, I confronted (without brandishing or pointing the weapon, the distinction matters) a couple of drunks who were dumping trash on my rural property. With a two-to-one advantage, they could have treated me to a beatdown but chose otherwise when they saw my pump shotgun. The cops have a half-hour response time to my house, so I'm on my own.

      In the second, while I was off deployed to KSA, some crackheads decided to party on my perimeter road. My wife asked them to leave, they told her to piss off. She withdrew to the house, retrieved my Mini-14, and put several rounds into the earth (nowhere near the crackheads). They spun tires leaving and never returned. When the sheriff got there he was pleased with the outcome (I love the South!) and mentioned that warning shots should be fired into a known spot in the ground so the bullets can be retrieved if required for proof. :)

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    172. Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      true. my old school Tae Kwon Do instructor always said the same thing. if you can run away, great. if not, kick him in the knee to slow him down then run away

    173. Re:IQeye by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      I wasn't aware that a "non-violent" thief was immune to shotgun pellets or slugs. Is that just the .410 shells or does the immunity include 12 gage as well?

      Yes, the immunity applies to all types of ammunition, except for probably nuclear (though you really can't totally count on it, detonating a nuke in your neighborhood is likely to get him).

      Why? Because he burgled the place when you weren't at home. By the time you detected that you have been burgled and reached for your gun, the thief had been gone for 3 hours. Hope you're a good tracker.

      Of course, I'm presuming you don't have a home patrolrobot or a moat of sharks. If your weapons are carried by home patrolbots or moat-sharks, then nothing can possibly go wrong. You win.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    174. Re:IQeye by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      There is no proof whatsoever that a burglar would "very likely harm" you. None. Period. Go find a study proving otherwise.

      Next point, I dare you to pull ANY gun at close range on a martial arts expert. You better have your fully automatic trigger already depressed as you pull it out before you feel your arm snap or you're NOT going to win that fight.

      You obviously think those moves in movies aren't possible and that people can't actually connect with 2000lbs of force in a simple kick.

      "What's this close range stuff?" Its your house. Not a gymnasium. How long does it take you to draw and stabilize your weapon on an intruder 10' away, and how quickly could the martial arts expert to simply immobilize that same person in the same time period?

      If you can quick-draw and aim properly with split second timing, I dare say you no longer qualify as "a person with relatively little training."

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    175. Re:IQeye by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      Ah, but what if your slave was stealing your TV? (See, I knew I could still somehow turn this into a moral dilemma. Or at least an economic dilemma.)

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    176. Re:IQeye by Da_Biz · · Score: 1

      If you removed control gun laws (and did provide gun education) would crime go up or down?

      Well, that's the million dollar question. Interestingly enough, Michael Moore (in "Bowling for Columbine") actually questioned the correlation between restrictions on gun ownership rates and decreased violent crime. He compared rates of crime between the US and Canada and noted that the latter had a far lower crime rate (and a substantial gun ownership rate).

      I think Michael Moore actually did a superb job illustrating a notion that crime may be more of a function of culture (and, if I recall right, socioeconomic status) than just plain old gun ownership.

      Also, in regards to gun access and violent crime: Switzerland for many years had (compulsory?) requirements for soldiers to keep their personal weapon at their residence, albeit with a sealed can of ammo. (If the Wikipedia link below is accurate, the latter item is no longer doled out.) AFAIK, Switzerland has an extremely low crime rate (and, overall, is an affluent country).

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland#Army_service

      The assumption that "gun control = lower crime" is a climb up the ladder of inference for those that fail to see that socioeconomic status (SES) is a greater predictor of crime than most anything else (e.g., race).

      I, for one, strongly assert this: if you want to lower crime, focus on improving access to adequate healthcare, education, and nutrition for those of lower SES. I've got statistics, naturalistic research and a wealth of behavioral sciences on my side.

    177. Re:IQeye by sentientbeing · · Score: 1

      You dont need to be there to fire the shotgun. Just mount it atop a quickcam express and fire it over TCP/IP. You could probably even devise a video flash plugin widget and make a game of it for myspace users to encourage them to watch your property.

      They wouldnt need to know its real..

      --

      ------
      beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
    178. Re:IQeye by richardellisjr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Haven't read the account in a while so I may be a little off. It was basically a shoot out over my infant grandfather. My great grand parents were seperated and somehow my great grandfather got custody. My great grandmother and her brothers came forced him into the car at which time someone alerted my great great grandfather who came running with his gun. There was a fight over one of the guns in the car and my great grandfather got shot. Great great grandfather got to the car and managed to shoot the driver (I believe) and the car crashed. One of the brothers was dead, great grandfather was dead and great grandmother was shot in the chest (from the fight over the gun). The interesting thing is that my great grandmother was acquitted of the murder because my great grandfather "shot himself during the fight". But the point of the post was to point out that movies didn't start the using a gun for defense idea. As for killings at the hands of gun owners your correct, however my great grand mother obviously intended him harm (the six guns they found in the car is a good indication) and I think someone whose that intent on murder is going to let the let the lack of a gun stop them. In fact if my great grandfather had a gun with him I doubt my great grand mother and her brothers would have been as willing to attack him. The most moronic part of the whole incident is that though DNS testing we've discovered that my grand father wasn't even my great grandfather's son. So he got shot trying to keep a son that wasn't even his. It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

    179. Re:IQeye by saintlupus · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the vast (VAST) majority of the US is perfectly safe. I live in a mid-sized American city, and I don't know anyone who's ever been shot either. Most of the posters on here just have heads full of Hollywood action movies.

      --saint

    180. Re:IQeye by John+Jorsett · · Score: 1
      I've solved the security camera problem with a $50 webcam, but I was only monitoring a desk in a cubicle that had a bad habit of things going missing. Worked pretty well, though lighting wasn't an issue in that case.

      Did the camera dissuade the thefts or did you catch somebody?

    181. Re:IQeye by torkus · · Score: 1

      I, for one, strongly assert this: if you want to lower crime, focus on improving access to adequate healthcare, education, and nutrition for those of lower SES. I've got statistics, naturalistic research and a wealth of behavioral sciences on my side.


      While I'm not arguing that mandatory gun ownership is the only method, I'm not sure what your suggesting would be any better - or even as good.

      Healthcare and nutrition might trend along with lowered crime rates but they're indicitave of improved quality of life, not the direct cause of it. Education can make a difference but in order to GET educated people have to care, their family has to care, they have to be raised properly. I'm guessing but i highly doubt most (or even a significant % of) crime is committed to buy food, healthcare, or education.

      Giving people hand-outs motivates them to be just loyal enough to the 'hand' to get their freebies. Give people the choice of not committing crime or run the very real risk of getting shot and killed when doing so. Staying alive can be a pretty good motivator to do something honest and the rest who wind up dead probably are just speeding up the process of reducing crime.

      I suppose my point is you assume that criminals WANT to be something different and that's not necessarialy true. Motivation is carrot or stick and in this case the carrot just breeds more and more lazy people.
      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    182. Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would just like to mention that I am in fact in favor of banning cars. Cars kill 48 thousand people now, sure, but they will eventually kill off every known species of living being on the planet. It would take the firing of over 600,000 artillery shells or over 6.8 million rounds of small arms fire to equal the air pollution of a Prius. Yes, a Prius is literally more of a pollutant in one year than the entire number of shells spent in the first year of the Vietnam war.

      Sure, outlaw guns or else provide a government program to give every able bodied and mentally stable person a free one from uncle sam himself. I don't care either way. But you speak of outlawing cars as if it is a joke. Your grandchildren may have a 1-in-a-million chance of getting shot, but they have a 100% chance of dying of suffocation on birth if the current air pollution rate continues.

      Banning cars is by far the best suggestion I've seen anywhere on this thread.

    183. Re:IQeye by Devv · · Score: 1

      The police have weapons to defend the values of society. To enforce the laws. Those things usually don't change very rapidly because of democratic conservatism.

      Individuals are given weapons to protect themselves and by all logic since pre-historic age I should get to defend my own, right?

      The problem here is that individuals will fluctuate much more in their values than the government.

      Your argument that he should be put in jail doesn't work because that doesn't revive his wife. She is DEAD. No extra-ups. Guns are so diffrent from other weapons because it is so easy to make mistakes with them. Example:

      You are agressive and drunk. Something went wrong and you:

      1. Got your hands on a knife. Your friend sees it when fighting and runs away.

      2. Got your hands on a gun. Your friend sees it and tries to run away but you just lift your arm and pull the trigger. You hit his back and puncture his liver and he dies.

      Think about this: Why are guns used in wars and not swords? Because each side tries to be better at killing the other. Now that is pretty natural in WAR but I don't want to live in the society where people try to be better at killing each other. PS. I don't actually believe you would ever kill someone. Just easier to write it that way.

      --
      +1 Agree -1 Disagree
    184. Re:IQeye by torkus · · Score: 1

      I've been largely arguing against bad logic here - the people saying "omg guns kill people! ban guns" and the like


      While we're at it: "omg people kill people! ban people"
      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    185. Re:IQeye by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see you shoot back when you've been shot first a couple of times. Otherwise, just get in line for your Darwin award.

      And why on Earth would you get shot in the first place? If you're the mugger and that you see the person isn't about to shoot you at all you're not gonna take chances a) with your life (would you really shoot the person and take the risk you wouldn't knock them out before they shoot you back?) b) with the law (few people would kill people for no reason) c) maybe muggers are mostly all fairly normal people who are just a bit desperate for money, and not psychopathic nutters who kill people without thinking twice about it.

      If what I said was so silly, then why do so many people in ghettos have guns just for protection? But the myth that a gun won't effectively protect you just won't die.. Same for the mythical image of the mugger who doesn't give a fuck about dying, going to jail or viciously killing innocent average middle class people for no reason.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    186. Re:IQeye by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      Also, using a still cam with custom housing and a motion sensor is a pretty good idea. But when it comes down to the nitty gritty, a firearm is your best bet. ;) Seconded. If you shoot the intruder, you'll have much more lighting options on the corpse, plus you'll have more time to compose a really nice shot. Get a fast 50mm prime.

      Just don't aim for the head.
      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    187. Re:IQeye by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      they can pull the trigger much faster than you can get the gun and pull the trigger, and that makes you safer?

      Why would they shoot you if you're obviously "just showing"? If you had to mug random people and that one of them calmly showed you his gun and told you to fuck off, would you shoot him? Knowing that he's not gonna shoot you if you don't try to shoot him, and that if you try to shoot him he might shoot you? So what would you do? I'd just walk away without turning my back on him, but he wouldn't have any reason to shoot me if I didn't take any of his money/belongings.

      You guys seriously need to study game theory. For both players here the best solution, considering immediate risks (it's more dangerous for yourself to try to shoot first than not shoot at all), legal risks (wanna risk doing 25-to-life for that shit?) and psychological issues (do you really wanna spend the rest of your life remembering the guys face and wondering what happened to his family or whatever?) is to not shoot.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    188. Re:IQeye by swb · · Score: 1

      There is no proof whatsoever that a burglar would "very likely harm" you. None. Period. Go find a study proving otherwise.

      I can't provide an URL, but my neighbor IS a 15 year veteran of the local police force. According to him, there are four basic kinds of burglars: opportunists, drug addicts, professionals, and violents.

      Drug users in search of a fix are predisposed to violence due to their addiction. Meth addicts stealing for a fix are generally borderline psychotic.

      Professionals generally have a rap sheet and/or prison experience and carry weapons; they're prone to avoiding occupants, but are not afraid to use violence to avoid capture or win a conflict. Generally the most dangerous due to their rational commitment to theft and ongoing involvement in the criminal underworld.

      Violents are the kind that WANT a conflict and often are really looking for someone they can hurt (often rape), not just steal from. They will deliberately enter occupied homes, beating, killing or raping the occupants along with stealing. This is really an assault with stealing as an afterthought or the assailant's justification. In some ways, the least dangerous due to their general

      Opportunists are looking for an easy score -- this means NO occupants, open windows, open doors. They will steal pretty equally from businesses, homes or cars and do not want conflict of any kind. The least threatening, but also less common.

      The net is that most of the burglars are capable of violence, and some are quite dangerous and armed.

      I can't argue with the logic of not pulling a gun within arm's reach of a martial arts expert. But outside of 10 feet, a martial arts expert really has no advantage. And inside 10 feet, his advantage requires years of training to be useful, and that's IF he isn't already facing a gun that's inside a pocket -- he'd better be able to swing faster than 800 ft/sec.

    189. Re: IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only problem with your argument is that you suppose criminals are thinking rationally. Certainly some do, but a lot of crimes are committed by people who aren't very bright, don't think through the consequences of their actions, or who believe they've thought through all the angles and realize only later that they've missed some important variables.

      For example, a criminal goes into a grocery store to rob it, knowing full well that the five people inside may be armed. But he thinks he can do effective crowd control and only realizes later that it wasn't such a wonderful idea. Of course by that time several people may be wounded or dead.

      The point is that arming everyone is not going to solve the problem because people don't always behave in a rational manner. The prisons are full of dumb criminals. People on drugs don't think straight. Male teenagers and young adults are notorious for being morons. "Dude, I saw this in a movie once. I think I can make it!" A lot of problems in the world could be solved if only people did think and act rationally, but given the constraints human nature places on us, we'll have to come up with another solution besides universal armament.

    190. Re:IQeye by HereticRising · · Score: 1

      Can we ban cars? It would cut down on drive by shootings and that might further cut down on the number of gun deaths. "The perpetrator was driving a Schwinn but the gun recoil also caused him to shoot himself." Wait maybe it would increase the number of gun deaths.

    191. Re:IQeye by millermp1 · · Score: 1

      Funny. I live in Berkeley and had my car stolen last year; laptop, electronics the year before that; and now they stole about 10K of tools from my shop. I thought about getting cameras after the first incident, but I didn't want to be a spaz. At this point, I feel it's a community service. Several neighbors have been burglarized this year (also cars, tools, jewelry). The cops are understaffed and overwhelmed, and frankly, didn't seem that eager to put their ass on the line for some yuppies. I helped set up a commercial system once, so I knew kind of what I wanted. I found something pretty close at Costco: night visior outdoor campers, dvr multiplexer, a basic quality setup. It arrived a few days ago, so I'm still setting it up. If you're interested, I can keep you posted on what I discover. I'm in the same boat: I want to cover the front and back yards. Link to the Qsee system I purchased for 1.5K plus tax: http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=11235330&whse=BC&Ne=4000000&eCat=BC|79|4802&N=4001405&Mo=16&No=4&Nr=P_CatalogName:BC&cat=4802&Ns=P_Price|1||P_SignDesc1&lang=en-US&Sp=C&topnav=

    192. Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fret not ZorbaTHut for it's painfully clear that montyzooooma has the intellectual capacity of a grapefruit and is a complete waste of O2.

      Your numerical analysis is right on and only those intellectually honest enough to admit that deserve to be taken seriously.

      nuffsaid. EOM

    193. Re:IQeye by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 1

      I'm saying you really just have not the slightest idea what it is really like until you have been there and you do NOT want to ever be there. No way, no how. I'll take facing people unarmed over being subjected to the consequences of shooting them 1000 times over, and so would you if you had any idea what the reality is like. Take it from me, you don't.

      It would be ridiculous to charge the police with being responsible for protecting everyone everywhere all the time from crime. We are adults and we're responsible for ourselves. The police simply cannot, no matter how many of them there were or how good they are at their job be everywhere at all times ready to leap out and apprehend every criminal. It is ludicrous, and to criticize them for that is inane. If you're willing to fork over your money and have your community put a cop on every street corner 24/7 then maybe you would have more room to bitch about it, but I seriously doubt any of us is willing to go that far.

      Of course the police would rather there were less guns out there, and they generally are in favor of gun control. Most people are NOT really qualified to go around armed, and if it was your job to go around with a gun all day looking for trouble, you'd probably prefer that the people you're looking out for were not armed. Cops are a lot more likely to get shot by some pissed off drunk dickhead boyfriend than they are some criminal. Of course they'd even MORE like it if criminals didn't have guns either.

      Instead of arming ourselves to the teeth and somehow deluding ourselves that it makes us 'safer', maybe it would be wiser if we just put that money and effort into solving the social problems that are at the root of 99% of crime in the 1st place. And maybe if we stopped glorifying violence, we wouldn't live in a violent society.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    194. Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the linked report:
      "On the basis of National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data, one would conclude that defensive uses are rare indeed, about 108,000 per year."

      "Most notable has been a much publicized estimate of 2.5 million DGUs, based on data from a 1994 telephone survey conducted by Florida State University professors Gary Kleck and Mark Gertz."

      "The NSPOF survey is quite similar to the Kleck and Gertz instrument and provides a basis for replicating their estimate."

      "Forty-five respondents reported a defensive gun use in 1994 against a person (exhibit 7). Given the sampling weights, these respondents constitute 1.6 percent of the sample and represent 3.1 million adults."

      So if as little as 1.6% lied about DGU or wheren't completely honest, the survey is complete garbage. This is the same problem as the earlier Florida study by Kleck and Gertz.

      "Almost half of these respondents reported multiple DGUs during 1994, which provides the basis for estimating the 1994 DGU incidence at 23 million."

      which also, to me, indicates that there is something fishy going on. With the ability to say "I defended against an attack 10 times" on a whim, the respondents who lie can generate a serious skew.

      "This surprising figure is caused in part by a few respondents reporting large numbers of defensive gun uses during the year; for example, one woman reported 52!"

      The +average+ number of times that a given defender defended is 7.5. I mean, seriously?

      Then if you provide the narrowing criteria:
      "Respondents were excluded on the basis of the most recent DGU description for any of the following reasons: the respondent
      did not see a perpetrator; the respondent could not state a specific crime that was involved in the incident; or the respondent did not actually display the gun or mention it to the perpetrator."
      the number of DGUers dropped by a factor of 2, and the number of actual incidents dropped by a factor of 5.

      What is left? [b]19 respondents[/b] in a survey of 2000ish. 19 people who actually claimed to use their gun to defend themselves. That is what the claim is based on.

      The lies required to make this number blow up by a huge factor could be small or large. They could report an event that happened 3 years ago as happening in the last year. They could claim that the person they thought was committing a crime was not actually committing a crime, in order to make their use of a gun more justified. They could be referring to their own criminal act as a defensive gun use in order to cover for their own crime. They could be bragging and making themselves seem tough. They could be pulling a joke on the person doing the survey.

      Even better?

      "The results still suggest that DGU estimates are far too high. For example, in only a small fraction of rape and robbery attempts do victims use guns in self-defense. It does not make sense, then, that the NSPOF estimate of the number of rapes in
      which a woman defended herself with a gun was more than the total number of rapes estimated from NCVS (exhibit
      8)."

      You are quoting someone quoting a survey that says "MY NUMBERS ARE WRONG", and treating the numbers as if they are accurate.

      And heck -- there are magic bullets involved!

      "NSPOF estimates also suggest that 130,000 criminals are wounded or killed by civilian gun defenders. That number also appears completely out of line with other, more reliable statistics on the number of gunshot cases."

      The same survey says that people are shooting criminals far more often than they are actually being shot.

      "The evidence of bias in the DGU estimates is even stronger when one recalls that the DGU estimates are calculated using only the most recently reported DGU incidents of NSPOF respondents; as noted, about half of the respondents who reported a DGU indicated two or more in the preceding year. Although there are no details on the circumstances of those additional DGUs, presumably they are similar t

    195. Re:IQeye by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      You make a valid point, but I don't believe it applicable to this particular situation. Specifically, you say "...they work because frankly, the first one to attack is usually the one who "wins"." While technically valid, it misses the point - in a mugging, you are BY DEFINITION on the defensive. The initiative has already been lost - you have already been "attacked", at least as far as mindset goes.

      There is a certain attractiveness to basically going batshit-bugfuck-monkey-poo-flinging insane in a mugging situation - the attackers may lose the initiative by the sheer ferocity (or downright bizarreness) of the response. But I'm still more an advocate of just running like hell, especially if there is a lone attacker.
      1) Criminals are lazy-if they weren't they would be working for a living. Okay, that is a huge generalization, but they do choose marks by perceived ease of the attack. If they need to spend a lot of energy chasing after you, they will probably simply not bother.
      2) Street thugs are notoriously bad shots, and it's pretty damned hard to hit a moving target with a handgun. Just remember the original "Inlaws" - "Serpentine! Serpentine!"

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    196. Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, that's not true. I actually witnessed the Sunnyvale, CA police department record a criminal unknowingly on a telephone call, all the while they were coaching the victim what to say via cue cards and recording the entire conversation. This wasn't done by a "rogue" cop or something--it was a highly professional endeavor with multiple detectives and specialists in a specialized room for exactly this purpose. The taped conversations were subsequently used in criminal and civil proceedings both in and out of court. If you think you can't be recorded on a telephone conversation without knowing before hand, I say with certainty that, at least in California, police do this routinely. I can't speak to the actual usefulness of this type of evidence, but if/when you or any criminal admits to felonious behavior on a recorded telephone call, it is pretty difficult for people to overlook. The attorney involved in the case explained that the justification the DAs use in court regarding this type of evidence is that only one party in the call has to consent to the recording--which obviously the victim does.

    197. Re:IQeye by Meski · · Score: 1

      Who would be pulling the trigger, legally?

    198. Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, your kids are more likely to drown if you have a pool at home than getting shot if you have a gun at home, even with both items secured away legally.

    199. Re:IQeye by JohnMidnight · · Score: 1

      Don't carry the gun... plain and simple... if you show that gun you WILL be shot, plain and simple. Shooting the person holding the gun against you will still lay you somewhere unpleasant because (If record serves) only a few US states offer the right to carry concealed weapons to normal citizens >.>

    200. Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, really. Citation needed.

      Here is a blog where someone's mentioned a lot of the statistics. The number of gun accidents, as he discovered, is somewhere around 1150/year. The number of crimes prevented is apparently somewhere around 1.5 MILLION per year.

      So, yes. Citation needed. Your gut feeling that guns are evil is not, in any way, proof. I read the vox.com article. Then I read the DOJ research brief that it sourced. The problem is, this brief says that the 1.5 million number is "absurd." (their word)

      DOJ stats

      This brief is surprisingly readable, and explains why the 1.5 million figure for Defensive Gun Use (DGU) is most likely a very large exaggeration by a study with poor false-positive controls. A much more careful study is compared which more logically suggests 100,000 DGUs. Further it explains how the DGU effect on crime prevention is likely closer to zero, or even negative. Check out pages 8-10.
    201. Re:IQeye by Eivind · · Score: 1

      It is subject to where you live. If you live in a cesspool of crime, then perhaps the numbers look different. If you do, moving is going to be the better option, especially since you can't protect your entire family at gunpoint 24/7. (you -do- want your children to be able to play outdoors freely, don't you ?)

      Where I live these numbers are -conservative- because the risk of being murdered in a crime is essentially -zero-. (TOTAL count of murders last year: 3.8/million people, murders by person not close to vicrim: 0.7/million And I should add that those 0.7 are mostly young males dying as the result of infighting among criminal gangs, if you're -not- part of such a gang, your real odds are more along the lines of 0.1/million.

      Oh, and source ? http://www.ssb.no/

    202. Re:IQeye by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      I live in a pretty bad area of town, so, for my part I agree with you: screw the cameras and buy a Remington-

      A one of these? Verily, the pen is mightier than the sword.

      but the question seems more concerned about gathering evidence, and frankly, video tape and self defense don't seem to mix well in the US of A. So my only advice would be this: get a gun XOR a camera, but expect to go to jail if you use them both.

      On the logic (in court ??) that the installation of the video camera was evidence of premeditation? A prosecutor could certainly try that tactic, but any competent defence barrister would be able to be able to demonstrate that the camera installation was recording on automatic, and was as much evidence of premeditated murder as the steps which the assailant fell down and broke his bloody neck. After all, the steps were installed before the assailant came on site, and could easily contribute fatally to an otherwise non-fatal incident.

      As long as the camera was on your property, filming your property, you had a warning sign on the normal entrance to your property, and used either automated motion detection or continuous recording, you should be all right. That something is captured on video isn't evidence of premeditation. WHAT is captured on video might be evidence of premeditation, so you'd need to be on your best behaviour - detain and restrain, but resist the temptation to kneecap the fucking thief - while the tape is running. But exactly the same constraint operates for policemen with a camera on his dashboard or a shopkeeper detaining a shoplifter, and it doesn't make their actions actionable. Unless they do a Rodney King special on the perp.

      Videoing the car out on the street is a slightly different matter. You'd probably need to get some sort of permission and put up warning signs on the street. It might be legally easier to put together some sort of motion-detector activated filming of the doors (where the perps are more likely to come in) from the interior of the car, and set the car up with something along the lines of those "bait cars" to lock the doors, immobilise the engine, scream the horn and flash the lights. Oh, and call the cops (or you). You might need GPS too, but that's making a much more complex system.

      A video viewing people visiting your front door (which is a public place by some definitions) is an intermediate level. What your local laws are probably varies from town to town.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    203. Re:IQeye by mitchellzone · · Score: 1

      I've been working with IQinvision's IQEye 511 camera (www.iqeye.com) for the past couple of months... The IQEye cams are a good place to start. Axis is certainly a big vendor also, but IQEye is a better price. (I work closely with a video surveillance software company, this comes straight from my buddies there.)
    204. Re:IQeye by Huklebry · · Score: 1

      My wilife system works out really well. I had the same concerns after someone smashed my 07 shadow in my parking lot. The next time it happened this system recorded the incident in wmv format, and I emailed the clip to the police after I saw the damage. Took me about 5 min. I love it! $300 saved me over $1000. here is their site http://www.wilife.com/Default.aspx My neighbor has their PoE stuff too and he swears by it.

    205. Re:IQeye by greedyturtle · · Score: 1

      Tazers.

    206. Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm thinking of installing a similiar system, but at a business location that can be accessed on the internet. Your response that I replied to was "over my head" technically. What would you suggest if I needed two or three cameras to be viewed at remote locations via internet? AT&T has a simple system, but I was thinking if I purchased and installed my own, this would eliminate the monthly fee.
      Your thoughts are appreciated !

    207. Re:IQeye by debatem1 · · Score: 1

      Premeditation isn't the only road to jail time. The rules surrounding duty to retreat and justifiable use of deadly force are both arcane and highly restrictive- sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. There have been numerous cases in the US where an individual has walked towards the assailant, thus turning an otherwise justifiable use of deadly force into flat-out homicide.

      Other gotchas include the presentation of arms, which in some states is mandatory to a self-defense case and in others is harshly penalized, and whether the individual in question had an "aggressive demeanor", which is particularly a problem in Western states.

      As far as premeditation goes, though, remember that its just an aggravating factor- it moves you up the sentencing grid, but doesn't put you there. There's a phrase that says "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6", and while it probably applies here, I would be wary of buying the rope with which to hang myself. Many areas, especially major cities, regard the presence of a gun very suspiciously. The choice of weapon can help a lot here- a 28-inch side by side loaded with birdshot or #4 is probably going to be viewed more favorably than a gold-plated Desert Eagle with a 30 round magazine extension.

      As far as filming the public goes, by the time you've brandished a firearm at a human being, that is the LEAST of your problems. It doesn't matter if you shot them, or even if they shot first, you WILL spend a lot of time in court over it.

      Bottom line is, if you have to go with a camera, try to appear on tape as little as possible- it is not prudent to place yourself in a situation where even the best outcome (present firearm, bad guy runs away) has a solid chance of landing you in jail.

    208. Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, then he's stealing two things, including himself...shoot him twice...

    209. Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where I live in Ohio, we don't lock the house, because it would be too much of a bother to have to carry a house key around all the time. (I'm not saying nobody locks their house. Some people do, sure. But at my house we don't.) Where, exactly, in Ohio do you live? >:)
    210. Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A 30+gb harddrive camcorder can be set up to monitor your car and entry and record continuously. If you find when you wake or come home somethings happened then you can look at whats been recorded and burn to disc.
      Of the pro cctv cameras Samsung has good value.
      Look for something with 540 TV lines or more.
      for low light situations mounting a flourex or metal halide fixure
        for permament light (or can use motion detector light but this sometimes causes whiteout as camera adjusts) above or to the side of the camera pointing at the target area or use cameras capable of .05 lux "starlight" cameras.
      Run of the mill cameras are not much use for good mug shots unless mounted at entry point of home where a close up is guaranteed.

    211. Re:IQeye by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > Where, exactly, in Ohio do you live?

      Galion.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  2. Here is a start... by neapolitan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, you've got to do a cost-benefit analysis similar to a business. In low light it is going to be difficult to get a high-quality images without extra light (obvious you are monitoring them) or a really, really expensive camera which is vulnerable to spray-painting or vandalism itself.

    I was going to do something similar at a previous residence, but found that I would have to worry about people stealing the camera, or simply wearing a mask and gloves when they break in, which will really render the best camera useless. In the end, I used a hidden cheap Linksys webcam that was discreetly hidden inside my house, enough to alert me and catch a careless criminal.

    I have also had good success with the D-Link products, which are very cheap.

    http://www.dlink.com/products/category.asp?cid=60&sec=0

    Also, keep in mind that making your house / area "different" may actually attract more attention. Numerous cameras outside a particular residence screams "important stuff here" if you can't hide them effectively.

    --
    Slashdotter, ID #101. UIDs are in binary, right?
    1. Re:Here is a start... by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >>In low light it is going to be difficult to get a high-quality images without extra light

      I agreed with the rest of your post, but from what I've seen of small CCTV cameras these days, they use IR LEDs for illumination. I have one from DealExtreme ($12) that comes with them built in.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    2. Re:Here is a start... by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 4, Informative

      I use mainly low-end Axis cameras in my department. I have 6 set up constantly updating a dedicated server. 2 are done at the only points of entry for an automobile so we can get license plate numbers, 2 are set up on the doors of laboratories, and 2 are set up at the main entrances. The two times we've had to use data from the cameras showed that the thieves were actually people that we knew. The video quality isn't great (800 x 600). But realistically if the burglar isn't somebody you know, the highest quality video in the world won't help the police unless you live in a very small town.

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    3. Re:Here is a start... by Nethead · · Score: 1

      no, octal.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    4. Re:Here is a start... by Technician · · Score: 2, Informative

      In low light it is going to be difficult to get a high-quality images without extra light (obvious you are monitoring them) or a really, really expensive camera which is vulnerable to spray-painting or vandalism itself.

      Built in IR is not good for color. A motion yard light is the norm and is often not thought of in conjuction with a security camera. A well lit area and cameras is an area often avoided, but a motion light is often ignored in backyards. Get good color photos. Color logos on clothing and other identification is good to get. Keep the IR in addition as many motion sensors have reachable bulbs that are often removed. By then you have photos of the perp, but you still need evidence of the crime after the light is out.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    5. Re:Here is a start... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? 'Cause what I care about in a home security system is being able to read the clothing tags on a perp's shirt from 200 yards - at NIGHT!

      Here's the real deal. Cameras aren't going to stop a thief. IF you are robbed and IF the police catch the thief and IF the police tie the thief to your robbery only THEN will your camera images be of any use and ONLY if the images CLEARLY show the thief running from the house with the stolen goods.

      Good luck with that.

  3. WiLife by HaeMaker · · Score: 4, Informative
    1. Re:WiLife by SolidAltar · · Score: 1

      http://www.wilife.com/Default.aspx Is there anything the Wii CAN'T do?
  4. Why not deterrence? by mar1boro · · Score: 1, Troll

    "To me, the object isn't just deterrence â" if someone tries to break into my house or my car (parked on the street in front of my house), I'd like to provide a high-quality image of the perpetrator to the police."

    Uh what? In a situation such as you have described, the primary objective of such cameras is to provide a deterrent - unless of course if what you are really after is clandestine high quality imagery of another nature. Your stated situation does not match your stated goal.

    --
    -- "It was as if the paint factories had decided to deal direct with the art galleries." - Thursday Next
    1. Re:Why not deterrence? by zappepcs · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree, deterrence is the first line of home security (thus big signs saying protected by xyz alarm company etc.) and the second is having actual security video. High quality video is hardly necessary for security purposes. Generally one half decent quality face photo will be good enough for the police, but there is ALWAYS the question of whether or not they will do anything with it.

      When my car was broken into, the thief had greasy fingers and left large as life well made finger prints on the window. I couldn't even pay the police to take them as evidence. I'm not kidding. Property theft is hardly high on the list when they have terrorists and war protester to chase after.

      I was thinking of a motion activated camera (low lux black and white) with software control on the pan/tilt and all remoted to the computer room I have. The latest addition on that is to mount a laser pointer on the camera so that it will point at whatever the camera is following.

      This could be either lots of fun with the dog, or quite menacing to a would be robber :)

    2. Re:Why not deterrence? by LighterShadeOfBlack · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "To me, the object isn't just deterrence"

      (Bold added by me to further highlight the already obvious). He's saying he wants a camera that might actually produce images that will identify the intruders on top of being a deterrent. That wasn't so hard to figure out was it? And it certainly isn't as unreasonable or suspicion-worthy as you seem to think.

      --
      Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
    3. Re:Why not deterrence? by holophrastic · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There is only one important reason to have video surveillance. I've got a camera outside each entrance to my home -- four. It's not as a deterance. And it's not for security. And it's not to catch the thief.

      It's for one thing and one thing only -- insurance. It's really easy to make a claim when you have video footage of someone stealing your stuff. That's it. It doesn't need to be a good quality picture at all. It needs to show a humanoid holding a television.

      There are, of course, gravy tastes. Most insurance companies will give you a small discount for having such video. Also, when the cat got out (movers left the basement doors open after they'd left), watching eight hours of video at 16x speed allowed me to figure out that Snickers had crawled into a furnace vent. She came out when we turned off the flow of fresh air.

    4. Re:Why not deterrence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you are sooooo clever! What's it like, being clever? Is it working out for you?

      "Your stated situation does not match your stated goal". You sound like someone aching to be twice your age and twice as witty, but it isn't really working out well for you here.

    5. Re:Why not deterrence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you sound like someone who has watched Fight Club one too many times.

      Watch it again.

    6. Re:Why not deterrence? by mar1boro · · Score: 1

      Your right. I clearly didn't read that one closely enough or read it too quickly. I skipped over the "just" bit.

      --
      -- "It was as if the paint factories had decided to deal direct with the art galleries." - Thursday Next
    7. Re:Why not deterrence? by mar1boro · · Score: 1

      If you want to beat me up for displaying poor reading comprehension skills today - I had it coming.

      The rest...not so much, and you got it wrong anyway. I was only trying to seem twice as witty as
      I really am. If I were twice as old, I would probably be worm food

      --
      -- "It was as if the paint factories had decided to deal direct with the art galleries." - Thursday Next
    8. Re:Why not deterrence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It needs to show a humanoid holding a television.

      That's it, I knew it, insurance won't pay me. I've got footage of a droid breaking into my home.

      And he went for the PC, not the television, go figure...

    9. Re:Why not deterrence? by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      I've got footage of a droid breaking into my home. And he went for the PC, not the television, go figure...

      Ah, to be young again, and in love! -- and also a robot!

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
  5. Where do you live? by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Unless you live in a small town a picture of the perpetrator is all but useless. The police really don't care about break and entry anyway.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:Where do you live? by MrSteveSD · · Score: 1

      That's true (at least in the UK where I am). Even if the windows were smothered in fingerprints, they wouldn't bother taking them.

    2. Re:Where do you live? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This is very true.

      I put together a security system in/around my house after a break-in a few years back. Eight months ago, someone broke into my house and stole $8,000 worth of electronics (two laptops, a desktop, a tv, and some other misc stuff).

      The cameras caught a high quality image of the perpetrator, which I turned into police. In addition, I also turned in the serial numbers of the laptops and TV. I was assigned a case number, and I was told I would be contacted a few weeks later.

      Nothing is going to happen. The serials were put into a flagging database, but the police aren't going to do anything with the picture. They're far too busy catching drug users than to deal with these "minor" criminals that do burglaries.

      You want the cameras to act as a deterrent, because the police aren't going to do anything with the pictures.

    3. Re:Where do you live? by ross.w · · Score: 1

      I live in Australia, and a policeman attending the attempted theft of my father's car explained it this way: fingerprints outside = potentially innocent explanation therefore not evidence. fingerprints inside = evidence of unauthorised entry. So its no wonder they didn't bother taking the prints if they were on the outside of the window. It doesn't prove they were the ones who broke in.

      --
      If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
    4. Re:Where do you live? by Artuir · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you know the cameras won't do anything, don't you think in most cases the burglars know that too? Sure the "profession" attracts a lot of stupid types, but it ought to be common knowledge to even them that cameras don't really mean anything for home security other than a deterrent.

    5. Re:Where do you live? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An innocent explanation but reason enough to issue a warrant to search for stolen goods which would be far more conclusive evidence.

      I know that police resources are not unlimited, but to me, burglary is one of the most inexcusable crimes. One has a definite right to feel safe in their own home, and someone breaking in and stealing is a violation of that right to safety.

    6. Re:Where do you live? by C_L_Lk · · Score: 2, Funny

      They do when you post photos of the perpetrator in the act of the crime all over town with a "reward" offer affixed.

    7. Re:Where do you live? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell me where you live too. And roughly what time you leave for work.

    8. Re:Where do you live? by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      The police really don't care about break and entry anyway.

      They will care if you happened to be home and the burglar beat your skull in with a floor lamp. The system would provide pics of your murderer.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    9. Re:Where do you live? by indiechild · · Score: 1

      I live in the suburbs in Sydney, Australia and my grandparents' home was recently burgled. The police forensics people came the next day to take fingerprints from various locations inside the house.

      I know they are overworked, but I'm glad they can spare the time to do this. I subscribe to the broken window theory of law enforcement and crime prevention.

    10. Re:Where do you live? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Unless you live in a small town a picture of the
      > perpetrator is all but useless. The police really
      > don't care about break and entry anyway.

      Try hanging up wanted posters...everywhere.

      You can at least keep the crook out of that neighborhood for a few months.

      Andy Out!

    11. Re:Where do you live? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the police definitely don't care in in Texas, where defending against B&E is justifiable homicide. not surprisingly, Texas has a VERY low B&E rate.

      http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1997132/posts

    12. Re:Where do you live? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh I think you over-estimate most criminals. The scary scenario of a house/neighborhood being cased for a while then being robbed hit and run style is pretty rare- those are the good crooks, those guys tend to have the resources.

      A surprising number of robberies are done by people who you probably know or know of. My friend's aunt's house kept getting "hit" when no one else in the neighborhood seemed to be having a problem- turns out that no one knew at that point that cousin Bobby was hooked on painkillers.

      An amazingly open and shut case happened a few (well maybe 10 now) years ago when a friend of mine bought a new TV for the superbowl and put in his den which has sliding glass doors which apparently allowed his neighbor to get a good view of his TV. He gets home from work a few weeks later on a snowy night, and his TV is gone! Then he looks out back and sees a trail of footprints in the snow leading directly from his back door to his neighbor's back door. The sheer stupidity and audacity of the neighbor boggles the mind.

      As a final story, I grew up around some not so great areas with people of questionable morals. It was quite a common scenario to have a few friends over, they would bring friends of friends, some of whom were scumbags and would essentially be casing your place while they were at your party. If you had nice stuff, it was not uncommon to find your house hit- it was pretty obvious it was kids doing it, as CDs were the most commonly stolen items.

      So anyway, while I am not foolish enough to believe that cameras are going to help in all cases, I think they are certainly useful in some cases. For the common types of crime in a small poor suburban area, cameras should be affected.

    13. Re:Where do you live? by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      Maybe the police don't but your neighbors may. And they might just remember seeing this guy lurking. They might even see him weeks later and since they got a picture of him from you they are able to catch him. That's pretty much why many communities have watch programs (that and they like to be nosy).

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
  6. But how to monitor the surveillance cameras .... by karvind · · Score: 1

    I was thinking of putting good megapixel network cameras for surveillance but then I needed to buy another set of good cameras to monitor the surveillance cameras and then another set of cameras ...

  7. Quick answer - No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The vast majority of CCTV, even professional installed stuff simply isn't of high enough quality to secure identity, let alone a conviction.

    If you want the quality then pay the money for good cameras. Megapixel is the way to go, especially if you want to cover a whole front or back yard.

    Also don't forget good lenses for them as well. Lenses that did a good job for standard definition often don't cut it with megapixel cameras.

    Check out http://www.arecontvision.com/ and http://www.iqeye.com/
    I don't work for either of these companies although I have installed the Arecont cameras as part of my job.

    The results from the 2M Arecont camera was described by the police officer as the best CCTV he had ever seen. Shame they never actually found the guy....

    1. Re:Quick answer - No by Willy+Wong · · Score: 1

      I did jury service and we had to let the guy off simply because the picture quality was so bad.

  8. Dog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Get a dog. The TCO may be higher than the camera, but the deterrence factor is way higher (and it's better to not be broken into at all, than have footage of your breakins afterwards).

    1. Re:Dog by ross.w · · Score: 5, Funny

      a flock of geese FTW Best burglar alarm evar, and no-one will mess with a flock of angry geese defending their territory. really.

      --
      If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
    2. Re:Dog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Or you can replace the geese with seagulls. It'll make them run. Run so far away.

    3. Re:Dog by innerweb · · Score: 1

      I thought that was a Sock of Fleagulls.

      InnerWeb

      --
      Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
    4. Re:Dog by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1
      Get a dog. The TCO may be higher than the camera, but the deterrence factor is way higher (and it's better to not be broken into at all, than have footage of your breakins afterwards).

      I'd mod that up if I had any points right now. I saw a documentary piece once in which "reformed" burglars talked about what works and what doesn't to stop or catch them, and what attracts them. There was quite a lot of information and many strategies, but they agreed that dogs are almost always an effective deterrent. Think of it from their perspective: why deal with a noisy, potentially dangerous dog if you can just skip that house and move on to the next one? Not practical for everyone, and perhaps not for cars parked on the street, but I'll take a dog and an attractive but prominent "beware of dog" sign over an alarm company's sign or a camera any day.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    5. Re:Dog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get a dog. The TCO may be higher than the camera, but the deterrence factor is way higher (and it's better to not be broken into at all, than have footage of your breakins afterwards). Haven't any of you seen It Takes a Thief on the Discovery Channel? The dogs are never a threat to that guy. He either feeds them from the refrigerator or locks them up somewhere. On the other hand, an alarm system and simply locking all your doors and windows is enough to keep him out.
    6. Re:Dog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right on the money - Be sure to get a dog from the category "Working Dogs", not a miniature poodle (they have a lot of heart but not much bite) - for the best security, get two dogs, one male and one female. They will protect each other as well as your property. Don't forget training!

    7. Re:Dog by upside · · Score: 1

      Good answer. However, in the interest of the dog (not kidding here) please be aware that the kind of animals you'd be looking at for this purpose are demanding and high maintenance. Working dogs must have consistent training and they *need to work* or you'll have a problem on your hands. They need to be challenged physically and mentally. If you're interested in agility, rescue training or such then go for it.

      --
      I'm sorry if I haven't offended anyone
    8. Re:Dog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget to draw the blinds, too.

    9. Re:Dog by Eivind · · Score: 1

      Get -anything-. Seriously.

      99% of all thieves choose the "path of least resistance", the remaining 1% are only going to be interested in your house if you've got something particular in there.

      So all you have to do is make them think your particular home is more trouble than the next one. Which is trivial, anything will do.

      If it's -not- trivial, because all your neighbours have lots of security-gadgets too, then you're in the wrong neighbourhood.

    10. Re:Dog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just put the camera on the dog. Then you can have both.

    11. Re:Dog by KillaBeave · · Score: 1

      Incorrect. Any little yapper that barks at the wind would be PERFECT. I've got a Schipperke ... a little fuzzy black dog that barks whenever someone comes to the door. He'll bark loud enough to raise the dead UNTIL I or my wife go over and greet whoever just stepped on our property. It's a nasty growling bark that sounds a lot bigger than his 25lbs (he's not mean at all ... it's just his only bark :)

      If we're not home at night, the dog is generally with us or at a kennel. If we're home and he starts raising hell downstairs, I definately know somethings up and the police station is 1 block away and the shotgun is in the closet. If there was ever someone in the house, I'd just dial 911 and say on "I've called the police and have a gun. Leave now."

      Odds are though if some low-life robber broke a window to get in ... he'd hear the dog going nuts and run off. I'd only be out the replacement cost of a window and a couple dog treats.

    12. Re:Dog by kabocox · · Score: 1

      Get a dog. The TCO may be higher than the camera, but the deterrence factor is way higher (and it's better to not be broken into at all, than have footage of your breakins afterwards).

      Dogs are more evil than guns. I'd rather dig a moat around the house and put sharp spikes down in there than have a dog defending the home.

    13. Re:Dog by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Dogs are more evil than guns. I'd rather dig a moat around the house and put sharp spikes down in there than have a dog defending the home.

      The point of the dog isn't to defend the home, it's to wake you up when there's someone outside in the middle of the night. So a little yap dog will do. The yappier, the better.

    14. Re:Dog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might as well sprinkle loads of manure all all over your yard.

      This would be just as effective to deter thugs without all the barking and expense of food.

    15. Re:Dog by Timtimes · · Score: 1

      Absolutely the best solution I have heard here in regards to personal security. I'd be interested to know what the stats are on rape and burglary of pet owners. Willing to bet it's really a huge deterrent. Pet owners live longer healthier lives as well, so that TCO argument isn't as cut and dried as you might think. Enjoy.

      --
      This ain't no upwardly mobile freeway This is the road to hell
    16. Re:Dog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just get lasers and sharks.

    17. Re:Dog by Lectoid · · Score: 1

      I prefer a flock of seagulls. No one messes with a guy that has a flock of seagulls.

      --
      Is it just me, or do you hate it when people say "Is it just me..."?
    18. Re:Dog by Da_Biz · · Score: 1

      Get a dog. The TCO may be higher than the camera, but the deterrence factor is way higher (and it's better to not be broken into at all, than have footage of your breakins afterwards).

      Well, I used to think that as well, but the folks on the Discovery Channel (?) show called "It Takes A Thief" have shown in numerous episodes that a dog can actually be a very weak deterrent. They frequently have a habit of including the dog in their loot.

      Naturally, you could get a dog trained for security, but I doubt this is a good idea for many.

    19. Re:Dog by geirnord · · Score: 1

      Either would be good, as they provide notwork capability.

      http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1149.html

  9. Good images are important by evanbd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I sat on a grand jury a couple years ago. (Not an investigatory one; we issued general felony indictments. The county I live in does things a little oddly -- they have a pair of standing grand juries, each of which meets once a month to hear potential indictments. You're on the jury for a year, and hear a couple dozen cases each day, so I saw a bunch. All felony indictments go through one of the two.)

    The most common case for small time burglary was that there would be a set of crimes that the police were convinced were related, and then finally the thief would hit some place that had video cameras that were placed well enough to produce a usable image -- at which point, odds were they had already had dealings with that person, and the case got fairly easy. So usually they would present it to us as an indictment for just the one crime, but explain that the investigation was being treated as part of a group.

    So if you want the guy caught, there's really no substitute for good video surveillance. Sure, plenty of cases were based on things like the thief pawning stolen goods, but video was the most prevalent and easiest to work with.

    1. Re:Good images are important by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

      Sure, plenty of cases were based on things like the thief pawning stolen goods I may have been hanging out here for too long, but isn't the word "pwning"?
    2. Re:Good images are important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's interesting. You just said that as part of a grand jury, you were deliberately biased, by the prosecutor, about the presumed guilt of a person, by the assumption that there were other crimes committed by that person, as you were deliberating the crime itself? Who needs cameras for actual evidence when you can just ASSUME guilt up front.

    3. Re:Good images are important by ryszard99 · · Score: 1

      pawning = taking the goods to a 2nd hand shop to sell. they need not have been stolen, you can pawn your own stuff as well.

      "Yah, dont worry mum i'm just going down to the pawn shop to get rid of this old stuff"

      you say pawn the same as porn, at least in australian english.

      --
      -- $_='ab-bc ratvarre';tr"'a-z'"'n-za-m'";print
  10. GPL Monitoring Software by JumboMessiah · · Score: 4, Informative

    ZoneMinder It has some really nice features.

    1. Re:GPL Monitoring Software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd second the recommendation of ZoneMinder. I've got 4 inexpensive ($60) cameras from Home Depot connected to a $100 surplus computer running ZoneMinder. The cameras are small and discretely positioned, and with 10 IR diodes, their night vision is effective to about 10 ft with about a 60 degree spread. Add in some X10 lights to turn on when motion's detected in isolated areas like back or side doors, and you've got an effective system on a budget.

    2. Re:GPL Monitoring Software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me second (third?) the recommendation for ZoneMinder. Check out their website to get an idea of what it can do - it's a really great system.

      And although the thought of agreeing with anything Twitter says makes me feel dirty, he's right - multiple cheap cameras are better than fewer expensive cameras. Combined with ZoneMinder's motion detection and great alerting functions, the multi-camera awareness open up the possibility of letting you know by SMS or something that an alarm's been triggered .. you may be able to get home while the burglar is still on the property! Or at least ring the cops from work (or whereever) and tell them it's in progress.

      Many here have said that the cops don't care even if you have video footage, and that is probably true in many areas - but you should at least give it a go. The cops will at least look at the footage and who knows, the perp might be known to them and your footage could give them the evidence they need to bring him in. At least he'll be known to them next time. And only the most drug-addled, brain-dead criminal would willingly walk into a situation where he knows he's going to be filmed committing a crime.

    3. Re:GPL Monitoring Software by ThomasHoward · · Score: 1

      I have to agree there on using ZoneMinder too, and as for high resolution images, oddly you will get better resolution with some USB web cameras than with analog cameras, just make sure the sensor really does run at the resolution on the box.

    4. Re:GPL Monitoring Software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ZoneMinder It has some really nice features. I really really wanted a feature complete, stable, (relatively) easy to use surveillance system. However in my experience zm does not fit the bill.

      while it does have some nice features, the architecture, documentation and community support is lacking, IMHO. My biggest problem is the way it stores data (events) in a mysql database as if there was no tomorrow. The architecture does not lend itself well to high framerate, long duration capture events.

      It may be more suited for the OP situation than mine (a busy business) but I just wanted to vent about that.
    5. Re:GPL Monitoring Software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The motion software is also a good choice for recording a network camera. There's a review of a cheap camera at benstechcents blog and it has some good tips for cheap cameras. Good camera placement is far more important that high res video, and more cameras can increase the chance of catching the identifying moments that you want later.

    6. Re:GPL Monitoring Software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use this at my home and it works really well. I had a guy think he could steal one of my cameras once - he wasn't very smart. Needless to say I got my camera back and he got his.

      It works with IP cameras as well as standard cctv cameras with a capture card. http://store.bluecherry.net/category_s/63.htm has some decent capture card options.

    7. Re:GPL Monitoring Software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Definitely check out zoneminder...I set up a zoneminder system using a 400$ linux box, four cheap Swann cams ($30 each, on sale at Frys), and a four channel video card (about $200, you can probably get one cheaper, now). Probably spent another $40 for cables. It's been running for four years, works great!

    8. Re:GPL Monitoring Software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My biggest problem is the way it stores data (events) in a mysql database as if there was no tomorrow. Huh? A MySQL database should be able to effortless handle millions of events. Billions, even, with some decent hardware. Just how many events are being logged anyway? Maybe you need to rethink your setup?

      It's pretty hard to imagine how logging could be done in a more efficient way than with a DB like MySQL, it's practically made for the job. How else could you possibly do it?

      And since it's an open, general purpose database, nothing is stopping you logging into the DB and manually deleting, say, any event older than 3 months - or writing a dead simple script to do it. Hell, maybe ZM has something like that built in. But I can't imagine how that could ever be necessary unless you're literally generating an event every second, 24*7*365 - and even that would take many years to start being a real problem in a properly set up and indexed MySQL database.

      Either way, your complaint is strange and, IMO, invalid.
    9. Re:GPL Monitoring Software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ZoneMinder is definitely worth a serious look. It will run a wide range of cameras, from cheap webcams to the serious stuff. Besides, its open source and runs on any Linux distro or you can run their livecd which makes things very easy.

      Save the money to invest in the right cameras, let ZoneMinder handle the networking for you.

    10. Re:GPL Monitoring Software by Pathway · · Score: 1

      Let me add my voice in the "Use Zoneminder" camp.

      If you want to do a very cheap video servalence system, here's the best bang/buck ratio setup:

      1. Zoneminder, making the entire software side of the equation $0.
      2. Computer hardware requirements is whatever you can afford, plus a supported analog capture card. (check www.bluecherry.net, it's a good starting place.)
      3. Get Cheap Analog cameras with good lenses. Analog cameras can do a fairly good job, and they are orders of magnitude (not really, but they seem so) cheaper. The secret is to use a good lense, zoomed properly and good spending the time to get a good focus on your target, which is true of analog or IP cameras.
      4. Record 1-2fps, Black and Whilte. Do you really need 10fps? 2 will probably capture what you need. Black and White will save you a ton of space as well.

      Cost? Let's do a quick addup:

      Cheap PC: $400
      8 Port Capture Card: $240
      Cat 5e (for Wire and Power): $80
      8 Cheap analog cameras: $100 x 8 = $800
      Add for outdoor housings and any other accessories.

      Total: $1520 for an entire 8 camera setup. That's dirt cheap.

      --Pathway

    11. Re:GPL Monitoring Software by catch23 · · Score: 1

      I have to second this option. This is the first thing I think of when I think of motion-detection-security-camera-software. I've had setups with around 6 cameras per machine, using relatively cheap bullet cameras, some color, some b&w, and some with infrared LEDs to see in the dark. It's definitely the most cost effective solution. All you need is a bunch of composite capture cards for around $30 each, and a bunch of bullet cameras, each costing between $50-150 depending on quality, lux, color, infrared features. Assuming you have some old computers lying around, you can probably build a home grown security system for under $1000 with 8 cameras.

    12. Re:GPL Monitoring Software by b0bby · · Score: 1

      Yep, Zoneminder is great. I set it up in an afternoon using an old 1Ghz PIII with a 40Gb hard drive & 2 cheap Creative USB webcams; it could use more horsepower but it does everything we want at work. It can store several weeks of motion detected at our doors and is easy to administer. If you can do a net install of CentOS you'll be able to get it going no problem, and if the webcams aren't good enough you can look into capture cards.

  11. surveillance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work in the security field, to get a good image, you will need to pay a large chunk of money. Standard ($400) cameras aren't going to give you a face that can do much for you. If the person gets close enough to the camera, you can see a face, but then the camera will be mounted way to low, or you can zoom it in far but won't get a large area.

    1. Re:surveillance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, paying more certainly does change the mount angle of the camera..

  12. Save your money by Canosoup · · Score: 1

    Get a pit bull and a gun.

    --
    Hey! Look a Distraction!
    1. Re:Save your money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not spend your money on theft insurance?

    2. Re:Save your money by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Funny

      Get a pit bull and a gun.

      That solution won't save money. Do you have any idea how much it costs to train a dog to safely and effectively handle a firearm?

    3. Re:Save your money by Gazzonyx · · Score: 1

      Get a pit bull and a gun.

      That solution won't save money. Do you have any idea how much it costs to train a dog to safely and effectively handle a firearm?

      Ah, but you can lower the total cost if you multitask and do them both at the same time! ;)
      --

      If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

    4. Re:Save your money by Gazzonyx · · Score: 1

      Disregard that last not-so-witty comment. I read your post as "train a dog and learn to use a gun safely and effectively", or something to that effect. I need to cut back on the caffeine.

      --

      If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

    5. Re:Save your money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That solution won't save money. Do you have any idea how much it costs to train a dog to safely and effectively handle a firearm?

      I only know it's expensive and it doesn't always work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney_hunting_incident

    6. Re:Save your money by AlexBirch · · Score: 1

      That solution won't save money. Do you have any idea how much it costs to train a dog to safely and effectively handle a firearm?

      Who needs safety? It'll only be costly if your neighbors video tape you discharging the firearm haphazardly.
    7. Re:Save your money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably cheaper than digging a moat and putting sharks with friggin' lasers on their heads in it..

    8. Re:Save your money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      best....comment....ever

      4TW

  13. Old Macs by G4Cube · · Score: 1

    A couple of iSights for $300 an Apple Cube, $350 24 hr of 12 frame a sec video for $650.

    1. Re:Old Macs by v1 · · Score: 1

      isights go for $300-500 now, they used to retail for $150. Really good camera tho. Beats the stuffing out of any of the cameras built into the new macs now. I kept mine when I got a macbook pro.

      $40 "crittercam" type USB cameras, with a $10 piece of shareware make them work just the same as firewire cameras. Save a lot of money that way and don't lose a lot of video quality. Not nearly as good as an original isight in low light conditions, they can be used for night vision. (tho most webcams are sensitive to IR light so if you can provide that, you have the same thing)

      There are several companies making wireless security cameras, just provide them power and they transmit back to the receiving display. Totally wipes out nearby wireless internet unfortunately, it just sprays 2.4 ghz in a really bad way, much worse than a 2.4 spread spectrum phone.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    2. Re:Old Macs by Director+of+Acronyms · · Score: 3, Funny

      Catching your neighbour screwing your wife : Priceless

      --
      Never look back at the carnage.
    3. Re:Old Macs by 986151 · · Score: 1

      Catching your neighbour screwing your wife : Priceless or £5/month online.
    4. Re:Old Macs by anagama · · Score: 1

      As far as software goes, on the Linux side is a program called motion. It's a command line app which makes it pretty simple to ensure it's running on bootup (nice if the power goes out and comes back). Connect a webcam, and it takes snapshots at an interval you select whenever it detects motion (can also do movies).

      I have this running on an old P3 600 mhz laptop in my studio. I don't live at the studio but a number of cats adopted it as their home. I point the camera at the cat door and that allows me to know which cats have been around as they must come inside to eat. It used to be that I'd worry when I didn't see a cat for days -- now I just check my pics and usually see that truant stopping by at 3:00 a.m. for a late night snack. The whole setup cost nothing -- just repurposing stuff from its prior roll of "filling closet space due to obsolescence" to doing something useful.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  14. easy and cheap solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Tell the local FBI office you're thinking of opening a Taliban mosque and they'll keep 24/7 high-res real-time video with CD quality audio of your entire property with an emphasis on identifying anyone coming or going. Then if anything happens they'll already have the suspect's name, address and phone number on record. Just ask the police to get the info from the FBI.

    1. Re:easy and cheap solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We of the FBI are not your personal army.

    2. Re:easy and cheap solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /roflcopter

    3. Re:easy and cheap solution by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      Not willingly, but you'll be effective all the same. Insane anti-civil liberty stupidity isn't smart enough to resist manipulation. All your surveillance which you so lovingly annotate and file away in databases will be VERY useful when the revolution comes.

      At the very least, it'll make for many entertaining hours on You Tube.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    4. Re:easy and cheap solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wish it were that easy.

    5. Re:easy and cheap solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think this route is most likely the easiest, but it could have side effects (constant unmarked cars, not being able to get on airplanes)...

    6. Re:easy and cheap solution by ergean · · Score: 1

      This reminds me of an old joke in Romania when the communists were in power.

      What is the easiest way to get your wood cut for fire?
      Just put someone to call the security and tell them you have dollars or gold hidden in the wood.

    7. Re:easy and cheap solution by steelfood · · Score: 1

      That's stupid. They'll arrest you right on the spot.

      What you have to do is constantly post hints about being sympathetic to al-queada on various message boards, occasionally visit anti-american websites, like this or do searches like this and soon you'll have your own bodyguards. Oh, and make donations to the NRA. That'll confuse them plenty, and it'll keep them perpetually stuck in front of your house.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    8. Re:easy and cheap solution by M3spinner · · Score: 1

      Local police and FBI working together? HAHA, I have seen too many Law and Order and CSI Las Vegas re-runs to know that no FBI agent will ever just work with local police. There is usually some smart ass remark about jurisdiction, then the Feds walk away with inflated egos. Poor locals...

      --
      Sig? What? I thought this was a non smoking area.
    9. Re:easy and cheap solution by Cuppa+'Joe'+Black · · Score: 1

      With this route, you may get more security than you bargained for. As in 'maximum security.'

      --
      Technically, murder-suicide does not violate the golden rule.
  15. Vivotek by rweaving · · Score: 1

    Vivotek makes some nice and affordable network cameras, starting at around $180 ea, and they come with recording software for Windoze, but a Linux SDK is available under NDA. http://www.vivotek.com/products/network_cameras.php

  16. Any digital still cam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most digital still cameras have a remote shoot facility. Buy a $100 5Mpixel camera, connect it to a PC and use it to snap high res pictures with flash. Trigger it off a sensor or run the camera in video mode with motion detection. Once the picture has been snapped email if off site to a gmail account. By the time the thief figures out what the flash was the picture will be safe on the other side of the world.

  17. Forget the camera... by Denagoth · · Score: 1

    ...get a big dog and some special insurance from Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson.

  18. Seriously, get a dog by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You need to get yourself a dog. It doesn't have to be big or scary looking- a small, yappy-type dog will do just fine. Unless you advertise the presence of valuable goods inside your house, a burglar will not break into your house if it is occupied. I think you'll find that most burglars will go for the lowest-hanging fruit, which will be your neighbor's house (unless they also have a dog, in which case the next house over is the low fruit). They want to get in, grab the stuff that is easiest to make off with and pawn, and then get out. I doubt you have any state secrets or anything like that in your house; this is a simple cost/benefit analysis for you and the burglars.

    Another thing to look into is a neighborhood watch program. Of course, if you live in a neighborhood like mine that might not be a viable option. In that case, you need to get yourself a dog and a steel-core door. Skip the expensive cameras. Are they really going to save you money? Or is this a vindictive side of you, the side that might put a "Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot twice" sign on your fence?

    -b

    --
    No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    1. Re:Seriously, get a dog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not true. Ever watched the show It Takes a Thief? They broke into so many people's homes [with permission] with 'family dogs.' The animals were so use to people, they just wagged their tail after being pet, or he'd quickly find them a treat in the fridge.

    2. Re:Seriously, get a dog by ckthorp · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately the TCO of a dog is worse than the cameras. There are adoption fees, vet bills, immunizations, food, waste cleanup, toys, leashes, etc. Then, at EOL, you have a number of vet trips bunched together and, to top it off, cremation fees. I love my pets, but I'd never consider them a cost-effective security system. I'd go for cameras before a dog for this purpose.

    3. Re:Seriously, get a dog by Idiot+with+a+gun · · Score: 1

      Or you could label yourself as a poor odd philosopher with a "All Prosecutors will be Transgressicuted" sign.

    4. Re:Seriously, get a dog by zamboni1138 · · Score: 1

      You need to watch the TV show 'It Takes a Thief' (Discovery Channel, 2PM EDT Monday-Friday). Time and again I see dogs portrayed by their owners as the ultimate security device, only to have them rendered 100% ineffective within 15 to 30 seconds after John enters the target house and isolates the dog into a room not used by the thief. I even saw him steal a dog once. Dogs, unless trained to absolutely kill anything that enters the house (including you) are not an effective deterrent, period. And if, unlike John, I really was breaking into your home, I could just as easily kill/beat-to-death the dog just as quickly as he isolates them.

      Security systems with the key left on top of the box, unlocked back-yard/second-story doors, safes that only weigh 120 pounds, or have a hand-truck/dolly right next to them, all of these are the real-life scenarios played out every day.

      The most effective anti-theft device I have seen recently is a nosey neighbor who identified a robbery was taking place and took the keys from John's car while he was in the house. John stole the BMW from the garage and had to abandon all of his loot that he had been stacking up in his getaway car.

    5. Re:Seriously, get a dog by mckinnsb · · Score: 1

      A real "guard dog" is also expensive. You can get dogs that will be deterrents to invaders - Rottweilers and Pit Bulls are both pretty effective - but that effectiveness stops if the thief understands that these animals aren't a threat if he behaves correctly.

      There is however, a way to train a dog so that it will not be a pushover, and will act as a very real threat to any thief, or as the case may be, anyone who isn't the owner. This training is commonly known as aggression training - its the kind of training that police dogs go through, and its actually available to the public with the proper paperwork. This type of training will make a dog "used" to some humans, but aggressive towards others when that human is absent. There are advantages to having a dog with this kind of training, but it is expensive, and most dog breeders/trainers (certified ones) will only train a dog this way if they have certification - ie, the dog has to come from other dogs that have received this training and have responded well to it. You also have to consider the fact that this training is expensive, a purebred "guard dog" of this nature is particularly expensive , and include any possible insurance cost increases or complete denial of coverage. It might be an animal, but after this training its a living weapon. The cost of one dog trained in this manner could easily reach - with only the cost of purchasing and training the dog - over three to four thousand dollars.

      I'd stick with the cameras, from a TCO standpoint.

      However, Rottweilers in particular make good pets if you are kind to them, and you don't have to give them aggression training to scare most people away. I have two, and while someone who entered my house with the calm of a surgeon and a piece of bacon might get past them, they do scare the pants off of every delivery person that approaches my house. They are also really great dogs.

      But, as a previous poster stated "The thief will probably go after the lowest hanging fruit". A big dog - or any dog for that matter - will still raise that fruit up a notch.

      One thing that I think people do that is particularly stupid is put their expensive electronics in *full view* of a window. Electronics are among the most easily resold stolen item, because their worth is directly related to their functionality and often they are pretty easy to transport and get rid of - everyone wants a new TV.

    6. Re:Seriously, get a dog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Skip the expensive cameras.

      And a dog isn't going to cost WAY more than $3,000 over it's lifetime?

      I think not.

      And, unlike a dog, you can leave your house for days on end without thinking about anybody (or anything) else. Your cameras don't need feeding, or interaction.

    7. Re:Seriously, get a dog by Phairdon · · Score: 1

      Be wary of relying on a dog for protection from thieves. Have you ever seen the show "It takes a Thief"? The show is about two ex-burglars and they attempt to burglarize someone's house (after Discovery Channel gets their permission). They then give the house a security makeover. Similar to how people hack into a business to find weaknesses to fix. There was one episode where the man and his wife were absolutely convinced that all the security they needed was their big obnoxious dog. The dog actually didn't bark a single time and let the burglar walk into the house, and then let it be pushed outside. The house was then trashed and valuable items stolen. Don't trust a dog to protect your house.

    8. Re:Seriously, get a dog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not be vindictive? It's not like these assholes deserve mercy.

    9. Re:Seriously, get a dog by antdude · · Score: 1

      My friend was recently robbed and he has two dogs. He lost $20K of stuff. :(

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    10. Re:Seriously, get a dog by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      Come on slashdot. 7 replies already and half of them cite the same Discovery channel show. I suppose you also believe that every aircraft is seconds away from disaster, every dormant volcano is seconds away from eruption, every asteroid is on a collision course with Miami, and every bathroom remodeling project goes without a hitch.

      Here in the real world, the average thief is a dumbass kid trying to score quick money. They aren't smart enough to wear a face mask or gloves or keep CSI from tracing them. They don't know, don't care- This is just their life. They grew up like this. It's survival to them.

      Watch your dramatized mission:impossible burglar show and flatter yourself into thinking that highly-trained cat burglars care enough about your XBox to case your house and disable your alarm system. Or, you can buy decent locks and let your neighbors know when you'll be out of town.

      Jesus christ people, since when did ratings equal credibility?

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    11. Re:Seriously, get a dog by westlake · · Score: 1
      Unless you advertise the presence of valuable goods inside your house, a burglar will not break into your house if it is occupied.

      Living in a certain neighborhood exposes as much to the burglar as posting a billboard listing what you own.

    12. Re:Seriously, get a dog by kklein · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have a friend whose father trains guard/attack dogs. They have a gigantic German Shepherd on the farm that is their "show dog."

      Goddamn I hate that dog.

      You drive up for a BBQ, everyone's inside, and he doesn't know you because you've only been there twice in 5 years. Damn dog charges, snarling, and backs you back into your car. What do you do? You're invited to someone's house, and they have the equivalent of a killbot outside, that makes his own decisions on who is friend and who is foe.

      I am very much pro-gun, but attack dogs scare and piss me off. They run on auto-pilot, unlike firearms. A gun sitting in a corner won't hurt anyone. An attack dog might.

      So you get back in your car and start honking. The dad comes out, calls the dog off and goes, "Sorry, did he scare you?"

      "When he charged me, snarling, with his back up? When he herded me back into my car? Yeah, that scared me." I actually refuse to go there anymore unless they tell me the dog is going to be in the house when I arrive. They think that's a lot to ask, and it is, but I refuse to be put in a survival situation by my friend's damn dog.

      Of course, once I've been given the okay by the dad, the dog is just a big sweet dog. I love dogs and usually make friends with them instantly. An attack/guard dog is different. He's trained to hate everyone until told otherwise.

      Don't get a guard dog.

    13. Re:Seriously, get a dog by Comen · · Score: 1

      Get a German Shepherd, dont get a tiny yelping POS
      I have had many Shepherd's and they are awsome dogs, they are very protective of you and your home.

    14. Re:Seriously, get a dog by dr_dank · · Score: 1

      Not true. Ever watched the show It Takes a Thief? They broke into so many people's homes [with permission] with 'family dogs.' The animals were so use to people, they just wagged their tail after being pet, or he'd quickly find them a treat in the fridge.

      I've seen this show several times and might have seen the very episode that you're referring to. I don't think the burglar would have gotten away with much if it were a protective & territorial german shepherd instead of a sweetly dumb golden retriever.

      Anyway, I never liked the 2nd half of the program where they'd have the same guy try to break in after putting in their beefed-up security from the first break-in. I'd love to see a real professional burglar who could neutralize all of those fancy new countermeasures and waltz out with whatever he wanted.

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    15. Re:Seriously, get a dog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Watch your dramatized mission:impossible burglar show and flatter yourself into thinking that highly-trained cat burglars care enough about your XBox to case your house and disable your alarm system.

      I take it you've never seen the show? While I agree that some Discovery shows are over dramatized (cue deep voice of doom reminding you of the approaching asteroid before and after every commercial), this one isn't really.

      The times I've watched, I've never seen any Mission Impossible antics or masks or even the (ex-)burglers disabling any alarms. Usually there is no alarm installed. The most common means of entry is breaking a pane of glass in the back door or pushing open an unlocked window. Occasionally the window is above the first floor but accessible to anyone not out of shape. Their casing of houses goes as far as walking or driving around to pick an easy, profitable, and interesting (for TV) target. Once they took a dog along to use as an excuse for being out in the neighborhood.
    16. Re:Seriously, get a dog by zamboni1138 · · Score: 1

      This reminds of a a recent post that blamed me for giving credit of invention to NASA for Tang.

      The main point is that dogs are not effective. I have two wolves around my property, not because they are effective watch dogs, but because I like wolves. Hell, the wolves would let them into the house if they knew they wouldn't be bothered, same as a dog, domesticated or otherwise, including the yap-yap breads.

      You show me a house with dogs as watch guards, I'll show you a club and a few chocolate-beefy treats that will kill those dogs, inrespective of recent TV appearances.

      While the TV show It Takes a Thief might be about ratings, it is also *NOT* about being a stupid fucking idiot.

      Some things, unlike most, gain credibility by being very accurate. I suppose you think those guys on Deadliest Catch, the number one rated non-fiction cable show in the US, are also faking it, even if the guys on the Oregon coast actually pay a higher price of bodies per dollar than those in Alaska?

    17. Re:Seriously, get a dog by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      everyone wants a new TV.

      May I know what makes you think that? I have one TV, it's from 2003 and does its function just fine. I have no need for a new TV nor do I want a new TV. Why in hell would anyone replace a perfectly fine and functioning TV. I'm just curious....

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    18. Re:Seriously, get a dog by Eivind · · Score: 1

      You know, some people think that scaring people needlessly is a NEGATIVE thing to do. Given that 99% of the people who come to your house are friendly or neutral, and no threat to you, having something that scares them all is a very strong reason NOT to have a scary dog.

    19. Re:Seriously, get a dog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A dog is not always the answer. My neighbours got broken into. The dog was found with a garden-fork skewered through it's front paw and into the ground. It had been badly hit on the head too and was passed out from stress and blood-loss. The emotional distress of that far outweighed any cost of the items stolen. Better to have good insurance and make sure your PC is not the only place you store precious items (like the video of your childs first steps). Drug addicts have no inhibitions or restraint.

    20. Re:Seriously, get a dog by rts008 · · Score: 1

      Hear! Hear!

      There are some SERIOUSLY stupid burglars out there...temporarily.

      For those in doubt: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b9d_1187780297 It has the title:"Worst burglar ever", but that is debatable, as I've seen/heard of some real gems over the decades, but this one is a contender!

      *partial spoiler alert* There is a good reason for the warning stickers on stepladders telling you NOT to stand on the top!

      This one is chock full of stupidity and slapstick comedy.

      And there are many other similar ones in the 'Related Media' list to peruse.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    21. Re:Seriously, get a dog by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Or is this a vindictive side of you, the side that might put a "Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot twice" sign on your fence?

      No need to put up the sign, just do it. I guarantee no one will think of breaking into your house again.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    22. Re:Seriously, get a dog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or is this a vindictive side of you Yeah, how horrifyingly, mind-bogglingly vindicative of him, to want to reclaim his own posessions, and perhaps even *gasp* have the thief caught! Unthinkable!
    23. Re:Seriously, get a dog by kabocox · · Score: 1

      Skip the expensive cameras. Are they really going to save you money? Or is this a vindictive side of you, the side that might put a "Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot twice" sign on your fence?

      Honestly, yes. Why do you think we even have "crimes" or a "justice system" in the first place? If we weren't vindictive and wanted these people removed from the population we wouldn't have police around now would we?

      Actually the prices for these are coming down. They are around 1.5K-2K for a DVR setup with four cameras. That's expensive to me, but to many people that's not an expensive security investment at all. If the prices of them fall down to $150-200 for a 80 GB DVR with say 6-8 cameras out at Walmart, then everyone would start buying these things. (Heck if they were that cheap, I'd buy one to put on my car just to record the cops and in case of an accident that I'd have video on my side.)

    24. Re:Seriously, get a dog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      everyone wants a new TV.

      May I know what makes you think that? I have one TV, it's from 2003 and does its function just fine. I have no need for a new TV nor do I want a new TV. Why in hell would anyone replace a perfectly fine and functioning TV. I'm just curious....

      Oh jesus, you're one of those. Have you ever stopped and considered whether or not your post added anything meaningful to the conversation? Perhaps you'd like to hear about my perfectly fine TV from 1982? Or how a friend of mine uses his parent's 1978 Zenith?
    25. Re:Seriously, get a dog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you not watch the Discovery channel show "It takes a thief"? For anyone who hasn't, it's a show where a pair of reformed thieves break into houses to point out security problems and then give a security "make-over".

      They don't give a damn about dogs. Every other house they pick to break into has dogs and the dogs never give them any trouble. Hell, sometimes they steal the dog too.

      A dog might stop a casual thief or some bored kid, but you'll be out of a luck if a determined thief comes along. Especially if they're good with dogs.

    26. Re:Seriously, get a dog by Surt · · Score: 1

      The obvious solution to this problem is to bring along that gun you were talking about and kill the dog when it charges you. Be sure to pseudo-apologize after, explaining that really, you had no choice, the dog was off leash and attacked you. Lesson to guard dog owners: guard dogs must be confined at all times, either indoors, caged, or leashed.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    27. Re:Seriously, get a dog by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      If those people believe that confining an obviously dangerous dog rather than letting it roam unsupervised is "a lot to ask" then frankly sir, your friend and his father are idiots.

      One day, it will bite someone on the "okay" list, coming up the driveway when it is (in violation of leash law, bet on it) running loose, or who inadvertently surprised it in the house. Then it will be put down, and the victim may well become the new farm owner once a court sees how carelessly this guy handles dangerous animals.

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    28. Re:Seriously, get a dog by BK425 · · Score: 1

      Seriously, get more information.
      From the problem described here and the information provided you've narrowed your options far to rapidly. It's good you're asking questions, but no single item is the "magic bullet". Cameras, dogs, alarms are all among the many options you can learn about in one of these classes:
      https://www.nrahq.org/rtbav/schedule.asp
      and, from the organization that's been doing this for 200 years, most often this particular class is free (or very low cost).

    29. Re:Seriously, get a dog by mckinnsb · · Score: 1

      Agreed.

      When I made my post, I wasn't really thinking about what you should do for your friends or what would be considered morally/legally correct, I was just relaying information as to what it really costs to have a true "guard dog". The person who responded to my post about how guard dogs annoy/scare him is justified in his reasoning, because honestly these dogs are trained to do exactly what he says they are - hate everyone else except for their owner. If you do have a dog that is dangerous around strangers than you should lock it up if you are expecting strangers. The part where I said that my dogs scare delivery men was mostly intended as a joke - they are usually in a separate room of the house when I answer the door. I would never leave them outside if I wasn't a) there or b) expecting no one to arrive. They also aren't trained to hate strangers, so as guard dogs they are also pretty useless - they are much more bark than bite.

      While its true that 99% of the people who approach your house may be friendly or neutral, 99% of the time you should be there when they do that - unless you have your house for sale. I really don't see many reasons why anyone outside of a mail carrier/service person/oil delivery man etc should be on my property without my permission. The dog would be inside, anyway, if I wasn't there. Leaving a dog like that outside while you aren't home is asking for trouble.

    30. Re:Seriously, get a dog by statemachine · · Score: 1

      I'd love to see a real professional burglar who could neutralize all of those fancy new countermeasures and waltz out with whatever he wanted.

      Jon does appear to be a very professional burglar. One episode, he picked a lock. In another he used a bump-key. In yet another, he broke in and disabled a monitored alarm by busting the alarm control box (owner left the key right on top of the box). He hires accomplices, and even bribes employees (in the episode with the auto repair shop) for the alarm code.

      I believe the main problem with the "Final Test" segment, is that the producers don't want Jon to break a window, and if there's an alarm, to attempt to disable that too -- whereas this is all fine in the initial break-in. However, both Jon and Matt do enter with the owners and check to see if all those security measures that they were given are being used: alarm being set, safe being locked up with new code, lock-box for keys, locks on doors and windows, captive keys being removed on windowed doors, etc.

      But, how many in the population of burglars would fall into Jon's category of a well-funded adversary? Personally, I rely on locks, a monitored alarm system, and advertising that system with signs to scare away the Bruno type of burglar, which is 99%. Even the well-funded adversary would make a better profit going to the unalarmed houses down the block with all the fancy motorcycles, TVs, and game consoles on public display.

      You've heard the joke about the two hikers and the bear? "Why are you tying your shoes?" "I don't need to outrun the bear, just you!"

    31. Re:Seriously, get a dog by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      I added something meaningful to the conversation: I disproved the fact that "everyone wants a new TV". That was his assertion, I said "Hey, no way, there are people that do not want a new TV". If you say "All sheep are white" and the I show you a black one, what does that say you? Yeah, I know, hard to grasp.

      It was a meaningless generalization and a 2003 old TV isn't old. That we're on slashdot and most want a HDTV@1080P, doesn't mean that every slashdotter "wants a new TV".

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    32. Re:Seriously, get a dog by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      This is true. Get a Doberman. They're teddy bears in the presence of their owners ( including children ), demon dogs when the family isn't around.

      A friend of mine had a doberman. One night he came home, and found his doberman resting in the middle of his living room, looking up at him dolefully. Normally she would greet him with licking tongue and wagging tail. My friend walked into the living room, and saw a worn-out perp resting against the wall, VCR next to him. Before the guy could finish the sentence "Call your dog off, man", the doberman had bared fangs in his face.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    33. Re:Seriously, get a dog by dargaud · · Score: 1

      this is a simple cost/benefit analysis Hmmm, I'm pretty sure keeping a dog costs quite a lot more tham having to replace your TV every year !
      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
  19. The cost of good security... by Pollux · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Is paying two to three thousand dollars simply unavoidable if I want to monitor my front and back yards?"

    Yes.

    What do you really want to capture? A video feed of something that looks like it came from an Atari video game, or an actual image of a face that police can use to track the perpetrator? And would you really trust a couple-hundred dollar camera to stand up to outdoor conditions? Security cameras are expensive because the companies that offer them know that clients want SECURITY. And security costs money.

    I wouldn't pay for cameras that expensive, because the value of the property that I have in my apartment doesn't justify the cost. But if you have property that you want to protect, you'll have to determine for yourself whether the cost of the cameras is worth the cost of protecting your property.

    1. Re:The cost of good security... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't pay for cameras that expensive, because the value of the property that I have in my apartment doesn't justify the cost.

      If you did have stuff that justified $3,000 in security spending, I think better locks and a loud alarm would be more useful than video cameras.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
  20. An old Camcorder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've used an old camcorder as a web cam before. Excellent image quality!, auto focus, works ok in low light. Used "Dazzle" to hook up my PC to the old RCA plugs on the camcorder. You can find "Dazzle" products most anywhere. If you have an old camcorder laying around, or a pawn shop nearby, you might give it a try. Building a weatherproof box to put it in might be the hardest part.

  21. Advice from law enforcement by JoeShmoe · · Score: 5, Insightful


    Actually, quality isn't the issue. Angle is.

    What you need to do is ensure that you capture a face shot as close to eye-level as possible, without having the camera obstructed by people walking by.

    The police and FBI don't like to talk about it, but there is a program where if they input a digital photo of someone, even a poor quality one, the computer will compare it against the database of digital photos taken by the Department of Motor Vehicles and spit out the six closest matches.

    These system rely on facial characteristics like eye-nose-mouth ratio, hairlines, etc so as long as the computer can accurately calculate the centers of these areas, it works.

    But when cameras are mounted up on the roof or in a corner as is typical, they are worthless unless the suspect looks right at them.

    Also, you want to think about having a camera just for vehicle traffic on your street or culdesac. A license plate is going to be your best method for apprehension. Sure, the car may be stolen, but if it is recovered then it can lead to your property. And if it happens to be a crime of impulse, you will have a suspect.

    If you were really clever, you could find some way to rig a standard digital camera with a flash similar to a red-light camera. This would be your most inexpensive option but also a dead give-away and not recommended for busy roads. Instead, find the least expensive camera that offers changeable lenses, and then focus them on a spot on the street that you know vehicles must drive through. Add some inexpensive infrared lighting and you should be able to playback a log of all vehicles (suspects and potential witnesses) when there is an incident.

    I think having more inexpensive cameras with decent quality will have a greater chance of success than a couple high-quality ones. Also, don't overlook physical security sensors. Infrared beams and even motion sensors are the best way to deter the crime, instead of relying on catching the criminal.

    I have been on the victim side of countless incidents in my profession and, frankly, you won't get the time of day from law enforcement. If a light turns on, or a camera flashes as someone approaches your vehicle...they will move on. And don't forget if you are worried about your vehicle and not just what's in it...pick up a used Sprint/Nextel phone on eBay and split off power from your car's 12V plug. Hide the phone inside the dash somewhere on continuously. Get the least expensive plan, or just write down the IMEI so that you can later activate the phone by calling Sprint. If the car does get stolen, activate service and add-on the GPS tracking features.

    Cheapest Lojack you will find.

    Good luck.

    -JoeShmoe
    .

    --
    -- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
    1. Re:Advice from law enforcement by mdd4696 · · Score: 1

      The police and FBI don't like to talk about it, but there is a program where if they input a digital photo of someone, even a poor quality one, the computer will compare it against the database of digital photos taken by the Department of Motor Vehicles and spit out the six closest matches.

      These system rely on facial characteristics like eye-nose-mouth ratio, hairlines, etc so as long as the computer can accurately calculate the centers of these areas, it works. The FBI doesn't need to talk about these programs. There are many papers published by the IEEE on face recognition, just search on IEEE Xplore (assuming you're an IEEE member). You are correct in that most algorithms require a straight-on view though.

      I know a student at my school who is working on his Master's degree in Computer Engineering. He's investigating face derotation. That's taking an image of a person's face and manipulating it into a straight-on view.
    2. Re:Advice from law enforcement by Qrlx · · Score: 2, Funny

      These system rely on facial characteristics like eye-nose-mouth ratio

      This system must really excel at catching criminals who don't have a 2:1:1 ratio like the rest of us.

    3. Re:Advice from law enforcement by JoeShmoe · · Score: 1

      Well, what I mean is... most criminals don't seem too worried about video survelliance because they figure, what can they do with just a face? They are much more concerned about leaving prints and physical evidence. Besides, if they have never been booked, they may think there is no way anyone could find them flipping through a book of mug shots.

      But if the general populous became aware that everything the Department of Motor Vehicles is collecting is going right into criminal databases, they would be a lot more careful about hiding from camera, which would lower the chance of successfully apprehending for the "important" crimes.

      -JoeShmoe
      .

      --
      -- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
    4. Re:Advice from law enforcement by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      hmmm. THe funny thing is how much the FBI does these days. They made massive use of 9/11 to really push their ability to spy on criminal AND normal citizens. I am hoping that the dems will continue to go after W after he is gone, but somehow I doubt it. The one nice thing is that at least the house dems have fought against telco immunity for spying that started PRIOR to 9/11.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    5. Re:Advice from law enforcement by testpoint · · Score: 1

      The Discovery Channel used to have a series called, "It Takes a Thief". A former professional thief would break into a house, with the owners permission, and then the program would determine what changes were necessary for theft prevention. One of the best and also simplest devices was a hidden camera at eye height that would take a picture of everyone who stepped on the welcome mat. Most thieves will go to a door first because it is the easiest way in.

  22. How about home owners insurance? by nolife · · Score: 1

    I know you stated you goal is good quality footage to catch a thief but is that really your ultimate goal? I believe preventing theft or to limit the loss from theft would be a better goal.

    Take the standard precautions everyone else takes and get home owners/renters insurance from a reputable company.

    A camera shot of the perp MIGHT help catch him eventually but what are the chances that your stolen stuff is going to be found and in returnable condition after that?
    The odds do not seem to justify the cost and complexity of above average high quality video surveillance to me.

    --
    Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    1. Re:How about home owners insurance? by Kamokazi · · Score: 1

      Rental insurance is very cheap...I pay $190 per year for $45k of coverage.

      --
      As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
  23. Cheap cameras by davmoo · · Score: 1

    I have a pair of AirLink101 AIC-250 wired network cameras monitoring my driveway/garage area and my barn area (I live in the sticks). I've been pleased enough that I intend to acquire two more of them. Normal price is in the $80 range, but Fry's runs them as cheap as $49 at times.

    Their performance in almost darkness sucks, but that's going to be true of almost any camera unless you spend big dollars. Their performance from pre-dawn to post-dusk, however, has been phenomenal for such a cheap camera. However, on the opposite side of the coin, if the perps are very far from the camera, you are not going to get facial-recognition quality from them.

    Mine sit in a second-story window, so by the time someone would break in and mess with them or put a ladder up to the side of the house to spray paint the window, their photo would already be recorded (and saved off-site):-)

    I'd post a link for you to see them in action, but I don't want to see my cameras or home network burst in to flames from being slashdotted.

    I've been using AirLink's own software, which is somewhat limited. But after seeing the link in another reply here, I'm going to go check out ZoneMinder for myself.

    --
    I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
    1. Re:Cheap cameras by RGRistroph · · Score: 1

      I have set up these cameras with zoneminder. It worked. My opinion of the cameras is that they aren't really of sufficient resolution. It might be ok for indoor use, where the lighting would be more constant and the camera would be much closer to the target, for example a server room.

    2. Re:Cheap cameras by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Mine sit in a second-story window, So you'll get some good pictures of the top of the thief's baseball cap. Put your next camera(s) downstairs.
    3. Re:Cheap cameras by davmoo · · Score: 1

      Can't do that...my "barn area" is roughly two acres, and the "garage area" is roughly the same size. To get a decent view, the first floor is too close to the ground.

      "Second story", at least in my house (a typical midwestern country farm house) is not as high as it might sound. People in the driveway are easily identifiable, even when wearing ball caps.

      Besides, while the person starting this topic may have different reasons for his cameras, the purpose of mine is not to identify the subject for the police. The purpose of mine is to tell me (or my neighbors on either side, who also have access to the cams) if I need to get up and get the shotgun or the rifle when I hear the dogs barking. And there is no smiley face emoticon behind that statement because I'm very serious.

      --
      I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
  24. The surveillence is the easy bit by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Unless we're talking murder or some serious crime, you're probably going to have a hard time getting the police interested in investing the resources to try to identify the perp and hunt them down and arrest them.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:The surveillence is the easy bit by ePhil_One · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unless we're talking murder or some serious crime, you're probably going to have a hard time getting the police interested in investing the resources to try to identify the perp and hunt them down and arrest them. One of the reasons is because of the difficulty in gathering evidence. About 90% of bank robbers are caught because banks have good surveillance systems. If you can provide the police decent video/photos of the crime/criminals you have a much better chance of getting them involved. They may recognize the criminal already (you may too, criminals tend not to travel far), and if they go to court the chance of success are very high.
      --
      You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
    2. Re:The surveillence is the easy bit by j-pimp · · Score: 1

      Unless we're talking murder or some serious crime, you're probably going to have a hard time getting the police interested in investing the resources to try to identify the perp and hunt them down and arrest them.

      Well regular thieves eventually get caught, and the police might be able to give the DA a solid case for two robberies not one if they have pictures from a previous one. Also, if you get a license plate number, the police would trace the owner of that. Finally, it might be someone you know.

      --
      --- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
    3. Re:The surveillence is the easy bit by timmarhy · · Score: 1
      Who gives a fuck about the cops? even if they catch him he'll only get a year or 2 at the very most, mostly likely a suspended sentence.

      the real reason for video is to see what the asshole looks like, because 99% of the time they are a local who doesn't live very far away themselves. once you have his picture put up some flyers stating there is a $100 reward for anyone who provides his home address (scum bags roll on each other for very little).

      then you just get some of the boys together and have yourself some old fashioned mob justice.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    4. Re:The surveillence is the easy bit by Kopiok · · Score: 1

      "only" a year or

    5. Re:The surveillence is the easy bit by evanbd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Exactly. I sat on a grand jury a couple years ago and heard numerous burglary indictments. Most of the cases the police clearly weren't terribly interested until the perp happened to hit a place with good surveillance, and then they usually knew who it was immediately and the case went very quickly.

      The county I'm in does grand juries a little oddly -- they have two standing grand juries for all felony indictments (investigatory grand juries are different). You serve one day a month for a year (one jury meets at the start of the month, the other in the middle), and you hear a couple dozen cases each day. So I saw plenty of burglary cases, and the ones that actually came to us tended to have either video surveillance or an ID from a pawn shop. There were some stupid crook stories too (hint: if you're stealing a car, with boat attached, remember to hook up the trailer lights), but mostly the indictments came from video footage accompanied by a comment from the officer that they thought the perp was responsible for several other area breakins but couldn't prove it.

    6. Re:The surveillence is the easy bit by SolidAltar · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I'm not claiming I'm from the streets (this is Slashdot, after all) but a year is a LONG TIME for non-career criminals.

      Imagine if YOU were locked up for a year or two.

    7. Re:The surveillence is the easy bit by tftp · · Score: 1
      a year is a LONG TIME for non-career criminals

      But they have to start somewhere ;-(

    8. Re:The surveillence is the easy bit by iowannaski · · Score: 2, Funny

      There were some stupid crook stories too (hint: if you're stealing a car, with boat attached, remember to hook up the trailer lights)

      You call THAT a stupid crook story? Good grief, get a sense of perspective. I can assure that I am not stupid, but nevertheless, if I was stealing a car with boat attached, I wouldn't think to check that the freaking taillights were plugged in.

      I suppose the crook would have been stupid in your mind if he hadn't checked the tire pressure or oil level of the vehicle he was stealing either.

      Has it occurred to you that some people don't have the time to do a pre-heist 101 point inspection of every vehicle they thieve? Some times you need to take shortcuts in the name of efficiency! Freaking taillights, my ass.

      --
      i forget
    9. Re:The surveillence is the easy bit by QuantumG · · Score: 0

      Most of the cases the police clearly weren't terribly interested until the perp happened to hit a place with good surveillance, and then they usually knew who it was immediately and the case went very quickly. Here's a hint, it had nothing to do with the surveillance system.. it had to do with the cost of a good surveillance system and the kind of people who can afford such things.

      The police are interested in crimes when it happens to rich people because such people have political clout.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    10. Re:The surveillence is the easy bit by evanbd · · Score: 1

      He was the one who attached the trailer, not the owner. Both were sitting in the driveway, with keys in the car -- he'd been breaking into cars all down the street, and got "lucky." So I suppose it's both a stupid crook and a stupid owner story...

    11. Re:The surveillence is the easy bit by evanbd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In general, you're wrong. The people stealing from houses that we heard about got caught either because someone called it in in progress, or because they did a bad job selling the stuff. The video surveillance tended to be at convenience stores in the poor, high-crime parts of town; in one case that I remember, the convenience store installed video cameras after the second breakin, and caught the guy on the third.

      Police aren't interested in investigating burglaries where no one got hurt, be they poor neighborhoods or well to do ones. Perhaps the police take more interest in the truly wealthy, but for the merely well off upper middle class, you've got approximately zero hope that the police will do any real investigative work.

    12. Re:The surveillence is the easy bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Good point.

      If he wasn't a 'career criminal' before, he will be once he gets out and can't get a decent job because of the felony conviction on his record...

    13. Re:The surveillence is the easy bit by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      Unless we're talking murder or some serious crime, you're probably going to have a hard time getting the police interested in investing the resources to try to identify the perp and hunt them down and arrest them.

      True. They are too busy with traffic violations and small quanity drug possession charges.

      Protect and serve, or something like that.

    14. Re:The surveillence is the easy bit by Noexit · · Score: 1

      If he got pulled over for no taillights on the trailer, then he's a stupid criminal. Just like the guys with 200lbs of weed in the trunk that get popped for speeding. RE: Tim McVeigh.

      --

      Never argue with a man carrying a water buffalo

    15. Re:The surveillence is the easy bit by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      The primary value of surveillance lies in the deterrence value. The businesses which employ these methods often make no secret of the fact that they are recording what happens on the premises. Surveillance keeps honest people honest, but it will not stop determined adversaries and the police are likely, as you say, to be uninterested unless people were hurt or the monetary value of the stolen property was very high.

    16. Re:The surveillence is the easy bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The police are interested in crimes when it happens to rich people because such people have political clout. Paranioa and inducement to class warfare aside, I suspect the answer is much simpler than conspiracy theory about political clout.

      Rich people tend to live in wealthier townships. They pay more in taxes, meaning the township has more money to pay for police and other services. People who live is such places tend towards commiting less violent crime, laws and society are "working" for them, so they don't go around taking other people's stuff by force. Larger, better paid police force spends less time investigating murders & violent crime, they have more time to investigate non-violent crime. Plus, they like driving new squad cars w/ modern equipment while being well paid to endure less risk; they are in a better mood when they arrive and they are inclined to keep potential complaints down by being nice to the "customers/residents".

  25. NSLU2 + Any Camera + Unslung + gPhoto == fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should check out what you can do with an NSLU2. It's an extremely fun platform to geek out with.

    1) Get yourself a NSLU2
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833124036

    2) Install Unslung on it.
    http://www.nslu2-linux.org/wiki/Unslung/HomePage

    3) Get gPhoto.
    http://www.gphoto.org/

    4) Here's a walkthrough of how to make it all work.
    http://webuser.fh-furtwangen.de/~dersch/gphoto/remote.html

  26. Good Luck! by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My wife's bicycle was stolen at her work (directly across the street from the police station, with regular police officer foot-traffic in the building). We had fancy cameras and a close-up of the guy's face within an hour of the theft.

    Did it help anything? No...

    The cameras were also in plain sight, and he was especially brazen in how he went about it all.

    Technology won't solve the problem.

    1. Re:Good Luck! by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      The cameras were also in plain sight, and he was especially brazen in how he went about it all.

      The UK currently has one of the most extensive deployments of surveillance cameras in the world. Has it worked for them? From everything I've read, they would have prevented more crimes investing in more officers.

      And the reason is just as you cited - an insignificant number of those cameras are monitored at any given moment, so seeing a crime live is rare. So at most, they're used for evidence after the fact. But in a city of several million, you could have 10k criminals, thugs, lowlifes. Even if you get a nice close up of the face, most of the time you don't recognize him or her, thus the video is effectively useless.

      At most, it moves crime around the corner.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    2. Re:Good Luck! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      I'm thinking about putting at GPS tracker in my bike for that.. I wasn't able to find something payable though.

    3. Re:Good Luck! by kabocox · · Score: 1

      The cameras were also in plain sight, and he was especially brazen in how he went about it all.
      Technology won't solve the problem.


      Police also hate dealing with bike thefts. Did you have SN or identifying marks on the bike to prove that it's yours? Well if not, even if some other police department recovers it, then there isn't anything in NCIC to notify your local police department that yes the bike was recovered and you such and such person can pick it up.

      I don't think "bike thefts" are pretty trivial for those that want to do it to go about it. Unless you have some one actively monitoring the area that knows the bike isn't that guys, then no one would stop the guy. Video is all after the fact and help to put the guy in jail if he is found though.

      On a side note, ask your police department if they've recovered unclaimed bikes and if you could have one of those.

    4. Re:Good Luck! by meatmanek · · Score: 1

      Just because criminals do occasionally get away doesn't mean that surveillance and guards are useless. The more evidence available, the more likely it is that your property will be returned and the criminal will be prosecuted.

  27. Step 1) Get used camera 2) download this software by Bananatree3 · · Score: 5, Informative
    Here is some good software for turning many consumer cameras into a computer controlled camera.

    Steps: 1)Go through the list of cameras on the above site, and select one that has the specs you want (good resolution, zoom, etc.)

    2)Check eBay or find a used one.

    3)setup software and install camera where you want it.

    4)Enjoy cheap but hi-res image security.

    Many of the cameras on the list above go for less than $100 in good used condition, and offer many megapixels and good optical resolution. Many of them also have other features like low light mode, or other things that can be controlled by computer software. Good luck!

  28. Do it cheaply by Yossarian45793 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You can do it cheaply, but don't expect to get any amazing images. I have 4 cameras outside my house recording full motion video 24x7. I spent only about $800 on the hardware ($125 per camera, $50 per video capture board, and $25 for coax cable). I record at 640x480x30fps and I can store about 3.5 days worth of video on an old 120 GB hard drive. I caught a kid breaking into my car at night, but there was no way to identify him, and police didn't want to pursue the case because he only took a few dollars out of my change tray. Even if his face had been clearer on the video I still doubt they would have done anything unless I also gave them a name and address. I believe the police view petty theft under a few thousand dollars as an issue for your insurance. Your best bet is to install motion sensing lights outside your house. They're a lot cheaper than cameras and they have better deterrent value. If you still want cameras, get the lights too because they're much more effective than infrared-LED-based night vision, which have very limitted range. After having these cameras running for more than a year the thing I use them most for is checking whether the UPS man left a package on my front steps.

  29. U need some help from S&W by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a simple four step solution.

    1) Purchase a Smith and Wesson 500. The big one, not the 4" or the 6". Join the 1852 Club while
    you are at it. Ask for stickers.

    2) If you have the cash, purchase another (you have one already right?) large cal rifle. The AnzioIronworks .50 cal or the 20mm is a nice choice.

    3) Place stickers announcing the fact that you own such artillery on your windows. You will need a Class 3 for the 20mm so the ATF will give you a sticker when you get that.

    4) Whenever you have time, clean all of your firearms on your front porch/steps/whatever in plain sight of anyone walking/driving/running down the sidewalk/road. Do this naked, wearing only a shower cap, one slipper (pink bunny is nice) and a leather belt around your neck. Have an axe handy and in plain sight.

    No one, and I mean no one will ever mess with your stuff.

    1. Re:U need some help from S&W by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nice choice of pieces... the only criminals you would have to worry about are those that want to steal your pieces and would take the time to figure out when you are not home...

      The S&W 500 is nice and scary, but I have to admit that it's not much good for anything but scaring someone off. It's big, it's ungainly, and it cost's a fair bit to practice with. And lets face it, the dumbest thing you can do is pull a piece without the intent to fire it, and the skill to make sure it hits. a 7" .357 magnum is more than enough fire power, much cheaper to shoot and revolvers don't generally jam if they are kept clean and fed good ammunition.

      Frankly, a big nasty(sounding/looking) dog is a far better deterrent if you ask me. It doesn't actually have to be mean, but if it barks and looks like it might bite, only somebody who wants something that you specifically have are going to waste their time to figure out that it's just a big suck dog that would only slobber them to death.

  30. Good luck with that by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

    You do realize the cops are going to do the absolute minimum possible even with video evidence? They will come out, maybe watch your tape and file some papers and thats about it. Don't expect CSI to come out and swab for saliva or prints.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Good luck with that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean ex-Strippers don't really become forensics professionals in real life? Godamnit! I bought a feather boa and a sack full of sequins in preparation for my life as a criminal investigator.

    2. Re:Good luck with that by CokeJunky · · Score: 1

      If you have a good facial photo of the perp I suspect that most police forces would at least check and see if it is a person 'known to police'. And then, only if they are bored.

      Let's face it, unless you have lots of money and connections, or something dangerous (i.e. firearms, explosives, DMCA prohibited circumvention tools) were stolen, you are small potatoes to an undoubtedly overworked police force. Unless your stuff turns up at a pawn shop (you have your serial numbers, right?) or is found in a bust related to some other crime, chances are the person will never be caught.

      --
      More Caffeine. NOW
    3. Re:Good luck with that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is the truth - a stolen car was dropped off in front of the house across the street from me - I got the make, model, color, and license number of the getaway car and detailed descriptions of the 3 wetback perps who took off after stealing the radio and some engine parts - the cops didn't even talk to me, or make any effort to "get the bad guys" - they just showed up 3 hours later with a tow truck from a local gas station, and grudgingly removed the car; I guess we were lucky they did that much...
      (how do I know it was grudgingly? I have a scanner)

  31. Don't Live in a Crappy Neighborhood? by morari · · Score: 2, Funny

    Or better yet, don't live in the city at all! Don't park on the street, use your driveway or garage. People that park on the street simply take up space on the street and often essentially turn it into one lane for those of us who are driving. Also, buy a nice big handgun and wear it strapped under your shoulder while out cutting the grass and such. Make it known, because no one is going to assess the risk factor in that and still proceed with robbing you.

    --
    "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
  32. From a Professional Security Installer.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Part of the issue you will face is that yes, a good security camera will cost several hundred dollars each.... that said, professional systems are not particularly difficult to install yourself.

    Couple tips:

    1) Avoid network cameras, the Cat-5 medium is not as noise free as other methods, and the circuitry involved to convert it to a digital/network capable camera adds cost... I recommend using RG-59 grade coaxial cable and any 18guage-2conductor wire for power. Get a moderate DVR, or better yet use one of the PCI-card kits and an old PC to save more. 4 Camera cards can be had for around $160.

    2) Consider the benefits of good nightvision. Examine cameras with IR LED's, they will provide some of the better night-vision capabilities, however viewing range is limited outside the IR's angle. That said, Speco sells a line of cameras called the "Intensifier" that has some of the best night vision I've seen. We use many of these in some very high-profile homes (let's just say as far as world's wealthiest goes, we're in the top 10). The Chameleon indoor/outdoor model can be had for under $400 each.

    3)It's not about quantity vs quality, it's about paths and coverage. Our general camera strategy is to have a couple cameras for general coverage, and a couple cameras in major pathways, close-up, for good ID. So you know who it was, and what they did.

  33. That is just what he's looking for. by twitter · · Score: 1, Informative

    Multiple cheap cameras are better than fewer fancy cameras. What you want is enough cameras to cover the area well enough to get that picture. Two cheap cameras will cover twice the area one expensive camera does all the time. Pan and tilt is useless unless you want to hire people to sit on it all day and even then you don't get as much coverage as three or four cameras would give you. You want to have one camera with a close up for each door to get face shots and a few wide angle cameras to record all the dirty deeds done. Five or six cameras should be more than enough for the average small business or home.

    With Zone Minder you can scrape together a good system for a few hundred bucks. Good quality analog cameras are tiny and can be bought for about $40 each. Both BTTV and V4Linux are stable interfaces with lots of good hardware support. BTTV capture cards are cheap and accept analog inputs that give good enough resolution. All of this can be piped back to an old PC that has five or six PCI slots free. You can add more PCs as the size of your house or business increases. This is equivalent to the professional systems you see in grocery stores but less hackable because you can run it on a good OS like GNU/Linux.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  34. Re:But how to monitor the surveillance cameras ... by Digestromath · · Score: 2, Funny
    I've solved this recursive camera protecting camera issue. I've rigged all my camera sites with low cost, high efficiency, surplus claymore mines. Most burglars aren't to familiar with tripwires or explosive ordinance disposal. It's very effective!

  35. decoy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about a decoy - a cheap camera or a realistic mockup?

  36. Video Surveillence Options by Mr.Ziggy · · Score: 1

    I've been working on a couple of video projects and have gotten input from the local police as well. Here's what I can tell you:

    There are two types of surveillance: Monitored and unmonitored. You can get away with lower quality if you have someone monitoring the cameras live (because you can go out and deal with the problem). You need higher quality if you're unmonitored.

    In your case, you need to record with motion detection (less HD space, and it's easier to watch later). And you need high enough quality to have a clear face shot if you want to be able to follow up with law enforcement/neighbors to try and identify a suspect.

    There's really no way around spending $500-1000 per camera if you want real quality. Otherwise, you'll end up grainy video that neither you nor the police will have any use for. For petty theft/vandalism, the police will take your video 'as-is'. Many larger departments have methods of enhancing the video, but that's only done in more serious murder/felony type cases.

    Here's what we're using and what we've tried:

    Cameras: Axis Power over Ethernet cameras. You NEED PoE (unless you're doing something goofy with cheap USB cameras). You'll save time, money, and hassles with PoE because the ethernet cabling is easy and familiar. I've liked the nicer Panasonic cameras.

    Switches: We're using Netgear PoE switches, and often they have decent rebates. I have maybe 12 PoE devices attached to the 24-port PoE switch now.

    Software: Axis comes with FREE software for their camera, but the downfall is the free license only covers ONE camera. Just because you buy two cameras doesn't mean you can record two devices on one computer. I supposed you could do some kind of VM thing to get around it. Or you could have your system just use FTP to get the images off the camera...

    We're using ONSSI's software now. Downside: .Net 2.0 based server software and viewer. Expensive Upside: Good documentation and works.

  37. Question: by WiglyWorm · · Score: 1

    Why do you need a megapixel security camera?

    I've never seen a store front that had much more than vga resolution cameras, and police track down people who rob a store all the time. You can pick up a wireless vga resolution color camera with night visionfor a couple hundred bucks from radio shack. Get a couple of those and a multi-input video capture card. Slap a couple large hard drives in to any halfway modern PC, and there you go.

    Now just make sure you hide the PC so your evidence doesn't get stolen when your house is broken in to.

  38. Will the police do anything? by dr_dank · · Score: 1

    Even if you do manage to get a picture of someone in the act, I doubt that the police are going to put out an APB with the snapshot that your system took. At best, if you know who is doing this in your neighborhood, you can help build a case against them. If it isn't, they're not going to play CSI with the pics from your security system and will focus on violent crimes and/or revenue-producing law enforcement opportunities.

    On the plus side, the presence of such a system could scare off the less motivated crooks. YMMV.

    --
    Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    1. Re:Will the police do anything? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      It sounds like the real problem isn't people breaking into homes, but a shitty police force not doing their jobs.

  39. Chain of Custody by Steauengeglase · · Score: 1

    First off I'm not a lawyer, but I was wondering the same thing a month or so ago. I asked around to a few cops and a friend who had been researching forensics. My big question was that it seemed to make more sense to keep any recording off site in case the thief though of stealing my PC, so should I? It seems that there was the question of the Cain of Custody. In the end it boiled down to the further away, the more work law enforcement has to do to get the evidence and the less likely they will ever bother looking into it. The general consensus was either to hide the machine that you are saving information on or just bolt the thing to the ground.

  40. Use eBay Camcorders! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can pick up cheap "HD" camcorders off of ebay, they are usually 720p, but still work well. Then just run the video-out to a multichannel video capture card.

    I am sure there is software out there, open source even, that will let you have a multichannel video security system, with recording, and motion detection etc...

    This would be the cheapest way I can think of, unless you use a bunch of webcam's. :)

    1. Re:Use eBay Camcorders! by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      They're usually nicked from the person who brought them off ebay the last time.

  41. Use Motion for indoor webcam surveillance by kauos · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I used to use Motion. I had it setup for surveillance of my home office. It used just a plain USB webcam, and would only record when it detected movement. I managed to configure it to turn on when my screensaver turned on, and turn off when I logged back into the computer. If it detected movement, it would email the resulting video to a gmail account. Worked really well, except that it burnt out two Logitech Quickcam Pro 4000's (I don't think they like being left on for long periods of time). Haven't really found a good webcam for linux since so I never set it back up again (not that I looked that hard). If anybody has a recommendation for a good linux webcam that has a reasonably wide angle lens and decent low light response then please share.

  42. Prevention is better than prosecution... by aXis100 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Forget the cameras. Put in an alarm system with lots of PIR's (I have them in every room that has valuables), and make the internal siren(s) loud enough to make your ears bleed. Same with the car - put a 120dB siren (or two) on the inside.

    Unfortunately sirens and strobes on the outside get ignored by the general public, and the cops dont care about the petty crime as much as you would like. When the internal sirens are so loud you nearly vomit, the crooks will leave prematurely and unsuccessful.

    1. Re:Prevention is better than prosecution... by DigitalWallaby · · Score: 1

      ...and the cops dont care about crime as much as collecting fines.
      There. Fixed that for you.
    2. Re:Prevention is better than prosecution... by Lord+Prox · · Score: 3, Funny

      the crooks will leave prematurely and unsuccessful.

      uhhhhh, could you call that Kleptus Interruptus?

    3. Re:Prevention is better than prosecution... by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      I have an airhorn. Basically it's an air-raid siren type thing. Hella loud. Painfully so, in fact. I have to evacuate the house on its annual test.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    4. Re:Prevention is better than prosecution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, works real well until you accidentally set it off and make yourself deaf for life. You won't even be able to turn it off yourself.

    5. Re:Prevention is better than prosecution... by John+Jorsett · · Score: 1
      When the internal sirens are so loud you nearly vomit, the crooks will leave prematurely and unsuccessful.

      And it'll take care of those unwanted pets, too.

  43. I'm familiar with this dilemma by adric22 · · Score: 1

    I went through the same dilemma a year ago.

    First of all, I should point out something. I've been told by numerous people that the police are not interested in your video footage unless somebody was killed or kidnapped. That is, unless you have a license plate, or you personally recognize the person. That is because there is no way to identify the people short of putting it on CNN.

    Eventually I settled on analog security cameras. I discovered that if you are dealing with standard-def cameras, a good analog camera can produce the same or better image than an Axis only at a quarter of the cost. Now, if you want those license plate numbers, you'll need megapixel resolution and a hefty server. Currently, I have a small 1.0 Ghz computer in the closet with an analog capture board recording 3 cameras at 640x480. My total cost was about $250. it has worked flawlessly for a year now.

  44. Not so easy and very bad. by twitter · · Score: 0, Informative

    The problem with domestic spying is that it will only be used against you. The FBI does not involve itself in cases involving a large amount of loss (either $50,000 or $500,000 I can't remember right now). The other problem is that they won't tell you they are taking the pictures in the first place until they get a search warrant and turn your life upside down. You don't want to be on a watch list and you should be outraged that your government is once again infiltrating and monitoring religious groups.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:Not so easy and very bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Religious" groups which incite hatred and violence as core doctrine, leaving peace and goodwill to the fringe movements?

  45. The Axis 207MW is nowhere near $1,000 by phaln · · Score: 1

    An Axis 207MW (megapixel camera) can be had on eBay for less than $350. I picked a used one up from there for about $290 back in February.

    --
    SNACKS ARE AWESOME
  46. X-10 makes a cheap ready to plug and play solution by BillandTed · · Score: 1

    Sure it's not great quality but you can by more and place them closer (and at eye level). Decent enough image to gain a conviction if thats what you're after. My setup ran me a couple hundred three or four years ago. Even have a of couple of night vision type solutions. As they are most often a wireless solution a tech savvy thief can jam them - but if they are that motivated you've got more serious issues... available on Ebay or direct from the distributor X10.com

  47. Depends on what your definition of 'is' is. by lateralus_1024 · · Score: 1

    My current solution is definitely a great value, however it is only if/once the sorority finds out that i will find out what 'cheap' really is.

    --
    If you think /. comments are bad, check out Digg.
  48. Sorry, wrong URL by hdon · · Score: 3, Informative

    I meant to give this URL for the "open source firmware" link. I must have messed it up somehow:

    http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK_in_Brief

  49. How about a fake dog by EEPROMS · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was listening to a radio interview with a professional house theif. When the said thief was asked what was the best deterant the reply was "a small dog as they are next to impossible to catch or bribe". After hearing this news the mental gears started whirring and I created a fake YAPPING dog security system. Its very simple with a IR motion sensor on the back and front entrance hooked into a MP3 player and a small PC speaker system. The hard part was finding a good yapping dog recording until I asked someone at the park if I could record her dog barking and she was happy to oblige once I explained why. Another trick is to have multiple varying MP3 files and make sure the MP3 player is set to shuffle so it sounds more realistic.

    1. Re:How about a fake dog by spinninggears · · Score: 1

      If you like the fake dog idea, I recommend a recording of the ear splitting siren like howl of a Cocker Spaniel. It is a noise that will wake the dead, and they only make it when panicked, like the approach of a stranger.

    2. Re:How about a fake dog by tresho · · Score: 1

      Great idea. Years ago X10 used to sell a package that did the same thing. This was before MP3s. I believe they used a digital dog recorded on an EPROM. An IR motion sensor sent a radio signal to an X10 receiver, which triggered a minute of dog barking. Eventually the sound generator died & I haven't been able to replace it. X10 no longer sells it. It was also handy to tell us when the mail carrier came by. You could make it more menacing by putting speakers in different parts of the house & moving the sound around, &/or using more than one kind of dog. Now if people would record a few hundred MP3's of barking dogs & post them somewhere on the internet.....

    3. Re:How about a fake dog by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 2, Funny

      I remember a story from a few years ago about a survey of criminals that showed the two things they most fear are dogs and AIDS. Therefore the best deterrent was putting up a sign that says, "Warning: Dog has AIDS." :D

    4. Re:How about a fake dog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead of a bark, I bet that playing the sound of a shotgun pumping once would get a tense burglar to leave pretty quick.

    5. Re:How about a fake dog by dave420 · · Score: 1

      And also make sure you clear out the MP3 player first. The burglar might get suspicious when the yapping dog starts to serenade him with a perfect rendition of Moon River...

    6. Re:How about a fake dog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A neighbor has some commercial product which does a similar 'playback recorded barking' only it is NOT random and SOUNDS LIKE A RECORDING. It is nearly more annoying than a real dog. Especially since the recording goes off all the time. A dog may have the sense to not bark at the regular traffic, but this thing goes off for its owner!

    7. Re:How about a fake dog by weicco · · Score: 1

      Small dogs? We have two large dogs. You most definetely don't catch them either. They catch you, hard. I wouldn't change them for a small dog since small dogs don't usually rip your arms off :)

      --
      You don't know what you don't know.
    8. Re:How about a fake dog by MrNiceguy_KS · · Score: 1

      Just imagine the fun of Rickrolling a burglar!

      --
      Redundancy is good And also good.
    9. Re:How about a fake dog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They catch you, hard.

      Of course they do. You think the guy who's breaking into your house to steal your stuff is going to have any problem with shooting your dogs? Big dogs just make bigger targets.

  50. The Camera by PenGun · · Score: 1

    The software is free, "motion" for one, but the resolution costs. If you want license numbers you have to pony up the $s, unless you put a cheap cam right where the car will stop, about 8 feet away. Otherwise you need good cameras. I have never found the need but I live in the country where we kind of know everyone.

  51. How about insurance? by aiken_d · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I spend $150/year to insure $30k worth of electronics from theft. Are you really going to find a better cost/benefit solution?

    --
    If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
    1. Re:How about insurance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on how many times you get robbed ;)

      4 times in a year and I'ld say you have a piss-poor chance of maintaining that 150$ a year payment ;)

      Just let me know where to send the thank you note for the 120K in gear gratis ;)

      e.g. insurance is shite - its never there when you need it ;) witness Katrina and how quick they
      were to distinguish between flood damage and storm damage.

    2. Re:How about insurance? by adolf · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Sure.

      Speaking as a flood victim (not Katrina, but I did experience 7 floods in the past year) who just spent a huge sum of money (which I do not have) to get the fuck away from water, let me just say that NO homeowners policy in the US covers floods. It is plain in the verbiage of the policy. If you don't believe me, go have a look at your own insurance declarations.

      Also, speaking as a practical person with an engineering mindset: living below or near sea level, right next to an ocean which is prone to hurricanes. without flood insurance is fucking stupid.

      That said: Floods have exactly nothing to do with burglaries.

      And so, insurance is cheap. It really does tend to pay for itself if/when you are stolen from, as long as you have reasonable documentation to show your loss. And unlike cameras, attack dogs (real or virtual), and shotguns, insurance will generally go a long way toward replacing your stuff. Cameras can be foiled (wear a mask, or just a low-brimmed cap), dogs can be easily bribed/killed, and shotgun-wielding home owners can be disarmed. Insurance helps picks up this slack.

    3. Re:How about insurance? by Surt · · Score: 1

      Do you find that effective at deterring thefts, which in an unfortunate situation could escalate to including your (or a family member's) death? Or does that just restock your supply for a return visit? What's the cost effectiveness of not dying by not providing an all you can eat buffet of electronics?

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    4. Re:How about insurance? by dave562 · · Score: 1

      In this day and age any reasonable person should factor the cost of insurance into any purchase. It seems to me like hardly a year goes by when I don't hear a story about some friend of a friend getting their car stereo stolen. When I ask about the insurance the answer is always the same, "No, it wasn't insured." It's crazy to resort to violence to protect property. Just purchase the insurance and let someone else deal with the theft.

    5. Re:How about insurance? by Surt · · Score: 1

      That kind of answers the opposite side of my argument. You can't 'let someone else deal with the theft' if you are killed during the theft because you accidentally surprised the thief who thought you weren't home. Getting a video surveillance system / alarm system / dog is all about reducing the likelihood the thief will choose your property and thereby reduce the chance of loss of life. Dealing with the financial cost of a theft is trivial by comparison. Get insurance if you want to reduce the risk of financial loss. Get protection if you want to reduce the risk of life loss.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    6. Re:How about insurance? by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      What about the notorious X10 company.

      http://www.x10.com/homepage.htm

  52. Still pix by markdavis · · Score: 1

    I know what you mean. I would rather have a 3 or 4 MP image, 1 frame per second, than 30 FPS of crap. I am not sure why nobody has made a network enabled "still" camera yet with built in motion detection. I would think there would be a good market for it.

    My dream device would be a 4 MP camera with very good low-light, built in motion detection, web control, weather resistant, POE (injector included), and the ability to scp the pictures (push) to any machine, 1 FPS, for under $300 or so. It should be possible now.

    Oh well, I will keep dreaming!

  53. Inspiration from Half-Life by Adam+Schumacher · · Score: 1

    Ever since playing through Half-Life 2, I've wanted to implement the automatic security cameras they have in the game.

    The idea is to set up a pan & tilt camara mount, with a high-quality flash camera co-axial with a low-light/IR webcam. The webcam is plugged into motion/feature recognition software, and controls the pan/tilt, keeping the largest moving object in the middle of the frame. Once a certain threshold for size/movement is reached, a buzzer and red light activate, and the camera takes 3 or 4 flash pictures in rapid succession.

    Anyone who's played HL2 can attest to the strong sense of Big Brother that these cameras evoke. Not to mention the fact that it would produce superior images, as it would wait until the target is sufficiently large in the frame, and the light/buzzer should cause the target to reflexively look towards the camera to investigate.

    Thoughts? It's not so much a practical solution to the original stated problem, but maybe a fun project for someone with more mechanical skill and free time than I have...

    1. Re:Inspiration from Half-Life by Nazlfrag · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a camera worth stealing.

    2. Re:Inspiration from Half-Life by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      This actually sounds pretty easy. They already have motion tracking camera software. All you need to add is an ultrasonic sensor, and have a camera with a flash. You might need a pair of cameras depending on how smart the camera is; one for aiming, one for taking high quality pictures.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  54. Maybe you should move... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe you should move to somewhere there is less crime. Given that you've chosen to live in a high crime area, it's likely that you did so because it was cheaper and probably don't have anything of value to protect.

  55. My $500 video system caught 3 thieves in 4 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Here's what works great for me - total cost, about $500. I live in a fairly-grotty neighborhood in Oakland, not far from Nina Reiser's former home.

        One cheap color video camera, aimed out the window on my front door. The camera cost $40 on eBay and is wired directly to my DVR. It sees my front stairs, the sidewalk, and street in front of my house.

        One modestly cheap color video camera with IR Leds (about $60 on eBay). Hardwired to the DVR. This is on the driveway of my house, pointing towards the street. Its far coverge is similar to the front door.

        Neither video camera has Pan/Tilt/Zoom ... I manually aim 'em. Rarely have I wished them to be changed.

        A 4 Channel Security Video Recorder - records mpeg4. About $250 on eBay. I only use 2 of the 4 channels. A 100Gbyte IDE disk drive adds another $60 to the total.

        Cheap car-headrest style 5 inch LCD/TFT monitor, which is set next to my computer monitor.

        Wire & connectors to connect everything (to my surprise, cheap CAT-3 cable works fine, even though it isn't shielded!)

        An infrared doorbell which chimes whenever someone walks up the drive. When it sounds, I glance at the monitor to see who's there.

        The recorder saves a week's worth of imagery. It's a bit of a pain to scan to what I want to see (the DVR software is horrible).

        Over the past three years, this setup has:
      - Caught one postal thief! The guy came up on my porch and tried to steal two boxes. I caught him in the act, and he ran away, dropping my two boxes along the way. Thanks to the video, the US Postal Inspectors successfully prosecuted him for mail theft. The guy lived in the suburbs and trolled the city looking for mail to steal.

      - Caught a purse-snatcher! The SOB chased after a woman on a cell phone; she fought back and held onto her purse. The guy ran away, but I gave the video to the police, who eventually tracked the guy down.

      - Stopped a guy from stealing my neighbor's tire (I glanced at the monitor and saw someone removing a tire ... I chased him away. He left his wrench behind)

      - Saved me innumerable trips to the front door, to deal with Jehovah's Witnesses, salespeople, and other such annoyances.

  56. Anonymous Coward. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    check out logitech wilife

  57. Elphel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Elphel cameras aren't much less expensive that $1000... but they are 5 mpix color network attached cameras with fully open source/free software hardware and software.. They are really very good.

  58. I hope not by Silentlaw · · Score: 1

    The cheaper this equipment gets, the more places the goverment will be watching. I think there's a big enough problem with CCTV as is, especially in Britain. I suppose the cost decline will eventualy result in ubiquity anyway, but I'm hoping it takes a while.

    1. Re:I hope not by kjs3 · · Score: 1

      You have the economics backwards...the cameras will get cheaper because of the number of places governments are watching. Governments aren't known to be particularly price sensitive consumers.

  59. Cheap security by JWSmythe · · Score: 1


        Not to sound like a ass, but....

        You could do this with a camcorders, and any of dozens of webcam apps. As long as they archive the footage, you're ok. Some of the programs will record video if there's movement.

        I had a nice Windows app, but I can't seem to find it right now. Just search for "webcam", and try some out.

        For the camcorders themselves, hit eBay or your local pawn shop. Get a resolution that's satisfactory to you.

        For the capture device, get a BT8x8 chipset card. I'm not even going to attempt to suggest which one, since they're all pretty much the same, except for the price tag. You should be able to get one pretty cheap.

        That'd give you a base. Now it's up to you to expand from there. Maybe a better capture card would do better for you.

        I know most people are going to frown upon me posting a Windows solution. Usually I would too. There are far more Windows webcam apps that work, than for the *nix crowd. I don't like Windows, but when I was looking in the past, this is what I found, and I had been determined to use my Linux machine. There's no one to fault but the developers who aren't writing for Linux.

        We (my ex-employer) had a site set up that "streamed" video with Webcam32. Ya, it was FTP, frame by frame, but the javascript gave the illusion of motion. This was a long time ago, and basically that's all we did. Commodity cameras (cheapest Sony handycam from Walmart). Commodity cards (any BT8x8 chipset card), and a crappy Windows PC, so they could use it as a workstation also.

        Someone shot out the windows of a friend's store. The police took a report and abandon it. He asked me to have a look at the "video". It was basically a PC with 4 cameras attached. The resolution was too rough to read the license plate of the shooter's vehicle, or even give a definite make and model. It took me hours to go through and find the right place on the "video". When I did, we were able to make out that it was a white pickup truck, with blue neon lights underneath, and something written in white on the back window.

        The store employees recognized that as possibly being one guy, except they weren't sure about the lights. We went to his house that night, and shot video under the truck showing the lights. I compiled the "video" from the security system, and made a data disk of the whole thing.

        The police made an arrest the next day. With what we provided, they got a search warrant, and found the same caliber handgun under his driver seat as the bullets in the wall. He immediately confessed, and admitted to doing it to 3 other businesses that night too. Apparently ours was the only "evidence". Although I volunteered to testify in court about how I compiled the data, because of his confession there was no trial.

        I'd recommend the system you're looking to build, versus the "professional" system. At least you can tune it up as needed. Their system was a fixed configuration, so we were really stuck. The interface was painful at best. It would lock up, get confused to where I was looking, drop to other cameras, etc, etc, etc. I didn't have access to just look at the filesystem, and since we were looking at evidence, I didn't want to rip it apart and try to mount it's drives in another machine.

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  60. Axis 207MW by ptbarnett · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I stumbled across a webcam in my neighborhood on Weather Underground, and was impressed by the image quality: an Axis 207MW, up to 1280x1024 at 12 fps.

    It supports both WiFi (WPA2-PSK, if you want it) and 100BT. There's no IR illuminator, but they claim 2 LUX sensitivity. You can find them on the 'Net for about $400.00.

    1. Re:Axis 207MW by ozmanjusri · · Score: 2, Interesting
      an Axis 207MW [axis.com], up to 1280x1024 at 12 fps.

      I have one of those too. Axis cameras are good for the price. I also use Linksys WVC200s, which are good pan/tilt/zoom cameras for around AU$350. A real cheapie is XNET's NTC101W Wireless IPCamera for around AU$200. The XNETs are low quality, but good for motion detection, which is then used to trigger the Axis.

      I mainly use Motion on the software side, along with a couple of shell scripts. At the moment, it's all custom stuff, and my personal setup runs on a MythTV/Samba fileserving box. I've been looking at putting it all together in a live CD distro if I get time.

      Not counting the Linux box, which is doing multiple duty, I put together a pretty good home security package for less than AU$1500, most of which was the Axis (at AU$600).

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  61. Re:I use a simulated video camera... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You were moderated down for telling the truth about the racial disparity of crime statistics of which blacks are overrepresented, by a factor of 8 or more for some crimes, including robbery and theft.

  62. Very cheap & good option by heretic108 · · Score: 1

    Hi,

    Every so often on the auction sites, you'll find good quality late-ish model DV cameras pop up which have a damaged tape transport (or otherwise need servicing exceeding the sale value), but where the CCDs work fine, and they can pipe a perfectly good DV feed out the IEEE1394 port. For example, I scored a Panasonic NV-GS35 for $35.

    This, plus an older CPU box stacked with 1 or 2 multi-port firewire PCI cards (also very cheap now), and a bit of scripting, and you've got your solution for probably less than $150 total.

    The only limitation is the maximum length of IEEE1394 cables. If you need several cameras placed more than a few metres apart, you'll need extra CPUs to capture the DV feeds and stick them out onto ethernet. But even so, it's way better than paying four figures per camera.

    The slimline CPU boxen are getting so cheap, often companies are tossing 2GHz slimlines out into their dumpsters.

    --
    -- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
  63. Dogs and cams by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 1

    I moved into a mixed neighborhood, and made sure to be seen filming miscreants playing midnight b-ball - and got myself a wolf-husky mix.

    The midnight b-ball is over and done with, and my outside sun deck remains theft free despite easily accessible yard work items.

    Be active in calling the police (neighborhood watch) make sure they know you are watching (film with cam) and get a dog that won't put up with nonsense.

    A Remington 870 works great if someone is dumb enough to mess with the pup, the "click clack" of it being wracked just somehow grabs you by the balls when it comes to the fear response...

    --
    _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    1. Re:Dogs and cams by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

      I 3 my 870 Super Mag =)

    2. Re:Dogs and cams by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Or just move out of whatever early-90s gangsta cliché movie set you managed to find yourself in.

  64. steel door, bars, dog, cameras, safe, and gun by suck_burners_rice · · Score: 2, Informative

    Take the suggestions that others gave here: Steel core door, dog(s), cheap cameras, heck I didn't see this one but putting bars on the windows is very helpful. And then you should do two additional things: One, get a large, heavy safe that can be bolted to the floor with concrete being poured into the base per the safe's instructions to make it an unmovable object, and keep your most valuable things locked inside; Two, get yourself a gun and know how to use it. I'm not kidding on this one. Many gun control activists believe that the police should be the ones wielding weapons, but having a gun yourself and knowing how to use it will give you the ability to defend yourself during the two hours between the time you call the police and the time they arrive.

    --
    McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
    1. Re:steel door, bars, dog, cameras, safe, and gun by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Sorry to ask this, but do you live in the US or Baghdad?

    2. Re:steel door, bars, dog, cameras, safe, and gun by Big_Breaker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      He is probably from the US. It helps to understand that the US has many areas that are not dense enough to support a significant police presence. The police will take twenty minutes to mount a response. Historically the majority of the country was this way.

      Because of this the US has a tradition of firearm ownership for protection of the "homestead" that is respected and maintained even as larger areas are urbanized and existing urban areas become more violent. Honestly, the police in many areas probably expect you to fend for yourself for those first twenty minutes. They get involved after the fact if at all. In high crime areas, a burglary like this will not receive any significant attention.

      Europe and the UK are just not set up this way. They have a history of feudal governments that actively disarmed the population, much higher population densities and a post-war inclination towards pacifism. Different strokes for different folks. A common deterent in the US is a sign on the lawn or door that reads, "Protected by Smith and Wesson", a firearms maker, if you don't know.

    3. Re:steel door, bars, dog, cameras, safe, and gun by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it make more sense for folks to actively try to make their police forces better? Wouldn't most folks rather have a well-trained, professional police force they can trust, rather than constantly having to be "on duty" themselves? It just strikes me as weird that people actually want to put up with that. I'd rather have the freedom to not have to be my own police force and get on with my own life, as opposed to arming myself and being scared of every knock at the front door. I'm not criticising the US's 2nd amendment stuff, I just think it trades one sort of freedom for another, in a way that's detrimental to actually living, as opposed to feeling "free".

    4. Re:steel door, bars, dog, cameras, safe, and gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, I've been reading Slashdot for a very, very long time. I've read thousands upon thousands of comments over the years but I've never felt the need to reply until now.

      I'm going to assume you are from a country outside of the US, because I've never seen such an interesting reply on this subject. I thought I might try to shed a little light.

      In regards to your first question regarding having a better police force, I can sort of answer your question by re-wording the question itself. What you're really asking seems to be "wouldn't you rather trust someone else to defend your life, instead of being responsible for yourself?". Would you agree? I mean, I guess some people are just pacifists by nature or are incapable of defending themselves; however I find it really hard to understand the desire to entrust your LIFE in someone else's hands. It just defies logic. If it doesn't defy logic for you, would you care to explain your perspective? I am honestly, truly curious.

      You know, it's very intriguing to me what you mention about being armed and being scared of every knock at your front door. I personally think the opposite is true. Being armed, I'm NOT scared by bumps in the night. Actually, that was my whole motivation in the first place. You see, I never even owned a firearm up until about 2 years ago. What was my motivation? I bought a house on my own. At some point in time, the thought came up - what would happen if someone decided to break a window/kick down the door/pick the locks/whatever in the middle of the night? This feeling only grew when my fiance moved in with me. What if someone followed her home one day with the intent of raping her? What would I do? The answer was: not much. Call 911? What a joke. I live in a heavily populated suburban area where the police response time is only 4-5 mins. 4-5 mins, sure - plenty of time for me and my family to be killed. The police would arrive in plenty of time to ID the corpses and make their report.

      The reality of this sunk in and I eventually got my training and purchased some fine firearms. Now, I don't fear bumps in the night, knocks on the door, or anything of the sort. I can't imagine how anyone could feel safe, knowing that you could do nothing to protect yourself in a bad situation. It's not like any part of the world is some utopia where crime doesn't happen. It happens everywhere. Believe me, I'm not some paranoid freak, I know the chances of something bad happening to me are incredibly small (especially where I live, where the crimerate is basically zero). To me, it's not a matter of chances, it's a matter of the stakes. That's why I have a fire extinguisher in my house (2 actually), I wear my seatbelt, have insurance on my house/car/life, etc etc etc.. It's not because I'm afraid, but I recognize the possibilities in life and equip myself appropriately to keep my family and property safe. Simple as that.

      I realize this is getting really long so I'll try to cut it off. I guess it's just hard for me to understand the mindset you speak of. You talk about "feeling free" for example, I would rather BE free and BE safe than to falsely feel that way. Just seems logical.

      I hope this helps your understand my mindset (probably shared by a lot of people who are armed). It sounds like you probably don't know anyone that owns firearms and probably have developed an understandably ignorant picture of what it is like. Believe me, it's not even close to what you think it is.

  65. DV Cam by Steamhead · · Score: 1

    Cheap DV Cams run for about 500CAD now a days.

    On Mac OS X you can easily program a device that would record using the following Objective C class.

    http://developer.apple.com/documentation/QuickTime/Reference/QTCaptureLayer/Introduction/Introduction.html

    Of course if you were using a different operating system it would be different, but it is the same idea.

  66. Re:Step 1) Get used camera 2) download this softwa by RGRistroph · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I tried to do this (using a Nikon Coolpix 4500 and gphoto). One thing I noticed is that there would be a long pause, and occasionally "usb bus resetting" messages, before the camera took a picture. This pause can be longer that 30 seconds and made it useless in my opinion, given how I wanted to trigger it.

    However, I noticed that the same camera would also pause as long as 10 seconds when triggered manually from the button. I will have to go through the menus and see if there is something I can do to fix that.

    Specifically, for USB controlled consumer type cameras, is there one that works well and reliably from gphoto ?

  67. To catch a thief... by statemachine · · Score: 1

    It Takes a Thief

    You really need to watch that show.

    Common mistakes:
    1) My dog will deter intruders, guard the house.
    No. You likely have a doggy door that the thief will use, and the (most times, happy) dog will not bother the burglar.

    2) Not locking all the doors and windows.
    Duh.

    3) Not having an alarm system (or one that isn't monitored).
    Your neighbor isn't your security system. Burglars pass up houses with security signs. And if a burglar breaks a window and tries to get in, the alarm will go off and the burglar will scurry away.

    4) Not having a safe. Or it's unlocked. Or the key is in the dresser drawer. Or it's not bolted down.

    5) Leaving keys all over the place for a burglar to quickly grab.
    Use a key holder box that locks with a combination.

    Of all these things, a modern, monitored alarm system is the most important. The show infrequently installs camera systems. And from my own personal experience, cameras are easily defeated. Also, take this into account: if there isn't an alarm, and the burglar cleans your house, why wouldn't he just take your recording equipment too?

    For autos, boats, and motorcycles, I've seen the show install GPS trackers with kill switches that alarm (and send a signal) if the vehicle is moved more than 30 feet.

    Start with the basics, then worry about security cameras.

    Finally, if you live someplace where you're not allowed to install an alarm system, move.

  68. Rental Insurance is a good idea, but... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    I think rental insurance is definitely a good idea, however it's never going to reimburse you 100%. There's deductibles, unique items, data on your HDs and such. That antique picture. Family photographs*. The jewelry from your grandmother.

    If it's worth $2 at a pawn shop, some thieves will steal it.

    So, first priority would be to prevent the incident
    Second would be catching the thief in the act
    Third would be detection, catching and recovery after the fact.
    Last would be calling the insurance company.

    *While a thief might not steal them, he may damage them during the robbery.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  69. case clearance rates by ridgecritter · · Score: 1

    count - if your imaging leads to an arrest, the cops and the DA are happy. Give them a good, sharp image of the perps, and they'll maybe put more effort into it than for a blurry mess.

  70. unless it's close, you want zoom by koko · · Score: 0

    Unless your target area is close, like 10 to 15 feet, you want zoom. Only optical zoom matters. The field of view narrows a lot is the downside, but if you want to see a face and not a dozen or so pixels, that's what you'll have to do. Megapixel (1280x720, say) doesn't do much since those usually just give a wider field of view, so a face is still only a dozen or so pixels across.

    I can read a license plate at 300 yards with a good zoom (and good optics overall), and you can get caneras with those under $1000. Stay away from analog cameras. Cheap up front but you won't get what you want from them.

    Night and very low light present a HUGE problem. I leave that for you and google to sort.

  71. wildlife by nategoose · · Score: 1

    My grandmother has a digital camera with a motion sensor for taking pictures of birds and such in her yard. It uses an SD card, and you can get SD cards with WiFi (eye-fi or something like that) that I think will upload the picts automatically. Maybe this type setup is what you're looking for. The camera she has is in a green weather proof case and has a flash. It's not something that the bad guys can't steal, though.

  72. Mobile phones/Cheap PDAs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are quite a few mobile phones and PDAs that are cheap, programmable, wireless networked and have reasonable quality cameras capable of taking input with a relatively high quality.

    Probably the best phones for the job run Windows Mobile, mainly because of the development tools and APIs. Linux phones could probably do the job, but you're running a lottery there because there isn't a standardized documented API to do that sort of camera work on a Linux Smartphone (most vendors roll their own).

    Symbian could also do the job, but then you would have to work with Symbian.

  73. I am in China. by bronney · · Score: 1

    More like Hong Kong but anyway, we already have it. You just gotto come here to get it. If you plan a trip to Hong Kong, search up Ap Liu Street and you'll be in heaven.

    1. Re:I am in China. by mea_culpa · · Score: 1

      Can you be more specific? Link to a website, etc? Makes, models, etc. Even if it is in Chinese, I am very interested.

    2. Re:I am in China. by bronney · · Score: 1

      http://www.allfield-hk.com/en/product2.asp?typeid=103&typpid=112

      HKG shops, especially those that ripoff designs and manufactures in mainland do not believe in websites. Anyway, when you're on a trip just make sure you visit the street. It's directly above Shum Shui Po MTR (subway) station. Anything ripped off, we got it :) The quality isn't too bad either. I was into this last year as I was looking for gears for aerial videos. You can check out my youtube :)

      http://www.youtube.com/user/bronney

  74. But not phony ones by Animats · · Score: 2, Interesting

    deterrence is the first line of home security (thus big signs saying protected by xyz alarm company etc.)

    But not phony ones.

    Last year, I saw water running down a driveway into the street, and walked up to the house to check it out. Water was leaking out of the garage. Nobody was home, but they had signs for an alarm company. So I called the alarm company, and after much checking at their end, they insisted that they'd never had a system at that address. Looking around, I found a window sticker for a different alarm company. They didn't know of the house either. There was even one of those cheezy "Protected by Electronic Alarm System" stickers you can buy at Radio Shack.

    Finally I called the "Police non-emergency" number and left a message.

    1. Re:But not phony ones by zappepcs · · Score: 1

      Well, I agree, phony signs are stupid. My dogs don't bark so you might believe the beware of dog signs are phony, but I hope the camera gets your picture when you find out :)

      WARNING: Blatant plug follows:

      FWIW, I recommend alarm.com ... you can get wireless connectivity that works even if they cut your phone line... yeah yeah, if they cut the cable line it still works, and the alarm.com web interface is fairly awesome if you ask me.

      They sell for $40/month-ish around here. I think it's an awesome system, has X10 interfacing, supports wireless sensors blah blah blah...

      From a security standpoint I'm not sure what a would-be burglar would think of the combination of signs in front of my house. One is a protected by xyz security system and above it is a beware of dog sign.

      I only put the sign up as a friendly police type person told me that liability with the police and emergency services decreases if you let them know you have pets. Both my dogs are docile, but are the breeds that people assume will eat any of their kids up to age of 16.

      I have the security rather sewn up here, but tinkering with the video option is a fun project :)

    2. Re:But not phony ones by jacksonj04 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Beware of the dog" is a bad sign to have, it's an admission on your part that the dog is dangerous and may attack an intruder (Even if your dog is absolutely docile). This may cause problems if your dog so much as barks at an intruder ("It was barking and foaming at me, I thought it was going to kill me!") since you've already said it may be violent.

      Just a picture of the dog and "I live here" isn't any suggestion your dog is violent, but should have the same effect.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
  75. Cops don't care by xtal · · Score: 1

    Back your shit up, hide a safe, be inconspicuous and have good insurance. It's cheaper than going nuts with the security.

    --
    ..don't panic
  76. Rate of Transfer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not sure how actively you need these pictures to be updated.

    I've done some administration on a system that produces just two 640x480 colour png's for a continually updating web page, and we found that SCP was the only thing that moved files quickly and easily enough to avoid large hits to refresh times/capture of new images on the viewing page.

    This was all on-LAN too, 100mbit lines. In my experience, FTP tends to be a slow-mover.

  77. Motion detection with barking is already available by bigtrike · · Score: 1

    http://www.northwestern1.com/rex-watchdog.htm These things have been available for quite some time

  78. To catch a thief by westlake · · Score: 1
    Unless we're talking murder or some serious crime, you're probably going to have a hard time getting the police interested in investing the resources to try to identify the perp and hunt them down and arrest them.

    It is often the same perp:

    The 19 burglaries occurred between May 2007 and January and were being investigated as a group because they followed a similar pattern. They occurred primarily in the Todt Hill and Grymes Hill neighborhoods between 6 p.m. and 2 a.m., and the thief or thieves stole mostly jewelry. Suspects, but No Arrests, in S.I. 'Ninja Burglaries'

    Two Franklin men are jailed in Butler County on charges that they broke into 13 homes and stole guns, tools, electronics and jewelry over the past three months. Bradley Alcorn, 28, and Johnny Sorrell, 27, face charges of burglary and receiving stolen property involving daytime break-ins in Wayne and Madison townships when residents were away. Butler County Sheriff Rick Jones said detectives have received inquiries from police agencies in Warren, Preble and Montgomery counties, where similar burglaries were reported. Arrests made in burglaries

    The cop wants to bring him down quickly.

    Stories like this do not always have a happy ending:

    It's wasn't jewelry, cash, or a car that took down some Central Fresno burglars, but rather a blanket. According to Deputies a caller reported three men in her Floradora Ave. home around 11 p.m. Monday night. The caller, a 16-year-old girl, said the men woke her, her brother, sister and niece up when they entered the home. She told police that she and her relatives had locked themselves into a back bedroom while the men were inside the home. 24-year-old Charles Williams, 23-year-old Jayson Sanderson, and 21-year-old Princeton Williams, were located near McKinley and Marks a short while later. One of them was found to be in possession of a blue blanket which had belonged to the victims, thus connecting the men to the crime. All three men were arrested and booked into the Fresno County Jail. Williams was also booked on parole violations. Blanket Leads To Burglary Arrests

    Burglaries fall into patterns.

    Thieves work in teams, buddies the same age. They will have criminal records. They will break into an occupied home. They may be running a quart low, but that won't make them any less dangerous.

  79. Close Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had 7 breakins within 6 weeks in my small apartment, by an intelligent burglar. I installed an expensive surveillance system, but he stole the cameras. My recorder recorded his image, but it was not clear enough to be definitive - a silhouette of a guy dressed in dark clothing is not very helpful.

    As someone who's done a lot of research and thought, I'd suggest the following:
    1. Resolution is not as important as contrast/clarity, and how close the guy gets to the camera.
    2. Get a good low light camera. Not the infrared led variety, which are noticeable. A couple of hundred dollars should suffice.
    3. Hide it carefully, directly behind something irresistible to a criminal. For example, behind a $100 note on your bed side table.
    4. For your car, use a wireless transfer to your recorder, and face the camera out the driver's window, or directly behind the steering wheel. Beware that florescent lights cause interference with some wireless cameras, preventing movement triggered recording or alarms from working.
    5. If the guy wears a mask, a camera is not going to help you identify him.

    Your big question should be... do you want to catch the guy (you'll only get one chance), or do you want to prevent the theft? In my case, I found that prevention was more effective than cure, and installed alarms and better locks. I would have like to have caught the mongrel though...

  80. faggitaboutit by chalupacabra · · Score: 1

    Forget about it. the cops dont care. I have 3 perfectly good videos of perps stealing and they ask me if i know their names. WTF

  81. Re:Step 1) Get used camera 2) download this softwa by AlexBirch · · Score: 1

    5) Wonder if your camera was stolen and sold on eBay. Perhaps you'll have better odds than the previous owner.

  82. Cheap - forget it! by no-body · · Score: 1

    I have an IQeye 603 (3 Mpix) on my roof for > 3 years after a vandalism on a car in my driveway and similar events on the same block.

    In short - the camera has sensitive image areas where movement causes a trigger. With a trigger, camera sends the trigger image and 4 images before and after the trigger via ftp to a in-house server.

    A motion sensing light (cheapo over garage door type) at night triggers the camera when movement happens.

    Experiences:

    - the motion sensor is temperature sensitive and in summer (air temp - body temp is lower), people in heavy clothing/hats did siphon gas out of a car in the driveway without triggering the light. Ergo, a microwave sensor (radar principle) has been acquired.

    - a car breakin at night (guy actually getting in the car but failed to get it started) was recorded, but the images of the person's face were very grainy. Research into better image quality at night is on my mind.

    - data volume can be heavy, depending on motions (street, cars, tree branches) - images are jpeg, about 150-200 k each 1600 x 784 pixels, typically - driveway only is 100-200 triggers; including street (low traffic, residential neighborhood), it's 1200 - 2000 triggers daily. Falling snow with camera on can be 15/20,000 triggers.

    Software available turned out to be above $ 1000 under M$oft Windows only so I wrote a couple of shell scripts to handle the image handling on a Linux server.

    Data evaluation works with large Konqueror thumbnails and is manageable with upto 2000 trigger images/day on a 1200 x 1600 computer screen (8 thumbnails across and scrolling down). When I want to see detail, I can do mouseover or xv.

    Price is only one criteria - how one integrates such a data volume into one's life (and computer drives) is another consideration.

    Ideally, an AI system with image recognition which only delivers relevant data would be great - who has it?

    1. Re:Cheap - forget it! by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Have you thought of using a secondary device to trigger the main camera? One of those passive IR detectors, or even a cheap webcam would do. It sounds like the clarity of the camera is being rather counter-productive judging by the amount of false-positives you're seeing. The quality of the image is only important if you can find it in a timely manner :)

    2. Re:Cheap - forget it! by no-body · · Score: 1
      Have you thought of using a secondary device to trigger the main camera?

      In essence, at night, I am using a secondary trigger device - the garage flood light which has a passive IR sensor (which can be fooled on hot days) and when it goes on, the camera starts sending images because of the dark/light change.


      The camera has an external trigger input which could be used - it's not necessary at this point.

      The camera has up to 8 selectable sensitive areas, which can either be blanked out or selected for triggering, with a selectable trigger level for each area. For example, I can trigger on the area of the mail box across the road to be able to look if the postman was there, but all the cars driving on that side of the road trigger it as well.

      Scanning over 1000 trigger thumb nails works well - it takes me less than 60 second to scroll down and recognize the patterns.

      The setup works - as a deterrent, my attempted car theft incident was in local Newspapers and a TV station, but it ain't cheap and the pictures at night are grainy.

    3. Re:Cheap - forget it! by dave420 · · Score: 1

      That's a great set-up you've got :) I guess as long as retrieving the important images is acceptable, that'll work fine. One other issue, is you can't use it to tell you something's wrong - you have to find out through other ways, THEN use the stored images to figure out who did it. If the sensitivity was tuned to (admittedly rather specific), and the time was factored in (ie someone going to your mailbox at 2:30am instead of when the postman usually delivers), then it could actually alert you to something happening. Just a thought :)

  83. I have a working solution... by Tastecicles · · Score: 2, Informative

    Sumvision make 4MP webcams; I use four of these and a package called Zoneminder which comes wrapped in a Mandriva Linux DVD. It runs under Apache, and has the ability, on a multicore system, to capture 16 signals at full frame rate. Live images can be viewed at screen native resolution, video set to anything from 320x200 to... well, as high as your camera can go and as fast as your HDD can capture streams. Back to the webcams: they do have excellent focus and enough resolution to read a car number plate at 80 metres (I've done this during testing to the other end of my road which is approximately 80m long). Best thing about Zoneminder? It can capture from industrial composite cards and/or usb/firewire sources.

    --
    Operation Guillotine is in effect.
  84. It's not the Megapixles, It's the Lenses! by FlyingGuy · · Score: 1

    Allow me to DYAA (tm) ( Draw Yet Another Analogy ) for you. In my youth I sold stereo equipment, not crap but good stuff ( for the time ) and I always advised people to spend money on two things:

    • Phono Cartridge
    • Speakers

    Amplifiers and Pre-Amps were all pretty damn good, class A or Class A-B with a THD of 0.005 at rated power when the input circuit was not over-driven and the final was not over-driven.

    People would say, "But I need 300 watts RMS per side dont I??" and I would say, no, you need really god speakers and a really cartridge for your turntable, and might I suggest this Ortofane ?

    The point is no matter how many gigapixels you have, if you lenses are shit it makes no difference. Your typical consumer level camera has a plastic lens that is about as opticaly accurate as my butt.

    So spend your money on quality glass lenses

    if you want truly good images of the butthead stealing your car.

    To wrap up the stereo analogy, I had a 50 watt per channel McIntosh pushing a pair of Altec Lansing Voice of the Theater cabinet's and we regularly provided enough sound for a block party. Remember, it's not the watts it's speakers./p>

    --
    Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
    1. Re:It's not the Megapixles, It's the Lenses! by bishiraver · · Score: 1

      Altec Lansing VotT cabinets were boss. Absolutely. My da had a set, and you could easily rumble the pictures off the wall :) /OT

  85. Re:From a (analog camera) Security Installer by koko · · Score: 0

    Analog cameras are well known to degrade in quality the longer the run, or from interferance.

    Network cable (it's ethernet which everyone here uses just fine) is 100% immune from that.

    You may be an installer, but you install analog cameras. A dead tech. Analog v Digital.

  86. Deterrence is the key by networkzombie · · Score: 1

    Deterrence is the key to low cost. Infrared interior alarms for when you are not at home to scare them away and attract neighbors (loud). Infrared perimeter alarms for when you are home (quiet but enough to wake you up). My favorite is the totally obvious camera with a red LED and a cable feed that is all fake. It doesn't matter if it is fake, it is a fantastic deterrent. Make sure the red LED is visible.

  87. A story... by Tastecicles · · Score: 2, Insightful

    An elderly couple were getting ready for bed one evening, when the wife looked out the window and murmured "You know you left the shed light on again, don't you?"
    "Nonsense," said the husband, "I haven't set foot outside today."
    Looking out the window as well, he saw the light, sure enough, was on. Two men were inside the shed, going through boxes and bags and plant pots looking for valuables. He ran to the phone, and with trembling hands, dialled for the police.
    "Hello? Yes, I'd like an officer to my house at 10 Villa please, my shed's being broken into. Yes, they're there now. No, they're not in the house. Lock the door? Alright, I'll do that."
    "What did they say?" asked the wife.
    "Oh, there's nobody available," said the husband, counting off in his head. He mouthed the word "Thirty" then dialled the police again.
    "Hello, this is 10 Villa again, I called a minute ago about the burglars in my shed? Yes, well you don't have to worry about it, I've gone out and I've shot them. Goodbye."
    Three minutes later, the street was alive with police cars and a van, SOCO units, dogs, ambulances, armed response... the two men were caught easily and bundled into the van.
    One of the police officers walked up to the old man and said to him "I thought you said you'd shot them?
    The old man looked at the police officer in disgust and spat "I thought you said there was nobody available?"

    True story.

    --
    Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    1. Re:A story... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I heard this story with one guy in some guy's shed. It was published in a newspaper. Maybe both stories are true, who knows. But I doubt it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  88. Super Circuits by Vskye · · Score: 2, Informative

    A buddy of mine has purchased some security cameras from these folks, good quality stuff. http://www.supercircuits.com/ Some good lower cost cameras would be the PC177IR-4, 5 or 6 model that are weatherproof IR color day/night cameras. The most expensive piece of gear you'll want will be a DVR capable of internet / network access. They support X number of cameras, depending on the model also. (normally 4, 8,9, and 16) Hope this helps some. (not affiliated with super circuits btw)

    --
    Life was hell, then I discovered Linux...
  89. Anger problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Buy a shotgun"

    Anger problem.

    1. Re:Anger problem. by Jerry · · Score: 1

      PC Psychology problem.

      --

      Running with Linux for over 20 years!

    2. Re:Anger problem. by linear+a · · Score: 1

      It's a typo. He meant "shogun". An angry Samurai stalking the premises is quite a deterrent.

  90. security spy software & Sony Bullets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have used this Software in both Mac OS9 and OSX http://www.bensoftware.com/ss/overview/index.html
    I use it with sony bullets but these will work just as well. http://www.spytown.com/bwbucaun1.html

  91. how about non-webcams? by Sparr0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A cheap Canon Powershot digital camera, plus the CHDK firmware replacement* to get motion activation, plus a SD wifi card to capture the pics directly to your securely hidden PC. You'll want to take it apart and remove the IR filter, there are guides on how to do that for various models. Best cheap solution I can think of.

    * - technically it's a binary that runs on top of the existing firmware. so sue me.

    1. Re:how about non-webcams? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I second that. Just make sure you get a model with high-iso capability and that the zone you want to survey is lit up as much as possible.

  92. "Smile, you are being videotaped." by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    A sign saying, "Smile, you are being videotaped" would do nicely.

    Be sure to have an obvious camera, one of those $7 camera dummies. Then do the real recording from two other hidden cameras.

    1. Re:"Smile, you are being videotaped." by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      A sign saying, "Smile, you are being videotaped" would do nicely. That depends on the country you're in which is my point. You need legal advice to determine whether that phrase is enough and your camera's footage is high enough quality to make the evidence usable.
      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    2. Re:"Smile, you are being videotaped." by Jaseoldboss · · Score: 1

      No you don't; Thief caught on webcam in UK

      I've talked to the police myself about this and evidence is inadmissible if you are recording images outside your boundarys within the field of view. For example a neighbour's garden. Since this was inside the guy's house there was no problem.

    3. Re:"Smile, you are being videotaped." by JidsDB · · Score: 1

      A sign saying, "Smile, you are being videotaped" would do nicely. That depends on the country you're in which is my point. You need legal advice to determine whether that phrase is enough and your camera's footage is high enough quality to make the evidence usable. Even then, surely if someone's breaking into your home you're Allowed to tape them without their consent... They're trying to enter Your home without Your consent too, are they not?
    4. Re:"Smile, you are being videotaped." by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1
      I don't know. You don't know. No one who replied to me so far knows. If they talk confidently, don't make too many grammar and spelling mistakes and sound reasonable they will get moderated Insightful, but they don't know. The people moderating them Insightful also don't know. Slashdot is a forum for entertainment only. Insightful is just a measure of popularity, like being asked to hang out with the cool kids in highschool, except that the people you're 'hanging' with are not in any sense cool. Your lawyer/solicitor knows, but she doesn't post legal here because she has better things to do. Other lawyers may, but they aren't yours and are not giving you legal advice.

      Even then, surely if someone's breaking into your home you're Allowed to tape them without their consent... They're trying to enter Your home without Your consent too, are they not? Law is not based on logic but (in the UK) on a bunch of rulings over hundreds of years and constantly changing legislation. There is lots of information contained in this. If you want to collect evidence and use it in court you should ask your solicitor for advice first otherwise you are in danger of it being inadmissable due to some obscure legal case or clause in some act.

      Or you could listen to some random dudes on the internet arguing based on car analogies, five minute Google searches and conversations a mate once had with a policeman or even lawyers posting with the disclaimer "I Am A Lawyer But I Am Not Your Lawyer". None of which counts as legal advice BTW. It's your choice. I know what I'd do if I was going to spend significant amounts of my time and money trying to film burglars.
      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  93. Dogs are not the answer by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

    Get a dog. The TCO may be higher than the camera, but the deterrence factor is way higher (and it's better to not be broken into at all, than have footage of your breakins afterwards). Have you ever watched the show It Takes a Thief?

    I recall more than one episode where the thief not only stole the owner's car, he took their dog too. In all the other situations where dogs were present, the dogs were either scared of him or he petted them, then grabbed 'em some food out of the fridge.

    Most people want/buy dogs that are sweethearts.
    And over the long run a dog will cost most people more than a professionally installed security system.
    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  94. Deadly force by SystemFault · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Get a medium sized bottle of some well known brand of vodka. Carefully remove the cap, pour out a fourth of so of the contents and replace with good old poisonous rubbing alcohol. Reattach the cap so that the bottle looks like it had never been opened. Place the adulterated vodka so that a burglar will certainly include it in his haul. Ensure that no one in your household will accidentally imbibe.

    A similar scheme could use attractive snacks and different poisons; but again, make sure that no innocent person becomes a victim.

    It won't stop the burglar immediately, but it will stop him before he can victimize yet again.

    1. Re:Deadly force by ABasketOfPups · · Score: 1

      In the US, if you do this, you risk being sued (by the thief or his survivors) and for that matter, charged with criminal use of deadly force. Lethal traps are not a permissible form of defense. And in this case, where you're suggesting poisoning alcohol, you're just begging for your kid(s) or their friends to end up finding it (possibly while already drunk and so telling them ahead of time is of little use) and killing an innocent person. Preventing someone innocent from taking what is INTENDED to look innocuous, is a lot harder than the phrase "make sure that no innocent person becomes a victim" implies.

    2. Re:Deadly force by SystemFault · · Score: 1

      If the bait cannot be traced, how can there be a lawsuit?

      You say that "Lethal traps are not a permissible form of defense". Impermissible by your fiat? Do you think that anyone cares? If an armed guard uses his weapon on a burglar, is that also impermissible by your assertion?

      While the bait is dangerous, it is dangerous only to the target or to the careless. Would you force every household to divest itself of all knives, guns, razors, and chemical cleaning products?

      If we were to take your asinine "make sure that no innocent person becomes a victim" statement to its logical conclusion, then no criminal could ever be convicted if there were a one in fifty quadrillion chance that he might be innocent.

      Anyway, the poison bait is only a stopgap until there are disintegration beamers controlled by intelligent robots.

    3. Re:Deadly force by Culture20 · · Score: 2, Informative

      You say that "Lethal traps are not a permissible form of defense". Impermissible by your fiat? Do you think that anyone cares? If an armed guard uses his weapon on a burglar, is that also impermissible by your assertion? No, impermissible by LAW, even in Texas. http://books.google.com/books?id=RtoPluLrG7kC&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=%22shotgun+trap%22+law&source=web&ots=xK0Bk0RDjL&sig=rh_tx3hNWYV_-n_vAgPWq03LUE4&hl=en http://www.4lawschool.com/torts/kat.shtml

      It is well established principle of law that there is no privilege to use deadly force solely in defense of land or property unless there exists a threat to ones personal safety as well (Prosser on Torts, Third edition, pages 116-118).
    4. Re:Deadly force by dave420 · · Score: 1

      So, steal a bottle of vodka = death. Do you live in Saudi Arabia?

    5. Re:Deadly force by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very irresponsible. No guarantee that the deadly force doesn't get passed on to an innocent party.

    6. Re:Deadly force by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This will bring murder or attempted murder charges against you faster than you can say 'I can has blindness?'

      My guess is you're college age or younger if you actually think something like this is a good idea.

    7. Re:Deadly force by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      The trick is to not use a deadly poison... just something that will put him in Emergency due to something that gives him non-stop diarrhea or similar. That way, after you get burgled, you can use the low-quality images you captured and drive around to the local hospitals until you find the guy... after all, Emergency rooms generally have a longish wait time, and the guy doesn't know that you DIDN'T put poison in the bottle. You could even put a label on the bottom of the bottle/inside the cap or similar that says "did you drink any of this? If so, call 555-5555 for instructions on where to find the anti-toxin." For that matter, with such a label, you wouldn't even need to poison it ;)

    8. Re:Deadly force by trichotomy · · Score: 1

      Sheer idiocy! This kind of "trap" could also have unintended victims.

      Even supposing you are successful in keeping your own family members and other innocent parties from drinking the poisonous bait, why assume that the burglar would take the same precautions? In fact, by disguising the trap so the burglar would feel comfortable in drinking a poisonous concoction, you also assure that it could just as comfortably be given to an innocent third party.

      Deadly force that you cannot control is irresponsible.

    9. Re:Deadly force by atamido · · Score: 1

      Strange, the concealed handgun class I took in Texas last year was pretty clear that Texas law states you can shoot someone if they are stealing your property, you call out to them, AND you do not expect to be able to recover the property. There also didn't seem to be any lower limit on the value of the property being stolen. Of course, will have to face a grand jury, and you could face murder charges if they find your actions unreasonable.

      (It is worth noting that I have never owned a gun.)

    10. Re:Deadly force by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Shooting someone means you're there, and you _could_ expect danger to your person. A spring-gun or poison trap is something used when you're not there.

    11. Re:Deadly force by atamido · · Score: 1

      I was responding solely to the quote, which seemed to indicate that use of deadly force is not ever allowed in defense of property (this is incorrect). The quote isn't even particularly clear on the point within the second linked article. I suppose I could have just quoted this section from the first link:

      some states, such as Texas, allow deadly force to be used to protect property
    12. Re:Deadly force by atamido · · Score: 1

      I should mention that I don't think there is any state out there where "booby traps" are legal.

  95. Don't bother, they'll steal the cameras by spyrral · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised no-one has posted this yet: don't invest in an expensive camera setup because guess what: the thieves will steal it.

    They will look right into the camera before they tear it off the wall , and the police won't do a damn thing to try and find them.

    If you're looking for cameras as a deterrent, a fake box is as good as an HD camera and much much cheaper.

    1. Re:Don't bother, they'll steal the cameras by justinlee37 · · Score: 1
      Wow, from the second sentence of the article summary: To me, the object isn't just deterrence -- if someone tries to break into my house or my car (parked on the street in front of my house), I'd like to provide a high-quality image of the perpetrator to the police.

      I'd say RTFA but amazingly this seems to be a case of needing to RTFS.

  96. Enough light for a still camera? by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    Excellent comment!

    From Hacking My PowerShot: "I picked up a [Canon Powershot] A560 late last year -- it's a wonderfully handy point-and-shoot camera that even shoots full NTSC video..."

    From the link about open source firmware you recommended: Quick answers to 7 key questions about CHDK: "5. What extra capabilities does CHDK provide? Enhanced ways of recording images ... for video images you can have increased recording time and length (1 hour or 2 GB), and a greatly increased range of compression options."

    The problem will be that there needs to be enough light. There could be motion detection lights in several places. If a thief is moving around at night, and suddenly there is a bright light, that changes the psychology of the situation. Very likely the thief will leave. If he or she doesn't you will have a video recording.

    It seems to me that lights that turn on when motion is detected are the first best defense. That and signs that say, "Smile, your visit is being recorded."

    Remember that the obvious camera can be a dummy. The real cameras can be hidden.

  97. You don't need any cameras by Charcharodon · · Score: 3, Funny
    Buy a dog, a shotgun, and a flash light. (Well as long as you live in Texas.) After you bag a couple of criminals the rest will know not to come around.

    If you live in the UK, leave the keys in the ignition, with a note apologizing for not having the car warmed up for them, along with $100 on the seat so they can by 1/2 tank of gas.

    1. Re:You don't need any cameras by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The easiest security device I ever added to my house was a permanently waving american flag. I don't even need the gun...people assume I already have several.

  98. IMHO, don't be so picky about digital... by WoTG · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've setup three retail stores with security cameras for a small retail chain. At the first store we tried a camera at, almost as an experiment, we used a TCP/IP one from D-Link. About $200. It was OK as a deterrent, but not really all that useful if we actually had to use the footage for identifying people.

    The next stores used a kit which bundled 4 analog cameras with a PCI DVR card. Think TV tuner with 4 inputs. The whole kit was about $500. It's great but "only" 640x480. The newer ones have modest IR support for night-time recording. The DVR software provides remote TCP/IP access, though, via a proprietary client.

    From my admittedly limited experience, you get better value from analog cameras -- the market is much bigger for them, so they're higher volume, and therefore cheaper. Plus, the camera's are interchangeable (it's just analog, afterall). You can mix and match easily and get standardized lenses and filters, etc.

    1. Re:IMHO, don't be so picky about digital... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get a high res webcam or digital camera that can be used as a webcam... next get some surveyllance software. I can't remember the one that I used to play with a while back but it came on a cd on a magazine cover... Now, instead of doing the ftp thing, set it up to send the pics to a brand new gmail account you open. Also set it up so that the camera will only record pics as it sees changes in the pixels from frame to frame and send the jpgs to your email account. That way you aren't wasting space with tons of mpgs... just jpgs that hopefully actually capture the stuff you need. Since it's going to a gmail account, set up a filter so that it will automatically delete any of the emails. There's a several day time limit on how long gmail will hold stuff in trash before it's totally gone. If you find something stolen or whatever, undelete and then forward to the authorities. You can use ftp too, but if you do the gmail thing, it should be less noticible, especially if the surveyllance software is setup to auto start whenever the computer reboots, runs in the background, and automatically emails you whatever the webcam on the thing sees.... if someone steals the computer, change the gmail filter to not delete. If it's a laptop that has a camera built in, all the better... the idiot that just stole your laptop can say cheese!

    2. Re:IMHO, don't be so picky about digital... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What software were you using with your PCI DVR card?

      I am having a horrible time finding a decent software that works with the PCI DVR cards.

    3. Re:IMHO, don't be so picky about digital... by WoTG · · Score: 1

      The software came with the kit.

      The package was similar to this one: http://lorexstore.lorextechnology.com/product.aspx?id=772 - this is the brand, the bundle changes slightly every year. The software installs as "VistaPro", I think it's OEM'd.

      Don't take this as a strong recommendation, though, I'm generally satisfied and would get the kit again. Mind you, I'm biased. It's better for me to support fewer products.

    4. Re:IMHO, don't be so picky about digital... by Huklebry · · Score: 1

      WiLife does it all... and its digital http://www.wilife.com/Partners/Steps.aspx Check out their partner program, its easy to get setup. 6 camera powered Ethernet kits for $1300

  99. real life example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://bwired.nl/

  100. Try TrendNet by Chaos1 · · Score: 1

    I've actually found TrendNet's line of IP cameras to work significantly well. They retailed for around $100 US and can perform uploading, or you can use their IPView software (Windows) to record them all to hard disk directly. I setup 9 of them in a datacenter that I previously worked in.

    --
    I only need the Preview button when I haven't used the Preview button.
    1. Re:Try TrendNet by Nyktos · · Score: 1

      I bought the TrendNet TV-IP312W (day/night with ifrared light, wireless network). It works fairly well. Requires IE for setup, but supports RTSP, save to Samba, FTP, motion detection with auto-email.

      http://trendnet.com/langen/products/proddetail.asp?prod=105_TV-IP312W&cat=48

  101. A way to get the intruders attention by threaded · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A way to get the intruders attention is to build the camera into a clock and place it in the window.

    They always look at what time it is and you get a full face closeup too.

    I used to build these camera in clock things years ago, but now you can get them really cheap from china. The camera doesn't need to be such a high resolution as 'chummy' always comes up real close to see what time it is.

    1. Re:A way to get the intruders attention by Ed+Avis · · Score: 3, Funny

      Then to freak them out even more, you can make the clock tick backwards...

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    2. Re:A way to get the intruders attention by MtlDty · · Score: 1

      Ive seen security cameras with motion detectors and speakers. When they detect motion they play back a custom sound file 'Hey you!' or something which instinctively gets the person to look straight at the camera.

      A second effect is that they realise they've been caught on tape and generally scram.

    3. Re:A way to get the intruders attention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as 'chummy' always comes up real close to see what time it is.


      Its Hammer time!
    4. Re:A way to get the intruders attention by richard_k_smith · · Score: 1

      During some research on surveillance in the London Underground, I learned about efforts there to get people to look at the cameras. A camera was installed at the top of an escalator and a variety of techniques (visual, audio) were tested. It turned out that the most obvious was also the most successful: A simple "psst." The sound was beamed in a directional way by a small speaker located near the camera. Everyone looked. Don't know if it is active use - probably of limited value once people get used to it, but break-ins are "one off" events (or close to it), so you might have success if you coupled it with a motion detector.

      --
      "Connaître, decouvrir, communiquer - telle est la destinée d'un savant." - F. Arago
    5. Re:A way to get the intruders attention by antdude · · Score: 1

      Or they take down your camera, burn the home/office down, etc. :P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  102. Insurance is cheaper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Buy some insurance - it is cheaper, and doesn't require monitoring or feeding.

    1. Re:Insurance is cheaper by daveime · · Score: 1

      Until you actually get burgled, then have to go through hoops to get your insurance to actually pay out, and then watch your premiums for the next year increase by a factor of 10 because you have now been classified as in "a bad risk area" ... (i.e. bad risk of the insurance company having to pay out again).

  103. Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not going to be cheap when the video cams keep getting shot out.

  104. skip all this by WindBourne · · Score: 1
    Look, I have noticed that most here do not seem to apply any IT logic to this.
    1. If the item that you have is nice, then it WILL be stolen. The simple fact is, that if you have a decent car parked on the street, it is GOING to be stolen.
    2. Spend money on trying to locate it.
    A simple lojack will probably do more for you. If it is a nice car, try to get 2 lojacks. This way, you can retrieve it later.

    If you still want a pic, modify the car with a camara in the dash, the transmit the pic via wi-fi or a cell. This way, you will get the person grabbing the car. At the same time, you can use some of the money saved from loads of camera to build up a nice mp3 server radio for the car.

    BTW, about a decade ago, a small start-up was going to do train car locator's using a simple cell phone approach (multi-million cars were always being misplaced for months on end and train company was not held responsible). You could create your own lojack using a cell phone and wifi. Turned on, if receiving wifi from home, then do nothing. But upon leaving area, and not turned off, then call and transmit the location. if unable to obtain the gps location, then simply call the phone company and you can obtain the last set of towers, which will help triangulate it.
    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  105. This is the key to effective CCTV: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The trick is to get cameras close to the subjects, and pointing in the right direction. That way people are still clearly identifiable even on poor quality shots. A good example would be a very small camera placed like a spy-hole in your front door. You may need quite a few cameras for decent coverage, but the only alternative is even more carefully placed multi-megapixel cameras with good quality optics, so that you can zoom in on areas of the picture.

    I don't know what the laws are like where you are, but in the UK, if you have CCTV you are legally obliged to have warning signs, and have to comply with the data protection act.

  106. ZoneMinder by greenlead · · Score: 1

    You might find the ZoneMinder project useful. It is a Linux open-source project that handles video surveillance. They also have a discussion forum that should provide even more information, such as camera selection.

  107. CCTV by ledow · · Score: 1

    I use a CCTV-computer system running Linux, it's based on "motion", which I'm sure you can Google yourself. It does just want you want - I personally email the files (video/photo) to a Gmail account so that I can retrieve it with just a simple web browser (i.e. at the most basic of police stations). I use PCI WinTV cards and cheap cameras (I could use very expensive cameras without any problems, but listen to why in a second) - it costs me about £30 ($50) for each camera setup and a basic computer can handle four or more cameras easily (up to 16 if you have a fast machine and a Linux-compatible 4-input CCTV card.

    The bit I like about it is that someone can nick the cameras, the machine itself, etc. and STILL the images will be sitting in the Gmail account, ready for pickup. This is how one (incredibly dumb) British burglar got caught, and with the exact same software (motion). There was a story on BBC News about it.

    You have several problems, though.

    "To me, the object isn't just deterrence if someone tries to break into my house or my car (parked on the street in front of my house), I'd like to provide a high-quality image of the perpetrator to the police."

    I wear a hoodie, probably in a dark colour, like most of the "kids" who do stuff like this. I just beat your high-quality image. You'll stand more chance with more rubbishy cameras getting such people from all angles, or a burglar alarm. Or have your system text you / ring your phone when it detects motion somewhere it shouldn't.

    Deterence - A burglar alarm box that doesn't look fake. A camera box that doesn't look fake. That's deterence. It does an awful lot, and it's very cheap to "deter". It's a lot harder to "catch". Large cameras get stones aimed at them, even if the kids aren't trying to break in (I know, the little gits have broken my security floodlight several times "for a laugh"). Much better to have very cheap, replaceable and (except for one or two) concealable cameras if you want to record evidence of criminal activity. If you want to CATCH the person responsible, that is much harder than just having a high-resolution image.

    "Inexpensive video surveillance systems, with their atrocious image quality, are nearly useless."

    As are expensive ones when they are defeated by extremely simple measures such as putting on a hood. Seriously. Get a bunch of friends, get them to pick a random member of their party (unknown to you), get that person to put on a hoodie and walk past every camera you own. You'll be hard-pressed to identify them.

  108. Analog (no, really) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our experience has been that the range of cameras and prices are much better for analog cameras than IP ones, which is not surprising considering the relative product maturities. From $200-500 you should be able to get a very decent day/night camera with IR illumination (if appropriate). A resolution of 550 TV lines may not sound great if you are used to looking at still cameras and mega-pixels, but in practice the quality of the image depends on a lot more than the resolution.

    Hook the cameras back to a PC for recording (wireless solutions here are also less expensive if you don't want to run cables) and pop a 4-port PCI frame grabber card in there for less than $200 and run Zoneminder

  109. I Came Here For Snopes.com Stories? by cmholm · · Score: 1

    "I thought you said there was nobody available?" True story.

    Yeah, right. BTW, Bill Gates is paying you to send email.

    --
    Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.
    1. Re:I Came Here For Snopes.com Stories? by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      thanks. I don't read snopes.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
  110. Logitech, Apache and Dynamic DNS solution by mothy808 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I use the following setup at home to keep tabs on whether the landlord is *dropping in* ...

    The camera I use is a Logitech QuickCam Pro 9000. Good resolution (up to HD when configured correctly), auto light adjustment, easily available and resonably priced. I then use the Logitech "Motion Detection" gadget (free download from Logitech's site) to take care of the video capture. The gadget is configured to save the videos to a password protected directory within my Apache web server. To finish it all off I use a dynamic DNS service to ensure that I can always access my web server, regardless of my current IP address (my ISP uses DHCP so this is a good solution without needing a static IP).

    Disclaimer: I do NOT work for Logitech.

  111. BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please quote your sources. Sounds like raging BS to me.

  112. Re:Blatant plug by vacuum_tuber · · Score: 1

    The fact that alarm.com systems use a radio link (not a cellphone) and can't easily be cut off was a big plus when I selected the system for an office. I think we laid out about $1800 for the high-end panel but could have saved a lot with the pre-configured smaller panel as we never even installed most of the sensors. We put wireless door sensors on all the doors and wireless motion sensors in all the rooms. If anyone comes in a window they get nabbed by the motion sensor. The system calls us by phone and sends us emails if there is an actual alarm. Non-alarm conditions are logged and we can get notifications of menu-selected events like arming and disarming, so we know who is coming and going. The system can be armed or disarmed through the web interface. Yeah, I'd say it's pretty awesome. We're trying to find the time to try the new integrated video cameras.

    --
    Look at the bright side: there's always seppuku.
  113. 1 in 10 huh? by dogger · · Score: 1

    Quote your sources, sounds like BS.

    1. Re:1 in 10 huh? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      It does sound like BS to me. I have successfully used a firearm against an intruder on 3 occasions one of which the intruder was inside the house as I and my family returned home. At no time have any of us ever been injured by any of the firearms we keep at the house unless you consider the bruised shoulders from shooting it for fun or the time My brother stood on the right hand side of a .22 and a hot shell casing ejected and went down his shirt causing small burns in a couple of spots on his chest.

      I even had guns around as a kid and no one got hurt by them. If that stat is accurate in some way, there is probably a lot of gotchas in it. Probably something like when a gun is bought out of fear, there is a greater chance of hurting someone innocent then an intruder or something like that. Or maybe it adds the revenge purchases where someone shoots a family member and attempts to get out of it by claiming suspected intruder or something.

  114. Steal MY beer?! by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

    Not me, but here's proof that you can catch crims on even the cheapest cameras. This is my girlfriend's sisters' boyfriend.

    Beer Thief!

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  115. Zoneminder by magwm · · Score: 1

    Zoneminder is excellent. I installed it on ubuntu with a cheapo bt878 video card and a regular outside camera. total cost ~50 euro not counting the pc which is an old athlon 1000.. processor use sits at 40% alltime

    you can define a zone inside the image area, and record only if motion is detected. it has a nice interface to view the camera remotely and the history of motion events.

    definitely not hi-res (NTSC), but with a good lens and e correct angle it just records what I need..

  116. mnb Re:IQeye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IpodLinux never got USB Host working.
    Rockbox is just now getting PP50xx UMS working, and Rockbox's driver work is light-years ahead of IPL anymore.
    Host role is not a simple matter of coercing the hardware. It is mostly a software difference, and a bugger of one at that.
    No offense, just saying IPL doesn't do USB Host.

  117. How is living in fantasy land? by raehl · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    In other words, we should just let anyone come into our house and do whatever they want. That kid is a less likely to break into your house and steal your TV if he sees a gun. And even if comes anyway, the worst he will probably do is make off with your TV.

    Uh, no. In other words, it is preferable to catch the kid when he attempts to sell the TV, or after he has fled the scene, or at some other point, or, just let him have the freaking TV and get him the next time. That's the thing with criminals. They don't steal just once; and even if you miss them 9 times out of 10, you'll get the bastard on the 10th attempt.

    And society is better off if we don't kill kids for stealing TVs.

    That kid is more likely to break into your home and do worse than stealing your TV if he knows you don't have a gun.

    Actually, depending on the kid, if he knows you have a gun in your home, he's MORE LIKELY to break into your home IF YOU HAVE A GUN, to steal your gun. He'll just wait until you're not home.

    Hope you don't mind watching your wife and daughters be raped.

    What kind of pansy are you? You, your wife, and your daughters are home, and ONE KID with a gun, in the close quarters of your home, is going to keep you at bay with a gun AND rape your wife and daughters at the same time?

    Look, if a guy with a gun can screw your wife AND fight you at the same time, having a gun in your house is not going to do you any good, because you apparently have no arms.

    Even if your ridiculous rhetorical question had any truth to it, wouldn't it also considerably increase the criminal's chances of getting killed?

    Sure. But it's still not worth it. You know what your real problem here is?

    The situation you're trying to use a gun to protect yourself from almost NEVER HAPPENS. Criminals don't buy guns and then invade homes and attempt to use guns against the home owners. Hell, they don't NOT buy guns and invade homes and attempt to do anything with homeowners.

    When criminals invade homes, they try REALLY REALLY HARD to invade homes that are either EMPTY, or so freaking large that they can move around the home and never encounter the home owner.

    A criminal breaking into your home has one of two purposes: to do you harm or to make off with your stuff. Any criminal wanting to make off with your stuff probably values his life a lot more than your stuff. If you both have guns, he's probably going to run before starting a firefight - and if he doesn't at least you have equal odds.

    Ah, stupidity continued. A criminal who is going to make off with your stuff is GOING TO WAIT UNTIL YOU ARE NOT HOME, rendering your firearm useless - at least to you. If you do have a gun in your house, you've just let the criminal make more money by stealing that too.

    A criminal breaking into your home to do you harm won't care if you have a gun or not. The gun helps you even the odds assuming he has a gun and if he doesn't, he's completely screwed.

    How is fantasy land treating you?

    Did guns become magic when I wasn't looking? A criminal is screwed if you have a gun and he doesn't if and only if:

    - You're awake when the criminal gets to you.
    - You're awake and aware enough to understand that the criminal is, indeed, a criminal, and understand this in enough time to get your gun, point it at the criminal, and shoot the criminal, all before he gets within arms reach of you, in which case you're engaged in a 50-50 struggle over the gun. (Actually, since the criminal is probably fully awake, less than 50-50 odds for you.)

    Guns are a range weapon, and your house is NOT A RANGE ENVIRONMENT! You'd be better off with a knife in many cases.

    Of course. Who would say differently? Why would you imperil those around you - even the mugger - over a few bucks?

    Ok, so, few bucks no, television yes?

    In real life people prey on

    1. Re:How is living in fantasy land? by Applekid · · Score: 1

      Uh, no. In other words, it is preferable to catch the kid when he attempts to sell the TV, or after he has fled the scene, or at some other point, or, just let him have the freaking TV and get him the next time. That's the thing with criminals. They don't steal just once; and even if you miss them 9 times out of 10, you'll get the bastard on the 10th attempt.

      2nd person pronouns are misplaced here. The victim has no authority or ability to put out a BOLO, monitor pawn shops, arrest and detain. They have to rely on the police. Honestly, though, unless you A) are a cop, B) are family of or friends with a cop, or C) are high profile enough for the cops to make it worth their while to care (rich, elected official, celebrity), then your issue just isn't high on their list of priorities.

      It would be awesome to catch them after-the-fact, but, let face it, if you don't catch them in the act you simply won't.

      And society is better off if we don't kill kids for stealing TVs.

      I'd heartlessly contend that weeding out a subsection of the population that has no problems committing crimes against others is a net good for society, kids for stealing TVs or CEOs for misappropriating pension funds.

      Actually, depending on the kid, if he knows you have a gun in your home, he's MORE LIKELY to break into your home IF YOU HAVE A GUN, to steal your gun. He'll just wait until you're not home.

      Actually, depending on the kid, if he knows you have a PS3 in your home, he's MORE LIKELY to break into your home IF YOU HAVE A PS3, to steal your PS3. He'll just wait until you're not home.

      Actually, depending on the kid, if he knows you have a Mac Pro in your home, he's MORE LIKELY to break into your home IF YOU HAVE A Mac Pro, to steal your Mac Pro. He'll just wait until you're not home.

      Do I need more examples to point out what a load of bull that argument is? Coveting an item leads to the attempted theft of the item, regardless of what specificly it is.

      What kind of pansy are you? You, your wife, and your daughters are home, and ONE KID with a gun, in the close quarters of your home, is going to keep you at bay with a gun AND rape your wife and daughters at the same time?

      And if it wasn't one kid but instead a gang of them? So much for that snarky "you have no arms" comment.

      Besides, even a pansy with a firearm can meet force with force. They don't call it an equalizing factor for nothing.

      When criminals invade homes, they try REALLY REALLY HARD to invade homes that are either EMPTY, or so freaking large that they can move around the home and never encounter the home owner.

      That's true, but mistakes happen and unfortunately it's the occupant that gets killed or held as a hostage or worse. They don't come in with the intention of killing a homeowner and squatting there: they come in armed for insurance against someone trying to stop them... that same kind of insurance a homeowner would themselves want. Like botched surgery, the fact that is almost never happens isn't much consolidation if it happens to you.

      A criminal is screwed if you have a gun and he doesn't if and only if:
      - You're awake when the criminal gets to you.
      - You're awake and aware enough to understand that the criminal is, indeed, a criminal, and understand this in enough time to get your gun, point it at the criminal, and shoot the criminal, all before he gets within arms reach of you, in which case you're engaged in a 50-50 struggle over the gun. (Actually, since the criminal is probably fully awake, less than 50-50 odds for you.)

      Whoa, whoa, wait, I thought criminals only target empty homes? If you're not awakened and don't become aware of the situation, that means the criminal is being stealthy and that would imply they're trying to hide because they know you're in there. You could argue one or the other, but

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
  118. Look at your digital camera by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

    Do you have a digital camera? Perhaps a high-end one? Turn off all the lights in your house and try to take a recognizable photograph of a person, without a flash. It's totally impossible, unless you use a tripod and the person is posing for the photograph. There's no way a USB video-camera could stream video that does any better.

    --
    Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    1. Re:Look at your digital camera by Big_Breaker · · Score: 1

      That's why security cameras use IR LED arrays to wash IR light over the area. The CCDs are sensitive to the IR, unlike our eyes, so it creates a decent black and white image in total darkness (for us). Retina's reflect IR like crazy, which is why you'll see "demon eyes" on people when using IR. I'm sure you've seen it before.

  119. Uh, you realize your error, right? by raehl · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You're comparing accidental deaths to crimes prevented.

    That's like comparing fatal car accidents to broken tail lights.

    Let's say I have a household with myself, my wife, and my two kids. Now, I have the option of purchasing a handgun to 'protect my home'. In the next year, let's say there's a one in 10,000 chance that I will successfully use my handgun to prevent a criminal from stealing my stuff. But there's a one in 50,000 chance that my gun will accidentally kill someone.

    Is the life of someone in my family worth 5 televisions?

    Also, consider this:

    You can protect your home just as well with no gun. Your 1.5 million crimes prevented count every instance where a person with a gun feels they prevented a crime. But lets be realistic. Was it the gun that prevented the crime? Or just the mere presence of a witness?

    If a criminal is breaking into your home, and you wake up, that criminal is going to leave. Criminals don't want head-to-head confrontation any more than you do. They want to steal from unoccupied homes. Just being awake will chase most criminals from your home.

    I want to be clear that I'm not anti-gun. This is America, and people should be able to own the things they want to own. But we also have to be realistic about the dangers of certain things. We don't let just any schmuck drive a car, and we need to have some reasonable regulation with regards to firearms. The rights of the American citizen to own a firearm need to be balanced with the right of the American citizen to not be shot by one.

    1. Re:Uh, you realize your error, right? by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First off, I was replying the comment before me, which said that for each person who saved their home with a firearm, there were 10 who were hurt by accidental gunfire. I was pointing out that instead of the ratio being 1:10, it was more like 1000:1. I never actually said that this ratio was acceptable.

      However, I do believe that it is.

      First, you're making up wild numbers to "prove" your case. Gun ownership is estimated around 200 million - given that previous number of 1150 accidents, that implies that there's a one in 170,000 chance that your gun will accidentally kill someone. Also, given the 1.5 million crimes prevented, that's a one in 133 chance that you will prevent a criminal from committing a crime. Not, necessarily, from stealing your TV. Looking at the paper quoted there, this appears to be about a 2:3:3 ratio of rape, assault, and robbery. So out of that 1.5 million crimes, that's about 375 thousand rapes averted.

      Is preventing the rape of 300 women worth a single innocent life?

      Is preventing the rape of 300 women, plus the assault of 450 people, plus 450 robberies, worth a single innocent life?

      (Also, consider the chance that some of those potential rapes would end in murder. Apparently only two percent of rapes end in murder, so that means there's about six murders prevented there as well. Versus a single accidental death. That is a trade I would be willing to take.)

      If you can sit there and say "okay, I have looked at the numbers and I still think guns are fundamentally a bad idea", then, okay, you've made a decision, and I'll respect your decision. But as long as your decision is based on wild extrapolation and guesswork, it's not a particularly valuable one.

      As a side note: one of my friends was robbed while home a few months ago. The criminals broke in, held them at gunpoint, and discussed raping his girlfriend, which they decided not to do because they didn't want to risk hanging around too long. At least some criminals aren't particularly afraid of head-to-head confrontation.

      I agree that we need reasonable, well-thought-out laws on this matter. That reasonable regulation should be based on facts and actual numbers. Please research before inventing numbers and making claims.

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    2. Re:Uh, you realize your error, right? by raehl · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I have researched. That's why I know the 1.5 million number is bullshit.

      The 1.5 million number includes any circumstance in which someone who had a gun felt that their possession of the gun prevented a crime.

      But the number of crimes prevented by guns is NOT EQUAL to the number of times someone with a gun thinks they prevented a crime. It is only equal to the number of times a person with a gun prevented a crime they could not have prevented without a gun.

      The unfortunate reality of the situation is that we simply do not have good numbers to compare how bad guns are vs. how good guns are. Lots of anti-gun people have BS numbers to support their postiion. But the "1.5 million crimes prevented" is an equally BS number.

      And you can't really attack me for making up numbers (and I was certainly making them up, thus my use of 'let's say') when you proceed to make up numbers assuming that the ratio of crimes prevented via gun possession is 2:2:3. (That was a made up number.)

    3. Re:Uh, you realize your error, right? by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, that wasn't a made up number, though I did forget to link the paper itself. Here it is, direct from the DOJ. Check out the chart on page 9. (2:3:3, not 2:2:3.) Sorry for not making that clearer, though, I should have linked the paper there.

      And yes, the 1.5 million number is possibly an overestimation. It's rather impossible to say, unfortunately - a good deal of that aforementioned page 9 discusses the problems involved in getting that number, and why it's probably inaccurate. However, you can't honestly be claiming that it's an overestimation by two orders of magnitude, which is what your original estimate would require.

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    4. Re:Uh, you realize your error, right? by cyxxon · · Score: 1, Insightful

      As a side note: one of my friends was robbed while home a few months ago. The criminals broke in, held them at gunpoint, and discussed raping his girlfriend, which they decided not to do because they didn't want to risk hanging around too long. At least some criminals aren't particularly afraid of head-to-head confrontation. Nice anecdote, and I am sure as hell not even implying that it is not true - but you did not once even hint at how your friend could have solved that particular incident by possessing a gun. So, the are some criminals breaking in, and your friend has a gun in the cupboard in the living room, but the criminals break in at night and surprise him in bed. Or, he has a gun in the drawer next to his bed, but the criminals surprise him while he is in the living room. How big is the chance that the victim actually has the gun in his hand (i.e. ready to use it even just to point, not necessarily shoot) within 2 or 3 seconds? Everything longer is more or less useless, unless the criminals are morons who makes lots of noise coming into the apartment in some other room, and leave the victim a clear and silent path to the gun...
    5. Re:Uh, you realize your error, right? by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why do people keep taking what I'm saying out of context? When did I ever say this would have been solved by having a gun? I brought this story up as a counterpoint to raehl's comment:

      If a criminal is breaking into your home, and you wake up, that criminal is going to leave. Criminals don't want head-to-head confrontation any more than you do.

      I know of at least one case where this was simply not true. That's why I mentioned this. I wasn't attempting to make any other point with it - please stop trying to weave strawman arguments out of what I wrote.

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    6. Re:Uh, you realize your error, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Words fail me...

      "So, the are some criminals breaking in, and your friend has a gun in the cupboard in the living room, but the criminals break in at night and surprise him in bed. Or, he has a gun in the drawer next to his bed, but the criminals surprise him while he is in the living room. How big is the chance that the victim actually has the gun in his hand (i.e. ready to use it even just to point, not necessarily shoot) within 2 or 3 seconds?"

      How about - you're out with your wife and two young children, and a gang of four thugs is walking towards you. You put your hand on your holster, and they cross the street...

      Or, you're driving your car, with your wife and two young children, and a convicted felon almost drives you off the road, and when you come to the next stop sign, he gets out of his car and begins shouting at you, while waving a tyre iron at you. You draw your gun, and he quickly backs off and drives away.

      Or, you're in your house, and somebody starts banging on the back door, to break in. You run upstairs to where you have left your gun, and then draw down the burglar as he starts to come up the stairs.

      Need I go on? Your hypothetical situations are laughable. Literally MILLIONS of crimes are prevented every YEAR by gun owners. Try reading up about it...

    7. Re:Uh, you realize your error, right? by rvw · · Score: 1

      ...that implies that there's a one in 170,000 chance that your gun will accidentally kill someone. To be exact: there's a one in 170,000 chance that your gun will accidentally kill someone this year.

      (Also, consider the chance that some of those potential rapes would end in murder. Apparently only two percent of rapes end in murder, so that means there's about six murders prevented there as well. That article is from 25 years ago! Furthermore, I wonder if it works like this. The 2% that commit a murder, probably won't be stopped by a gun. Chances are that it simply means the woman who tries to protect herself with a gun, will be killed immediately by the criminal. She won't show up in rape statistics, because she is killed before the criminal has the chance to rape her. So be careful with these statistics!
    8. Re:Uh, you realize your error, right? by c0p0n · · Score: 1

      Amen.

      --

      Your head a splode
    9. Re:Uh, you realize your error, right? by Eivind · · Score: 1

      Accidents and -lethal- accidents aren't the same. Not -everyone- who has a accident with a gun ends up killing someone. To the contrary, the most common kind of accident only damages property (sometimes not even that, it's possible to accidentally fire a gun and damage nothing), and most of the time when a accidental gunshot -does- hit someone, they survive it.

      1150 accidental -deaths- for 200million guns may be correct. Accidents in total is going to be much higher. (allthough I agree that accidents that end up damaging only property aren't as serious) That's data for a single year though, so if you have a gun for your entire adult life, multiply it by 70 or thereabout, and you end up with 80.500 deaths among the 200mill guns, so one accidental death in 2500 lifelong gun-ownerships. (add in the ones hurt, unless you consider it an irrelevant detail to have a wife or kid with a bullet in the shoulder/arm/leg/whatever)

      Deaths due to burglars choosing to fight or attack homeowners rather than evacuate when discovered are -much- less common than that.

    10. Re:Uh, you realize your error, right? by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why do you insist on framing this as "people defending their homes from burglary"? Robberies are not the only crimes that occur.

      Also, if you're allowed to multiply the chance of a gun accident by the number of years someone lives, I am allowed to multiply the chance of rape, murder, assault, and so forth. Multiplying by age is a red herring that you're using simply to make the number larger. Stop doing that, it's immaterial to the comparisons.

      We're not looking at the raw "bad things" that guns cause. We're looking at the bad things compared to the good things.

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    11. Re:Uh, you realize your error, right? by joto · · Score: 1

      but you did not once even hint at how your friend could have solved that particular incident by possessing a gun. So, the are some criminals breaking in, and your friend has a gun in the cupboard in the living room, but the criminals break in at night and surprise him in bed. Or, he has a gun in the drawer next to his bed, but the criminals surprise him while he is in the living room.

      And more to the point. If you are the type who keep your gun handy at all times, you significantly increase the risk of someone accidentally getting shot. It's simply safer to keep your gun locked up in your gun-locker, and avoid criminals by using common sense and avoid risks (e.g. move to a safer neighbourhood, don't flash your money, stay away from those dudes hiding in the corner of the dark parking space, etc...)

    12. Re:Uh, you realize your error, right? by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 1

      If the criminal's walking up with a baseball bat, and the victim pulls a gun, I suspect the criminal would just run away. Yes, I imagine there are cases where having a gun would cause the victim to be killed when they wouldn't be otherwise - but I highly doubt that's the majority of cases.

      Naturally, of course, neither of us has any real evidence for these points.

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    13. Re:Uh, you realize your error, right? by macdaddy · · Score: 2
      They want to steal from unoccupied homes. Just being awake will chase most criminals from your home.

      You might want to do a little more research if you plan on laying that claim again. I suggest you start here and work your way over to this gem. People with motives other than robbery break into homes every day. A simple Google search will demonstrate that quite effectively.

    14. Re:Uh, you realize your error, right? by 4D6963 · · Score: 2

      Your 1.5 million crimes prevented count every instance where a person with a gun feels they prevented a crime. But lets be realistic. Was it the gun that prevented the crime? Or just the mere presence of a witness?

      Criminals don't want head-to-head confrontation any more than you do. They want to steal from unoccupied homes.

      People who ever step out of their house might be raped, assaulted, jacked or car jacked. The 1.5 million crimes in questions aren't all about people getting through your window to steal your VCR. If some career criminal pulls a gun to your head and tells you to get out of your car if you value your life, he won't care if you've got a "witness" with you. Having a gun isn't so much about protecting your home as it is protecting you in general. You're a lot less likely to be raped if you've got a Glock in your handbag (if you're a lady that is). I've seen stats and basically when 30% of rape attempts succeed, only 3% do when the victim has a gun.

      Is the life of someone in my family worth 5 televisions?

      Is the life of someone in your family worth the convenience of having a car? "The number of gun accidents, as he discovered, is somewhere around 1150/year." How many people die in car accidents in America every year? 10 times more? 20 times more? And how many crimes or deaths did cars prevent exactly? Yet people don't apply the same logic and decide to live with it. Why? Because a gun is meant to kill, a car is not. So people are all about the dangers of guns without realising that much more innocuous seeming things are an order of magnitude more dangerous or lethal.

      But do you see Michael Moore going to the CEO of General Motors' house with a picture of a little girl who died in a car crash?

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    15. Re:Uh, you realize your error, right? by macdaddy · · Score: 1

      This happened in a very high-end neighborhood. Don't even try to pretend that crime only happens in the projects.

    16. Re:Uh, you realize your error, right? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You can protect your home just as well with no gun. Your 1.5 million crimes prevented count every instance where a person with a gun feels they prevented a crime. But lets be realistic. Was it the gun that prevented the crime? Or just the mere presence of a witness?
      This is interesting. I guess you might have to ask how many of those people would have let the intruder or criminal know they were present with out the protection of a gun. I would say that a lot of people would attempt to keep quiet and hide if they knew someone had broken into their house and was rummaging through things.

      Most entries are made through a back entrance where it is less likely for people to see them fidgeting with a locked door or a windows. This means that most intruders would be close enough to the kitchen that if they didn't have a weapon when entering, they could have one real soon afterwards.
    17. Re:Uh, you realize your error, right? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I agree. It is meaningless to multiply this. If the data is from a single year, then if nothing has changed, it will be about the same the next year. It isn't like is no accidental shooting happen this year, all the sudden they will be made up for the next year. Also, your chances don't increase in perportion to the instances for the amount of years. You have just as much chance of being one of the people counted today as you will next year and the year after.

      Actually, It is probably less of a chance because gun safety is something that isn't usually left to chance. If you have good safety practices, and don't get comfortable with them and start neglecting things, you have an extremely low change of having an accident with a gun. I have had guns around me all my life without an instance, My father hasn't have an accident and neither has my grandfather both of which I know and know have has guns all their lives.

    18. Re:Uh, you realize your error, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We DO allow any schmuck to -own- a car, and even drive it on their own property (see farm vehicles).

      Where this analogy could work is to say we don't let any schmuck drive a car on public roads, and we need to have some reasonable regulation with regards to firearms being carried and used in public.

      My ownership or use of firearms in my home - sorry, but that's not for you to legislate/regulate.

    19. Re:Uh, you realize your error, right? by Smidge207 · · Score: 1
      But lets [sic] be realistic. Was it the gun that prevented the crime? Or just the mere presence of a witness?

      Your sloppy punctuation & spelling aside, the argument you're presenting is a logical fallacy called "begging the question." You present a conclusion "the witness" and accepting it as truth while not presenting evidence as to why I should take that as truth. Nice try, asshole. See you next week.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or is eldavojohn an idiot?
    20. Re:Uh, you realize your error, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should I decide to have a gun for home defense, how 'bout I just be an intelligent, responsible person and educate the other persons in the house about guns (with more than "don't touch it! - actually teach them to use it properly), store it intelligently, and then, no one gets hurt (including the imaginary burglar who never comes when someone's home - or at least doesn't stick around long enough to get shot!)

    21. Re:Uh, you realize your error, right? by PhearoX · · Score: 1

      I can prevent *almost* any crime without a gun that I can *with* one. The point is, I greatly reduce my chances of hand-to-hand combat when the asshole is looking down the barrel of my desert eagle.

      Again, I'm not at all worried about whether or not I can prevent the crime without the gun. Less physical harm will come to all parties involved if the crime is prevented WITH the gun, but no shots having been fired. That's an absolute fact.

    22. Re:Uh, you realize your error, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is the life of someone in my family worth 5 televisions? Are they HD?
    23. Re:Uh, you realize your error, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This parent is absolutely ridiculous, but so is this response.

      The simple fact is that while gun murders have fallen dramatically in England since the ban, murders have not. What has happened is that home-invasions occur more at night and similar crimes are more often to occur without regard to the presence of bystanders. It's a value judgment--does your society respect individual's choices, or does it rely on the government to make those choices.

      Nor should anyone think this is a U.S./Europe issue.
      Cities like Chicago, NY and D.C. have pretty onerous gun laws themselves--the empirical research is unanimous in its consensus that gun laws in those cities have done nothing to reduce crime.

      As has been the case throughout history, people will still kill each other and they will probably do so with about the same frequency (that is except when governments do the killing; in that case, it's a growth industry).

    24. Re:Uh, you realize your error, right? by immcintosh · · Score: 1

      I seem to have mod points available about 7 days out of every 10. The other three days are apparently reserved for posts on which I would actually use them :( Definitely agree with you that he's comparing apples to oranges.

    25. Re:Uh, you realize your error, right? by BBandCMKRNL · · Score: 1

      And more to the point. If you are the type who keep your gun handy at all times, you significantly increase the risk of someone accidentally getting shot. It's simply safer to keep your gun locked up in your gun-locker, and avoid criminals by using common sense and avoid risks (e.g. move to a safer neighbourhood, don't flash your money, stay away from those dudes hiding in the corner of the dark parking space, etc...) Only in your fantasy world. Meanwhile in the real world...

      In the early 1990's in Plano, Texas in the 2nd highest income zip code in the DFW metroplex, there was a problem with some rather nasty home invasions. Note that this was prior to the widespread availability of residential cellphone-enabled security systems. The invaders didn't care if anyone was home or not because when they targeted a house, they cut the phone lines to the victims house and all adjacent houses. They then proceeded to smash down the front door of the victims house and rob the occupants at gun point. Then, just for the hell of it, they proceeded to pistol whip the victims as they left.

      The police were unable to catch them because neither the victims nor their neighbors, if they heard anything, could call the police. So, how were the robbers finally stopped?

      They picked the wrong house to invade. They smashed through the front door of a house, only to be met by blasts from the owner's shotgun. One violent criminal died in the victims house. The other was injured and caught when he went to the hospital for treatment.

      That's the real world. You are responsible for your own protection, not the police.
      --
      Without the 2nd Amendment, the others are just suggestions.
    26. Re:Uh, you realize your error, right? by Noted+Futurist · · Score: 1

      That, my friend, is because most American homes have firearms in them.
      They flee because they don't want to be shot.
      See it yet?

    27. Re:Uh, you realize your error, right? by joto · · Score: 1

      I never implied anything of the sort. Scary things can happen anywhere. For christs sake, you could get a fucking comet dropping down on your penis just this moment!

      On the other hand, guns wouldn't necessarily have prevent the Wichita massacre, nor would it have prevented a comet from damaging your penis.

      I know, the average human brains ability to distinguish between stuff that is statistically significant, and stuff that's very scary but only happens rarely, is low. That's why people are afraid of flying. Still, statistically speaking, flying is safer than driving, and owning a gun for "protection" is more risky than not owning a gun for "protection".

    28. Re:Uh, you realize your error, right? by joto · · Score: 1

      So basically, what you are saying, is that it is possible for crime to happen somewhere you wouldn't expect? Congratulations dude, if you are willing to look into the dictionary at the word "risk", you might learn what it means. To "avoid" or "reduce" risk isn't the same as "guarantee safety". There's always the risk that you will die tomorrow, no matter what you do!

      Meanwhile, there are lots of other things to worry about. It would certainly be much wiser for you to worry about sugar and cholesterol-levels than 18 year old crimes in Plano. Because that's a much more likely killer!

    29. Re:Uh, you realize your error, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gun ownership is estimated around 200 million - given that previous number of 1150 accidents, that implies that there's a one in 170,000 chance that your gun will accidentally kill someone. A minor quibble, that would be a 1 in 170,000 chance this year alone. Multiply by total number of years of planned gun ownership to get the chances over the lifetime of ownership.
    30. Re:Uh, you realize your error, right? by Sethus · · Score: 1

      Is preventing the rape of 300 women, plus the assault of 450 people, plus 450 robberies, worth a single innocent life?

      DUH!
       
      Yes it is, so long as it's not my life!
      --
      Posting with out proof reading since 2001.
    31. Re:Uh, you realize your error, right? by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 1

      That is true, but as I mentioned in a different comment, that doesn't really change the conclusion I was drawing (since, obviously, the chance of stopping a murder/burglary/rape/attempted-conquering-of-the-world-by-aliens increases by the same factor.)

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    32. Re:Uh, you realize your error, right? by BBandCMKRNL · · Score: 1
      I was replying to this:

      And more to the point. If you are the type who keep your gun handy at all times, you significantly increase the risk of someone accidentally getting shot. It's simply safer to keep your gun locked up in your gun-locker, and avoid criminals by using common sense and avoid risks (e.g. move to a safer neighbourhood, don't flash your money, stay away from those dudes hiding in the corner of the dark parking space, etc...) The person in the story I told followed the above advice: He lived in a very low crime neighborhood, didn't flash his money, stayed away from those dudes hiding in the corner of the dark parking space, etc. Fortunately for him, he didn't follow the part about keeping your self defense firearm inaccessible otherwise he would have joined the other victims who mistakingly depended upon the police to protect them, only to discover too late, that the police can't protect you.

      As far as what you said,

      Meanwhile, there are lots of other things to worry about. It would certainly be much wiser for you to worry about sugar and cholesterol-levels than 18 year old crimes in Plano. Because that's a much more likely killer! Why can't I do both? Is there some law that says I can't take care of my health and my safety?
      --
      Without the 2nd Amendment, the others are just suggestions.
    33. Re:Uh, you realize your error, right? by bwchato · · Score: 1

      i keep mine in the open on a table the same heigth as my bed.Have owned it for 19 years and target shot it 2 times,but would not hesitate to shoot a stranger in my home.

    34. Re:Uh, you realize your error, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and avoid criminals by using common sense and avoid risks (e.g. move to a safer neighbourhood, don't flash your money, stay away from those dudes hiding in the corner of the dark parking space, etc...)

      So your point is... blame the victim?

    35. Re:Uh, you realize your error, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I were you, I'd be more concerned about the fact that you're clearly too enamored with yourself to think before you start posting.

      Perhaps you should just go back to your comet damaged penis and leave the posting to thinkers.

    36. Re:Uh, you realize your error, right? by Eivind · · Score: 1

      I choose to focus on burglaries because those take place in the home, and that is where most people store their guns.

      If you're talking about concealed weapons carried at all time, then it's a completely different matter -- those are likely to be at hand in many more situations, on the other hand doing that also typically raises the odds of accidents.

      I agree that multiplying by age is equally relevant for the crimes and the accidents. It makes both equally more likely. It was meant to illustrate that the odds of an accident aren't THAT low. One in 2500 lifetimes, would mean that in my town of 100K people, aproximately 40 of those would die from gun-accidents inside of 50 years, aproximately one a year. Probably 10 a year HURT by accidental gunfire. (yes this number comes out of my behind, but I hope you can agree that the TOTAL number of accidents is likely to be significantly higher than the number of LETHAL accidents)

      There hasn't been a -single- case of anyone killed by a burglar in the last 10 years. Infact, there hasn't been a single case of anyone being killed by a stranger in the last 10 years. There's been a few manslaugthers, say someone (mostly a man) killing a wife (or a husband) in a quarrel or similar. Having more guns around wouldn't help with those. (infact it'd likely make it worse)

      I guess my views -are- colored by living on a relatively peaceful place. Obviously the risk of accidents are relatively uninfluenced by where you live whereas the risk of crime varies wildly. Being murdered by a stranger is essentially a null risk in most of the world though. (Here the odds of being murdered at all are somewhat less than 0.1%, and about 75% of those are murders by someone you know well. Of the REMAINING 25% of the murders, 80% are in and by criminal gangs)

      Put differently, if you are NOT an active member of a criminal gang, the odds that you (or your wife, or your children) will be murdered by someone you don't know well is something like 0.0025% or 1:20000. Which is completely ignorable. Notice that these are risks of dying that way AT ALL. Not risks of dying this way THIS YEAR.

      Oh, and reference ? http://www.ssb.no/

    37. Re:Uh, you realize your error, right? by Eivind · · Score: 1

      Nope. Or well, partly.

      They -flee- because the potential REWARD for staying is smaller than the potential RISK. (which includes the risk of being shot)

      Thing is, most burglaries are not discovered before the thief is long gone. Given this, what is the point in staying in your house and risk detection or conflict just for a few more trinkets when they can much more easily leave and break into another house a few miles away ?

      It's not just the risk of being shot. It's the fact that you may be able to give a useful description to the police. You -certainly- will immediately contact the police when they leave, so they risk cops on their tail. Unless they tie you up which could make noise and means physically engaging you which is, again, more risk than it's worth.

      Burglars, overwhelmingly, want EASY money. It's much EASIER stealing from people who are not there, or who are sleeping soundly.

    38. Re:Uh, you realize your error, right? by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 1

      Pretty much the only objection I have to this is the idea of "ignorable murders". My arguments aren't based around "I think I deserve to be safer", they're based around "what causes the least harm/most good to humanity in general". I don't know how large your town is - I'm going to guess it's small because it's peaceful, so let's pull a number out of a hat and say it's 10,000 people. In that case the statistics you listed is one death every two years, and, honestly, one death every two years is at least worth a little debate.

      (Yes, numbers basically made up, I'm just making a comment on "completely ignorable".)

      The other objection I have is:

      Having more guns around wouldn't help with those. (infact it'd likely make it worse)

      [citation needed] :D

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    39. Re:Uh, you realize your error, right? by joto · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but your logic sucks dude. Statistically, you are more likely to die from gun accidents than home---than from home robberies. You have given one concrete example where gun ownership helped. But that's an anecdote, not something that's statistically significant. In another situation, owning a gun and pointing it at the burglar, might get you killed. Or just about any other unlikely scenario could happen.

      My point is, keeping a gun in the house, give you an increase in risk of gun accidents. Keeping a gun easily available, increases this risk a lot, as well as increasing the risk of the gun being stolen, etc... Home robberies are extremely rare. Home robberies stopped by gun owners even more rare. Is it worth the risk of keeping the gun at hand, when it happens this rarely?

      There are lots of things you could worry about. Do you carry a life-vest in your car, in case a bridge should collapse while you were driving over it? It's probably a more common accident than home robberies, and unlike keeping a gun at home, doesn't carry any big disadvantages. Speaking of driving, I can't even believe you are willing to take such risks, but hey, that's you, the risktaker!

      I take it for granted that you always carry an emergency adrenaline shot, which can be used in a number of unlikely scenarios, such as a poisoning from toxic gas, a heart attack, etc... And you probably also carry the more regular stuff, like bandages, and painkillers, as well as having tattooed your blood-type to your forehead. And I assume you are excessive about your workouts too, if shit hits the fans, you are more likely to survive if you are in excellent shape. But seriously, you should probably carry even more stuff, in case there is a sudden total societal breakdown. You probably need food and water, and lots of other items, in case world war three starts (and ends) while driving to work.

      Also, have you reinforced you house to survive a direct collision with a passenger jet? In 2001 there was several collisions between passenger jets and buildings, which should make this a much bigger danger (statistically speaking) than home robberies. I suggest you take the appropriate actions. Also, fires, floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, have you even made your disaster plans yet?

    40. Re:Uh, you realize your error, right? by wyohman · · Score: 1

      We don't let just any schmuck drive a car, and we need to have some reasonable regulation with regards to firearms.

      Have you seen what it takes to get a drivers license? I'd hardly call that "schuck-proof."

      Cheers.

    41. Re:Uh, you realize your error, right? by Eivind · · Score: 1

      Actually, my city has aproximately 115000 inhabitants in the city, and aproximately a quarter million in the metropolitan area. But nevermind.

      I did not mean that the murders where ignorable as in they do not matter.

      I meant they where ignorable as in if you care about the wellbeing of your family, there are going to be many other areas where you achieve a lot MORE with a lot LESS effort.

      It is not worth it spending $5K and some time and some effort to reduce a 1:1 million risk if the same cash and the same effort could instead reduce a 1:100000 risk. If your house is burning and the sink is dripping you DONT fix the dripping sink first and the burning house second, you do it the other way around.

      Do you -really- feel the need for a citation to believe my claim that having loaded guns around in situations where couples attack eachothers (for whatever reason) is unlikely to be helpful ? (If they're sensible, it'll make no difference whatsoever though, but sometimes people ARENT sensible, as evidenced by the fact that people ARE killed by partners regularily)

      It's a bit like people driving their kids everywhere because the streets are so full of crimes, and then not realizing that those very same kids are infact much MUCH more likely to suffer or die because of too little physical activity than they are because of crime, so infact the action HARMS the children.

      It's long-term though, and that's why people don't see it clearly. They worry that the child will be [insert-bad-thing-here] today. They -dont- worry that the child will be overweight in 5 years. That he/she will have (larger) problems finding a partner in 10 years, get diabetes in 40 years or die from overweight-induced circulatory disease in 50. Even though all of these latter problems are much more likely. (over 30% die from heart-or-circulatory problems, this risk is more than halved in a person of normal weight, as opposed to a overweight one)

    42. Re:Uh, you realize your error, right? by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 1

      Do you -really- feel the need for a citation to believe my claim that having loaded guns around in situations where couples attack eachothers (for whatever reason) is unlikely to be helpful ?

      Do you *really* feel the need for a citation to believe my claim that common weapon carrying would cause people to be, on average, more civil to each other, and less likely to attack each other in rage in general?

      Well, obviously, you do. And, yes, in that case, I do too.

      Guns are pretty damn deadly, but it turns out knives are also, and the vast majority of houses have an ample supply of knives. Banning one weapon doesn't help all that much.

      Basically, yes, chances are very good that each individual person will not save anyone by carrying a firearm around. But chances are even lower than each individual person will cause an accident due to easy availability of firearms. (And I also highly suspect that chances are lower that that same person will kill someone in a rage.)

      You're right, it is a long-term thing, and it's a case where people worry about the obvious things without considering the more subtle ones. People want to control whatever they possibly can, and when they hear "gun" they think "my little Bobby could be shot by that gun, let's ban guns". They don't think "my little Bobby could be saved by a guy defending him when Bobby gets attacked by a guy wielding a broken bottle/knife/rock/etc", and, I mean, I can't blame them, because it's more of an stretch . . . but from what I've seen, it turns out the second situation is a lot more common than the first.

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    43. Re:Uh, you realize your error, right? by Eivind · · Score: 1

      But it isn't !

      Arming all household would mean putting 100.000 extra weapons in my city alone, complete with ammo, and easily available in the bedroom, if you want to reduce anything OTHER than burglary, those weapons also need to be carried when outside the house.

      All this, for defending against something which basically never happens, namely that someone is murdered by a stranger breaking into their house. This has not happened even once in the years I've live here in this city. Yeah, there's been killings, not a -single- one where I could see bystanders or victims being armed as helpful though.

      If little Bobby is hurt at all. The most likely persons to hurt him are his immediate family and friends. How many times in *your* life have you experienced a situation where you'd thougth; if only I had a loaded gun in my hand -now- ? If it's like -common- did you consider living somewhere OTHER than a crime-infested cesspool ?

    44. Re:Uh, you realize your error, right? by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 1

      You're still arguing based on gut feeling and hyperbole. "Well, I don't think it would be useful. And people might get killed! Therefore it must be bad."

      I agree - if little Bobby is hurt, it's probably thanks to his family. What makes you think guns would make this worse? If Bobby is old enough - let's say he's 8 or 9 - he should be getting some very basic training on firearm safety anyway, which means he's not likely to kill people accidentally but he can, in theory at least, defend himself.

      Meanwhile, if big old Uncle Jake comes at him with a knife, and Bobby's only got a knife to defend himself, he's pretty much screwed.

      Hypothetical situation obviously, but it's just as valid as your gut feelings.

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
  120. my solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use various combinations of cameras, Wired, wireless and network. I use motion to monitor all of them. It works well. The wired low lux cameras give the best result in low light.

  121. Why not go to aiptek and get clearance? by MickLinux · · Score: 1

    Just a note: looking on AIPTEK.COM, their clearance items include:

    http://www.aiptek.com/

      Pocket DV4500 + Free Camera Bag $29.99
      Pocket DV4100M $19.99
      Mini PenCam 1.3 Blue + Free Webcam Accessories $9.99

    I don't see where you can get much cheaper than that.

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
  122. Wireless Remoting Sensing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I need a wireless remote sensing solution that will allow me to monitor my marijuana crop from the safety of my home. The wireless must have enough range to extend over 10 miles, and security must be in place so that law enforcement can't find out my IP address if the system is discovered.

  123. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no need to spend much $ for stupid nigga

  124. I guess "need" is for each of us to decide by doug141 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Repeating this story is worth being modded down for:

    Where We're Headed
    Robert A. Waters
    You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.

    Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.

    With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it.

    In the darkness, you make out two shadows. One holds a weapon--it looks like a crowbar.

    When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.

    As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble. In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered.

    Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.

    When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter. "What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask. "Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

    The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choir boys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times. But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters.

    As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media.

    The surviving burglar has become a folk hero. Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win.

    The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

    A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.

    It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.

    The judge sentences you to life in prison.

    This case really happened.

    On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.

    How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once-great British Empire?

    It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns. Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

    Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

    The British public, already desensitize

    1. Re:I guess "need" is for each of us to decide by hansamurai · · Score: 3, Informative

      Okay, that's a great story and all, but it needs some updating. Tony Martin was released from jail in July of 2003 (shooting occurred in August of 1999) after his life sentence had been reduced because of him supposedly suffering from paranoid personality disorder. The one burglar did attempt to sue, but also dropped that. Tony Martin also supposedly sold his story for 125,000 pounds.

      I'm not saying I agree or disagree with your story, just making sure it is updated appropriately.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)

    2. Re:I guess "need" is for each of us to decide by gwynevans · · Score: 2, Informative

      This case really happened. On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term. Actually, in 2001, Martin's murder conviction was reduced to manslaughter and a duration of five years, and his 10-year sentence for wounding Fearon was cut to three years, to run concurrently, as he was judged to be suffering from a paranoid personality disorder and acting under diminished responsibility. He was released from custody in July 2003. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/3087003.stm
    3. Re:I guess "need" is for each of us to decide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      The reason Tony Martin took a lot more shit than maybe he deserved (i fully support his defense of his home and the robbers were definitely scum) was because he shot them in the back as they were running away. He was also a cause celebre in much of the English media, not how the article makes him out, and that is why, several years ago now, he was released after only serving 3 years - life of course not even meaning close to life in England anyway. If he had shot them in the face not the back and they were actually inside his home not running away from it then it is unlikely that he would have had a custodial sentence at all - the right of reasonable force being a very long and well respected one in England, despite Blair putting the right of criminals before the law abiding. I'm from Norfolk myself and Tony Martin nothing but support round here. Also, and this i'm not sure of in his case, but farmers are allowed to legally own shotguns, as are sporting shooters etc. Handguns and rifles are nearly impossilbe to obtain legally though.

      So the story as presented is incredibly biased, obviously written to rally the NRA crowd in America. Maybe you made the post for the sake of completion but it should really be modded down for being only half truths and propoganda.

    4. Re:I guess "need" is for each of us to decide by nickname29 · · Score: 1

      Interesting story. I see the following in wikipedia:
      Fearon's applied for, and received, an estimated £5,000 of legal aid to sue Martin for loss of earnings due to the injury he sustained.

      This is something that I do not understand. If you try to rob someone, and you come of second best, can you sue them for your unsuccessful robbery?
      What do you take as your loss of income? How do you determine a robbers income? From all the successful robberies that he could have done?

      I am fortunate enough to live in the country with the highest murders per capita. I think I fully support this guy - if someone is on your property and he attempts a robbery, you can shoot to kill.

    5. Re:I guess "need" is for each of us to decide by Muledeer007 · · Score: 1

      We're protected in the States -- you shoot a burglar you win a free trial with a jury of your peers. Most common discussion in the jury room during deliberations - "I woulda shot him in the kitchen...vinyl floor is a whole lot easier to cleanup..." Mule

    6. Re:I guess "need" is for each of us to decide by asynchronous13 · · Score: 4, Informative

      In fairness, you should include all the facts. Namely that Tony Martin's shotgun certificate had been previously revoked for gun-related misbehavior. And he shot the robbers as they were fleeing out a window. It's a bit harder to claim self defense when you shoot someone in the back.

      While the outcome does seem unjust, the case was not as lopsidedly unjust as this version of the story makes it appear.

    7. Re:I guess "need" is for each of us to decide by strong_epoxy · · Score: 1

      Thank goodness the 'Robbers were fleeing out the window.' The media was right, they were choir boys after all.

      What would your reaction be to two armed men in your house at night. What if your family was sleeping there?

    8. Re:I guess "need" is for each of us to decide by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die."

      I dare you to claim that they did deserve to die, for burglary.

      Seriously.

      The court system doesn't impose lethal injections on burglars, so why should YOU have the right to use lethal force on one?

      Next question.
      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    9. Re:I guess "need" is for each of us to decide by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but isn't the whole point to prevent the burglary?

      Why exactly do you need to shoot them once they're running away? Do you believe personal injury or death is a valid result of theft? Not even the UAE kills people for simple theft.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    10. Re:I guess "need" is for each of us to decide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember that story. According to his account he saw a shape on the stairs and fired, shooting the burglar in the back.

      He was sentenced to five years, not life, and was released after three. He didn't really deserve to go to jail, but there were factors that worked against him (he fired when not directly threatened, and if his gun was illegally owned that may have been a factor, I don't recall if that was the case.)

      It does not appear to be the travesty the media painted it as, unless you happen to twist the facts a little to suit your political agenda before recounting it.

    11. Re:I guess "need" is for each of us to decide by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      In the darkness, you make out two shadows. One holds a weapon--it looks like a crowbar.

      When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. . . Or. . .

      Oops! An elderly neighbor with Alzheimer's and a cane had bumbled into the wrong house, and his daughter had come in to get him after seeing him enter your house. Only it was too dark for you to tell the difference...
    12. Re:I guess "need" is for each of us to decide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you lock your door at night? Or did your elderly neighbor break open one of your windows and climb in?

    13. Re:I guess "need" is for each of us to decide by rantingkitten · · Score: 1

      Sound familiar?

      Sounds like "shoot first and ask questions later", to me. I realise the story takes a bit of dramatic liberty, but not by much.

      Here, consider. He has a shotgun trained on what he thinks is someone breaking and entering. Of course, it may just be some lost deranged hobo or his son trying to sneak back home after a night out with the boys, but whatever. The burglar may or may not have a crowbar -- it was too dark and shadowy to really tell, apparently.

      So, without further ado, he pumps the guy full of lead?

      Guns can deter crime and defend you in ways that don't involve pulling the trigger.

      How about turning on the light and letting the burglar see that you're holding a shotgun?

      Or rack a round. The familiar ker-klack! of a shotgun shell being loaded would send most people fleeing into the night.

      Or, just announce yourself. If they don't run, well, you've still got the shotgun as a last resort.

      And that's the real problem with sob stories like this. The guy didn't use firepower as a last resort, but as his first option. After briefly glimpsing a shadowy Something he couldn't positively identify, that was enough for him, and he opened fire without bothering to verify his target. To me this sounds like a trigger happy paranoid who shouldn't have a gun in the first place.

      I'm not saying that lethal force is completely uncalled for in certain situations, but having a gun is often enough of a deterrent to stop anybody. Pulling the trigger should be the last option at your disposal.

      --
      mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
    14. Re:I guess "need" is for each of us to decide by cgenman · · Score: 1

      Growing up I never heard of a gun being used in self-defense in my neighborhood. I *did* hear of three incidents of guns being stolen out of people's houses during routine burglaries. The US DOJ puts the number of handgun thefts at 400,000 per year.

      Whatever your position is, we can all agree that the safest defense is still A: visible surveilence of your property, B: an audible alarm system that scares away attackers before things rise to the level of direct confrontation, C: an effective police system that can catch criminals from the surveilence video, and D: an economic system that provides sufficient opportunity such as to reduce the attractiveness of crime. A: and B: are within the individual's hands, and C: can be facilitated by having better surveilence. D: is up to us all in that annoyingly touchy-feely sense, which basically means until we're all better people there just isn't much we can do about it.

      In the grand scheme of things, I'd rather have a motion triggered floodlight system combined with cheap but reliable server-reporting cameras and a monitored break-in detection system than a gun. In the former situation, protection is automatic. The latter misses cases where I'm not home, I'm too asleep to notice, or the criminal is armed and more on the jump than I am.

    15. Re:I guess "need" is for each of us to decide by bwchato · · Score: 1

      Repeating this story is worth being modded down for: Where We're Headed Robert A. Waters You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows. One holds a weapon--it looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside. As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble. In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered. Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter. "What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask. "Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven." The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choir boys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times. But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero. Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars. A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges. The judge sentences you to life in prison. This case really happened. On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term. How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once-great British Empire? It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns. Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns. Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead. The British public, already desensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned ha

    16. Re:I guess "need" is for each of us to decide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems to me that the gun debate falls into two distinct categories: the 'shoot 'em first and let God decide' brigade, and the 'Anyone who wants to own a gun probably shouldn't be allowed one' lobby. Personally, I'm certain that it's not guns that are the problem, it's *some* of the owners. Living in the UK I'm glad that the police have, just about, managed to keep Gun ownership under some sort of control, although they may actually be beginning to lose the battle right now.

      There may come a time when we have to acknowledge that a situation has arisen where 100% of the crooks has guns, and 0% of the good folk have them. If this situation ever comes to pass, then we are truly in trouble.

      PMoreton

    17. Re:I guess "need" is for each of us to decide by JuggleGeek · · Score: 1
      Maybe you made the post for the sake of completion but it should really be modded down for being only half truths and propoganda.

      All of this crap should be modded down because it's off topic.

  125. powerlinx powerline cameras by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know about their quality of price but I saw them in Sam's Club in NJ, their internet camera is "coming soon"

    http://www.secureviewvideo.com/

  126. Lukwerks (avail in Walmart) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Informative column
    http://www.networkworld.com/newsletters/soho/2006/0306networker2.html

  127. Window Cleaning by sasserstyl · · Score: 1

    It seems to me that a big issue for external cameras is keeping the window clean (i.e. the glass/plastic through which the camera sees).

    Anyone got any tips to help with this?

  128. Why Not Just Audio? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It occurred to me to just have an "open mike" in the office. This open mike is linked to an icecast or shoutcast broadcast and monitored conveniently from a web interface. I can refine the real time audio capture as I can refine my live monitoring methods - but in either case it is a free solution and 24/7 live.

    Thoughts?

  129. what's good 4 the goose... by airdrummer · · Score: 1

    isn't necessarily ok 4 the common gander: a neighbor was having problems with mailbox batting practice & set up a video camera in an upstairs bedroom, trained on his driveway & mailbox at the curb. he was told to take it down by his across-the-street neighbor, who works for the CIA...

    1. Re:what's good 4 the goose... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was he asked or told to? If told, on what grounds? If the camera was aimed at his property and the road, I would think it would be fine. Also I have to wonder, why someone who works for the CIA would tell their neighbors that they do? ;)

    2. Re:what's good 4 the goose... by merchant_x · · Score: 1

      I'd tell the across the street neighbor to go fuck himself. CIA has no jurisdiction over domestic matters. A law enforcement officer with local jurisdiction would have to tell me what law my camera was in violation of before I would feel compelled to comply.

  130. Three words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get a dog.

  131. police protection? by airdrummer · · Score: 1

    this is a recurring fantasy of the brady bunch, that the police can protect you, indeed are responsible for your personal protection, and that the only solution is banning guns.

    but in a case involving several women in d.c. shot by an intruder while waiting for a police response (that never came)-: the courts decided that the police were not liable for not responding because they are not responsible for protecting citizens.

    i expect this will lead to the overturning of d.c.'s gun prohibition (which works_so_well)-: by the supremes.

  132. Apples and oranges. by Shadowed_Stranger · · Score: 1

    While I love the control and ease of use of IP and network cameras, analog cameras are still real workhorses compared to them. You can get a great image quality, and anywhere from 15-90 fps. As someone that has to deal with breakins on a regular basis (both night and day) I can't stress framerate enough. 15 is enough to see what goes on, but when someone is attacking your change machine (or car) you can inch forward frame by frame and get the perfect shot. (Especially if they have a hood on.) Just remember that on PC based DVR systems (not where every camera is an independent server) Your DVR card has a set framerate and every camera added to the system decreases each camera's framerate proportionately. Depending on the network cameras, though, you can get a high framerate as well, and also many network cameras have PTZ (pan tilt zoom) which can be controlled by motion or manually over the internet or from a server. Yet another option would be dummy cameras. For under $50 you can get a dummy camera that will follow motion, have a light start blinking and/or make a beep noise.

  133. Re:IQeye (get a gun) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In many states of the US there is this concept called "Castle Doctrine." The concept is if you are in your home (or car in some states) you enjoy the legal right to use deadly force.

    If someone is breaking into your house, you don't know what their intent is. Do yourself and society a favor - kill them and remove their genetic and behavioral traits from the breeding stock.

    I believe, what few social agreements someone enjoys that discourages violence is lost the moment they step into my house and force me to decide if they intend, and are capable of, causing harm to my family, my friends, and myself. Fortunately, I live in a state that believes the same and has codified that believe into law.

    Find out what the average police response time to critical calls is in your area - you may be surprised. The police, and state, are not our bodyguards. The protection of yourself and your family is _your_ responsibility.

    Violent, non-violent - there is no difference. Shoot the intruder and be done with it.

  134. Fundamental rights vs. privileges by JonTurner · · Score: 2, Insightful

    >>We don't let just any schmuck drive a car, and we need to have some reasonable regulation with regards to firearms.

    I disagree with your premise. The theft, and defense of life, liberty and property happen at the point of a gun. It is a tool, not a cause. Driving is not a fundamental right of man. Defending ones life is.

    Still think some regulation is acceptable? Okay. then how do you feel about some "reasonable regulation" regarding voting? (perhaps only land owners can vote? Maybe pass a test first or pay a voting tax?) Or "reasonable regulation" for freedom of speech (such as jail time if you offend someone or laws against speaking ill of the government?) Finally, how would you feel about "reasonable regulation" of ones ability to practice a religion (say we just ban Islam completely or require everyone pray to the Official State Government) Doesn't sound very appealing, does it?

    All of those things I've mentioned are considered God-given, fundamental rights which the US Constitution and Bill of Rights prohibits the government from tampering with or infringing upon.

    Besides, who gets to define "reasonable?" This is the definition of a slippery slope. Fundamental rights are immutable, and having politicians determine your rights is precisely the opposite of what our Constitutional Republic was designed for.

    Reasonable Regulation often isn't.

    1. Re:Fundamental rights vs. privileges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You idiot. All those things ARE regulated.

      Still think some regulation is acceptable? Okay. then how do you feel about some "reasonable regulation" regarding voting? (perhaps only land owners can vote? Maybe pass a test first or pay a voting tax?) Or "reasonable regulation" for freedom of speech (such as jail time if you offend someone or laws against speaking ill of the government?) Finally, how would you feel about "reasonable regulation" of ones ability to practice a religion (say we just ban Islam completely or require everyone pray to the Official State Government) Doesn't sound very appealing, does it? You have to be 18 to vote. And not mentally incapacitated.
      Free speech is not entirely free. There are restrictions - defamation, threats, perjury to name but a few.
      Religious freedom does not allow Warren Jeffs to do whatever he pleases in the name of religion.

      To play your game - Reasonable Regulation is (reasonable). But you're right - regulation often isn't (reasonable).

      Reasonable Regulation is very appealing. It's important in upholding the rights the constitution gives you. And it might just stop people like you getting hold of a lethal weapon.
  135. *reported* Statistics by JonTurner · · Score: 1

    >>Also, given the 1.5 million crimes prevented, that's a one in 133 chance that you will prevent a criminal from committing a crime.

    More than that, I believe, because that's based only the statistics that are reported to the government.

    It's impossible to know how many crimes are stopped/prevented by responsible firearm use, which are never reported to the government.

    1. Re:*reported* Statistics by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 1

      Quite true. Pretty much all of these statistics are incredibly hazy and hard to pin down - I imagine there's some inflation in that number as well ("well, I had a gun! And I totally scared him off with it! I mean I'm certain he would have attacked me or something, and I didn't actually pull the gun on him, actually I think I left it home that day. But man, you shoulda seen me! I was a fucking hero, dude!")

      In this case, the number comes (from what I can tell) from a phone survey. Which, at least, doesn't require that anything was reported to the government. But it does bring up a whole series of inaccuracies of its own.

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
  136. Usable images at night means money.... by HycoWhit · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you want usable images taken of at night of distant, moving targets--you'll need to spend 1000+ on a camera.

    I live in a resort area. Vacant homes are often robbed during winter. During the summers, people will monkey with boat docks as well. My property has two sets of cameras.

    The expensive camera is hidden near the road and has been configured to capture the license plates of all cars coming and going. Being able to read the license plate, at night, of a car moving 30 to 50 miles per hour required a camera that cost $1200.

    My dock also has cameras, but much lower end. (Three $200ish cameras) The dock lighting is rigged to motion sensors. At night when a boat gets close, the dock lights up and the cameras work fine. Turn off the lights and cameras are in the dark.

    So far the cameras have not caught any thieves--just drunk buddies coming over in the middle of the night...

    Lots of folks have talked about dogs and guns. Dogs are great as night watchmen/an early warning system--i.e. if I'm sleeping and hear my dogs go nuts, I know someone is about. If you aren't home--dogs don't do much good.

    As for weapons--a law enforcement friend had a great philosophy. Buy a pump shotgun for home defense. The pump makes a very distinctive noise in a quite house at night. The noise of a shell being chambered should be enough to make most thieves run... I personally don't like using guns for defense--I'm scared I would hesitate to shoot and end up having the weapon used against me or escalating the situation.

  137. Re:But how to monitor the surveillance cameras ... by MrNiceguy_KS · · Score: 1
    Claymore mines? Are you crazy?

    I mean, just think of the mess! I hope you at least had the foresight to install a couple of floor drains.

    --
    Redundancy is good And also good.
  138. Here's a cheap DIY solution by kiick · · Score: 1

    http://www.riccibitti.com/witnesscam/entry/witnesscam.htm> Low low cost, but hard to assemble. Maybe you could get some of these geeks to build you one for a reasonable fee?

  139. According to CSI MIAMI... by lastpub · · Score: 1

    According to CSI MIAMI... it shouldn't matter since they can always enhance the quality of the video on the fly.

    --
    My vocabulary is so huge it's enormous. if only I could think of a word bigger than enormous, like huge.
  140. I've done this for my customers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've used PCI multiport (up to 16 cameras) video cards like those made by Geovision and Elyssa. (there are cheap knock-offs...) The remote access works well enough. Reasonable analog security cameras from Supercircuits or the like - whatever camera suits your need. Toss the card into an old Pentium3 PC and you're good to go.

    Suggestion: Don't get distracted by advice with an agenda - if you have determined that video is your need, then go with your knowledge of your specific situation. For my house/situation, this was the perfect solution. For different situations, different solutions are appropriate. Use your head first.

    Full disclosure - I also have little yappy dogs. The cameras are for the times when nobody is home.

  141. My system has been 100% effective for 20+ years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I keep my car keys in the ignition of my cars. I've never locked the door to my house or carried a key. I have dogs, but they are friendly and wag their tails with eager looks. And in nearly 25 years, I've never had anything taken.

    Of course, the trick is to not live near human garbage. Apparently that eliminates every city on earth.

    Even if someone now cleaned out my whole house to the bare walls, I figure they'd get about 15-20k of replaceable crap, and in exchange, I bought 20+ years of never caring once about any key. I think $1000 a year (and falling) for that kind of worry-free existence is a bargain.

  142. Some gun stories. by djdavetrouble · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I'm not really replying to the above post, just a couple of gun stories.

    In the hood, when shit goes down, guns come out, and it is not for show, people use their guns.
    A quick story: Next door neighbor, Busy house, big family. One of the 20 somethings is fighting with his girlfriend, who lives there, and in the process picks up a cinderblock and hurls it onto the front patio of the house. It was just a violent act of frustration, but not directed towards anyone. The patriarch of the house sees this shit, and comes out of the house yelling, brandishing a chrome 45. This dude is pissed because his little kids are around and this fool is throwing bricks on the property. Dumbass boyfriend is running down the street and my man the patriarch ends his explanation of why he is pissed and lets 3 fly, bang bang bang, right down the street at this fool. Luckily, He missed and straight ahead there is nothing but industrial buildings, but a little to the left or a little to the right are more houses, with residents and old ladies and children inside. The bullet has to land somewhere, doesn't it?

    Same city, different neighborhood, this time up in the hills, affluent neigborhood. The houses here have property, trees, space between them. My dude is messing with this girl that lives there, and discovers daddy's handgun! A glock!
    Well, temptation got the best of him, he had to fire both his guns that day, so he lets a few go into the "woods". The problem is he is still in city limits. So, fun was had, shots were fired, but someone heard those shots, and also noticed
    a hole in their house, and a bullet lodged in their wall.

    Both of them did some time even though their shots hit noone.

    I like shooting targets myself, and I'm glad that there isn't one around my house.

    --
    music lover since 1969
    1. Re:Some gun stories. by djdavetrouble · · Score: 1

      I like shooting targets myself, and I'm glad that there isn't one around my house.

      I meant to say I am glad that there isn't a gun around my house...... :) :) :)

      --
      music lover since 1969
  143. Cheap megapixel cameras by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cheap megapixel cameras that are decent quality and stable...

    http://www.vivotek.com.tw/

    Look at the IP7138 or IP7139. Their other cameras are good too, but these two I have had extensive experience with and can vouch for them.

    Oh, and a possible bonus: they run embedded linux, and yes they distribute the source code so they comply with the GPL.

  144. Cheaper and better than video by guruevi · · Score: 1

    Either get a dog or an alarm system. Criminals don't like either and it's quite a deterrent for them, they'll rather skip to another neighborhood than messing with it. Alarm systems need to be armed though so you'll have to keep it up, but once it goes off, the criminal will run. It only costs $10-50/month and takes a big chunk out of your homeowners (depending on your neighborhood) and can possibly be brought into your taxes if you have a home office. If you're a DIY: http://www.smarthome.com/alarm.html, if not, go to the big boys like ADT or Brinks.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  145. Digital Night Game Camera with IR flash by stkpogo · · Score: 1

    get a Digital Night Game Camera with IR flash http://www.cabelas.com/prod-1/0046571417902a.shtml

  146. Zoom In by airship · · Score: 1

    Use relatively cheap cameras with good narrow-field lenses and aim them at points of entry and expensive objects (like your car). It makes no sense to use a wide-angle camera to cover your whole property in lo-res when a thief has to gain entry to your property through a door or window, and has to open your car door to steal your car or its CD player. Focus tight and you'll get better identification when a crime does happen.

    --
    Serving your airship needs since 1995.
  147. Is Cheap Video Surveillance Possible? YES!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can get a full solution from Wilife (http://www.wilife.com) for under $300. Reasonly they got acquired by Logitech and you can expect good quality products from them.

    From their website
            * Record only motion at scheduled times, days and durations. Or you can record everything, all the time.
            * Easily view your live or recorded video on your PC.
            * Get e-mail or cell phone alerts when your cameras detects motion.
            * Remotely Monitor your home from anywhere in the world for FREE!

  148. What about cheap(er) webcams? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know it may not be an optimal solution, but you could rig a PC with some software, have a few webcams connected via USB extentions and a USB hub mounted in directions that are out of the elements enough to maybe watch the drive way and your front door (either inside, outside, or both). Or use one of those USB to WiFi adaptors so you don't have the long run of cable, and get one of those motion activated lights for at night, so when the light senses someone not only will the light possibly scare them off, it would provide maybe enough for the webcam to get a good enough picture?

  149. Even easier than a dog by MooseTick · · Score: 1

    Dog's are great deterrents, but I have a solution almost as good as a dog and it only costs about $100.

    Get a bunch of signs, a dormat, and other items that make it look like you have a dog. Stuff like, "We love our German Shepherd", dormat with a picture of a big dog, a large water bowl by the front door, etc. When a potential burgler sees that stuff he'll most likely move on the the next house.

  150. My 2 Cents... by BeanBagKing · · Score: 2, Informative
    After reading most of the comments, here's my input...

    If your looking to protect your property while your home, get a gun. Before all the gun-toters start screaming YAY! and all the hippies start clubbing me to death, understand this. A gun is both a weapon and a tool, and one you must have the maturity and responsibility to handle. They say the sound of a shotgun racking is one of the most frightening sounds in the world to a robber. If its a handgun, get a TacLight put on it (like surefire), this will blind the crook, and allow you to positively ID that it's not your son sneaking out of the house or something. If it was me staring down the barrel and hardly able to see, it'd scare the shit out of me. I've had several friends, including a female that was home alone, use guns to simply scare away robbers. A cheap VCR might not be worth pulling a gun out for, but what else are they there for? Will they rape you, your wife, your daughter? Are they willing to kill to keep from leaving witnesses? There's all sorts of messed up humans out there today. Owning a gun and doesn't mean you have to pull the trigger, but be prepared to if you must. I realize this wasn't in the original topic (I'm getting to that) but feel it should be addressed after all the other comments. Personally I think everyone should own a gun, and I also believe EVERYONE (especially said owners) should learn how to properly use one and should learn the maturity involved in having one.

    If your looking to protect your stuff while your not home... A dog is a good deterrent, sure, the guy on that show might not be afraid of one, but he's a professional crook, not a petty low life. Personally, I'm a dog lover, so I'll have one anyway. If you hate dogs though, the extra protection probably isn't worth your misery, don't bother...
    Cameras probably aren't going to help unless you actually spend some money on them, which is the whole point of what your trying to do. If you setup some cheap cameras directly in front of the windows and doors, the crook might get close enough for you to catch a face, but in the dark, or if hes stealing your car 40 feet away from the camera, probably not. Personally, I'd use them more for insurance claims, so you can clearly prove what was stolen. If you catch the crook in the act, hey, bonus, but I wouldn't rely on them being a case breaker unless you spend some money on them.

    I think the best thing to do is setup motion lights around your house, and perhaps get a good alarm system. I know if I was scouting a house and my movement made the place light up like noon on a cloudless summer day, I'd move on to another house in a hurry, and if I kept going and broke a window/busted a door and suddenly an alarm started blaring, I'd be out of there. I know they say audio alarms are worthless, but that's mainly on cars because people are so used to hearing them go off when someone bumps into a car too hard in a mall parking lot, but I think there's a big difference when it's going off in the middle of the night in a neighborhood.

    Defiantly motion lights though, if you do go the route of cheap cameras, at least they'll light up the crooks face. If that leads to catching him, bonus.

    You could always go the home alone route and setup a net to catch the crook and a swinging cinder block to knock him out until you get home to call the cops...

  151. Good job with the Hi-res cameras by bazorg · · Score: 1

    I bet you all have great quality photos of people wearing hoods and masks...

  152. just use a fake camera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    stupid nigga can't ID the real one from the fake one.

  153. Video Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You might want to look at www.coppertheft.info concerning video security. Videofied has a totally wireless security system that uses no AC power and goes for over two years on a set of batteries. Videofied sends the alarms and the videos over the cell network so it can be installed anywhere. It is being used to stop copper theft in commercial applications. I am sure that it costs over $1,000 but it is a cool alternative to wired cameras.

  154. Great Security, simple setup, not too expensive by TazErase · · Score: 1

    I just bought a WiLife system. The starter set with all the software was about $250 and each additional camera was about $200. (Purchased from ProAdvantage, you can also find this link on WiLife.com Online Retailers section). This camera gives very good video as long as there is some light in the area. The outdoor cameras can use an IR illuminator and makes seeing outdoors even better. I personally purchased 6 cameras total for about $1200. As far as setting up, it uses HomePlug technology and there is no need to run additional wires, it uses the electrical wiring already in your home. You can also monitor it while you are away by accessing your cameras on the WiLife website. WiLife was just purchased by Logitech and has gotten even better since. You can also get the Platinum option for about $80 a year that lets you playback recorded video while you are away. It only records motion as well, so you're not going to be watching recorded videos that don't have any motion.

  155. America and Guns from the BBC by SiliconEntity · · Score: 1
    Thought this was interesting from the BBC last week, not normally a hotbed of pro-American propaganda:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7359513.stm

    To many foreigners - and to some Americans - the tolerance of guns in everyday American life is simply inexplicable.

    As a New York Times columnist put it recently:

    "The nation is saturated with violence. Thousands upon thousands of murders are committed each year. There are more than 200 million guns in circulation."

    [...]

    Why is it then that so many Americans - and foreigners who come here - feel that the place is so, well, safe?

    A British man I met in Colorado recently told me he used to live in Kent but he moved to the American state of New Jersey and will not go home because it is, as he put it, "a gentler environment for bringing the kids up."

    This is New Jersey. Home of the Sopranos.

    Brits arriving in New York, hoping to avoid being slaughtered on day one of their shopping mission to Manhattan are, by day two, beginning to wonder what all the fuss was about. By day three they have had had the scales lifted from their eyes.

    I have met incredulous British tourists who have been shocked to the core by the peacefulness of the place, the lack of the violent undercurrent so ubiquitous in British cities, even British market towns.

    "It seems so nice here," they quaver.

    Well, it is!

    Ten or 20 years ago, it was a different story, but things have changed.

    And this is Manhattan.

    Wait till you get to London Texas, or Glasgow Montana, or Oxford Mississippi or Virgin Utah, for that matter, where every household is required by local ordinance to possess a gun.

    Folks will have guns in all of these places and if you break into their homes they will probably kill you.

    They will occasionally kill each other in anger or by mistake, but you never feel as unsafe as you can feel in south London.

    It is a paradox. Along with the guns there is a tranquillity and civility about American life of which most British people can only dream.

    What surprises the British tourists is that, in areas of the US that look and feel like suburban Britain, there is simply less crime and much less violent crime.

    Doors are left unlocked, public telephones unbroken.

    One reason - perhaps the overriding reason - is that there is no public drunkenness in polite America, simply none.

    I have never seen a group of drunk young people in the entire six years I have lived here. I travel a lot and not always to the better parts of town.

    It is an odd fact that a nation we associate - quite properly - with violence is also so serene, so unscarred by petty crime, so innocent of brawling.

    Virginia Tech had the headlines in the last few days and reminded us of the violence for which the US is well known.

    But most American lives were as peaceful on this anniversary as they are every day.


  156. Pretty happy with my recent setup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's what I recently put together:
    http://www.amazon.com/Swann-SW-C-BDOGC-Bulldog-Security-Camera/dp/B0007YUKZY/ref=pd_sim_p_img_4
    http://www.amazon.com/Swann-PC-DVR-4-Net/dp/B0007OKRIY/ref=pd_bxgy_p_img_b
    http://www.berettausa.com/product/spotlight/spotlight_pistol_px4.cfm

    Been very pleased with this so far! The dvr for the xp is seamless and easy to install. The camera has pretty good night vision and great motion detection for the money. And fingers crossed I never need to use the third other than at the range! ;)

  157. Re:IQeye (get a gun) by Trigun · · Score: 1

    I would go one further, and say that when the police show up to collect the statements, if it was a good shoot, they would give you a toaster. A nice little reward for doing the community a favor.

    Plus, as a deterrent, I can simply just go to Wal-Mart and buy seven or eight toasters and put them on my front porch.

  158. Use hunting cam by olivierp · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've been using a IR hunting cam (3MP still camera with a movement sensor) for my cottage. It only saves the pictures on an SD card placed in the camera, but since it's well hidden it takes great pictures of trespassers without them knowing. I like the SpyPoint IR-A since the IR flash only lights up a fraction of a second so its harder to notice. Also I can hook it up to a 12V adapter (most other hunting cam only work with batteries). It a very good surveillance system for about 300$.

  159. Re:Blatant plug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RF monitoring is nice, but it's worth noting that if a criminal is intelligent enough to cut lines before entering a business/residence, they may well be equipped to jam (or spoof, etc) your RF measures as well.

    It's also worth noting that RF based systems could be prone to not-easily-traceable/not-easily-preventable false positives.

  160. Different Megapixel video cameras by jakalack · · Score: 1

    Axis, Vivotek and ACTi are the top three network camera manufacturers in terms of market share. Vivotek makes some of the D-link cameras that some of the others have been talking about.

    I work for a software company that integrates these cameras (in a NVR) so I can vouch for all of them.

    Here are some of the various megapixel cameras that I've used (lowest price first):

    Vivotek 7000 series,
    ACTi 4000 series,
    Arecont Vision,
    IQeye,
    Axis

    I've worked with all of these, and they all work quite well. Each of these have their own area that they excel at.

  161. Jim-The-Tech-Guy (Maitland FL) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get back on track here.
    Yes owning a gun is a great thing. So is having a hammer or a ice-pick nearby.
    Cameras, get a four channel DVR card for your PCI slot in a PC computer. Purchase 4 cameras and wire them with power. Get camerras qwith .1 or better light sensativity and mount them as two at close door/window range to home then the others at further back range so you can see the aproaching person(s) then when they do the deed, they can be made out clearly. Upgrade to two four channel cards and go to eight cameras in a faster computer (1.6ghz or better with 1gb ram and at least 80gb hdd). Wire cameras and power as necessary. Once again, half cameras out for wide angle view, then other half for up-close view of incident.
    Most BnE perps use masks or face paint so the cameras dont do a damn bit of good. I have 9 cameras at my home in Orlando, FL and I can get a good view and pic of whats going on but NO WAY do I expect to catch a criminal breaking in to my home. It allows you to see what happened and what they were thinking while they do the act. Another note, make certain the recorder is in a safe place and mounted strong so the theif doesnt take with him/her.
    Camera recorder cards that are inexpensive seem to use Pico2000 software or many other freeware out there. Just look on Ebay for Pico2000 cards ($US20.00 or so).
    Cameas in B&W work fine. Night vision, dont see anything by B&W anyway. Stay away from the X10 cameras as well.

  162. Re:Blatant plug by Kazrath · · Score: 1

    Using a firewall in your network is a good idea. But if the person is good enough they can find a hole and get in and steal information anyway.

    The point of security systems is not 100% prevention it is to make you a less easy and much more risky target. Any form of security fits this description. Hell even locking your door can prevent robberies. You might be surprised how many criminals just look for unlocked cars/houses to walk into... Criminals are lazy and that is generally why they want to make the quick easy buck and not work 60 hours a week like the rest of us.

  163. Advice from someone with experience by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 1

    I've used security netcams for years ( commercial, not residential ) I'd go with one or two expensive cameras. You don't really need to cover everything, for, in most cases, with just a little thought you can predict the likely path of a burglar on your property. But when you do get the photo, it has to be a good one for the cops to take you seriously.

    The most important question is will you - or someone else - be able to monitor them when needed? ( This is actually a non-trivial question as there probably is such a thing as a virtual "neighborhood" watch in which you watch your neighbor's property in, say, Belgium while he sleeps, and then somebody in Japan watches your property while you sleep, and then the guy in Belgium watches the property in Japan. Monitoring does not require constant attention: it is rather easy to do other work with a netcam output in your peripheral vision on a separate monitor or in the corner of your screen.
    Or, there is probably some company in India or China that will watch your proprety for a small monthly fee. )

    Anyway, if you have someone monitoring, I recommend one expensive Pan/tilt/zoom camera like the Panasonic KX-HCM280 ( or the Cannon VB-C50i if you need infrared )

    If you don't have someone monitoring, I recommend a couple of Axis 2110s or 2120s ( or 2140s if you need infrared ). They come with software motion sensing.

    PS: It is possible to buy separate pan/tilt modules with built-in web servers that can mount a netcam and/or other objects such as tasers, shotguns, etc.

    PPS: Model numbers change as upgrades are made. The Axis 2110 is now called a 210, I think. The Panasonic may have a new number also.

    PPPS: You can pick up 2110s on eBay for a couple hundred. Used 280s go for around six hundred.

    If you have any questions, please feel free to email me. -HB

  164. RE: Is Cheap Video Surveillance Possible by douochrti · · Score: 1

    Ive used a old Focus sys for yrs, recording to a VCR. Recently I upgraded to a Lorex sys. A PCI card and their software and 4 BW cams with IR for $300. I went with wired instead of wireless. They are not Hi quality but good enough for sensing movement and providing evidence for Insurance purposes. Also inexpensive buzzers for your gates, Motion Lights for corners of the house, and a dog! I contacted a few dog protection services in my area, found a owner with a dog nearing retirement. He's a nice 130 lb Rott that is good with kids. And his bark rattles the windows.

    --
    Doug Woodall
  165. Remember this story? by RJFerret · · Score: 1

    http://tech.slashdot.org/tech/08/04/12/1712258.shtml

    So if the police can't do much with your video, post it to YouTube?

  166. Get a commercial system - Linux embedded by ygthb · · Score: 1

    For the prices you are looking at you could easily go to the local alarm supply store (Alarmax or similar) and buy a dvr based linux system that can support 4/8/16 cameras.

    Cameras come in varrying qualities but a decent camera can be had for 150. The install is blindingly simple, give it power, run coax (skip the cheap wite, nothing but frustration), config the dvr/server, and you are not only recording, but live on the net.

    I like Nuvico gear, but there are many good brands.

    ART

    --
    Create like a god, command like a king, work like a slave. -Guy Kawasaki
  167. I use this a my home. by Neanderthal+Ninny · · Score: 1

    I have this setup at home now:

    Four of these cameras looking down on all sides of house and yards in my property. You need to know the angles and illumination of your area so you can get correct camera:
    http://www.scdlink.com/Details.cfm?ProdID=2317&category=0

    They are linked to 4 channel DVR:
    http://www.scdlink.com/Details.cfm?ProdID=2961&category=16

    There are some package deals that are cheaper that may work for you but I chose customize set up that worked for my needs.
    I tested some webcams and wireless cameras from work (which I use normally for teleconferences) but they are not up to resolution and illumination I needed.
    I contacted these security camera companies to try to find out what is best for the price I'm looking for and this what I got for me. I will be different for you for your environment.
    Yes, break-in and other thieves are up in our neighborhood so installed this last year to prevent such problems. I did caught my neighborhood kids scoping one of my cars (gee, a ugly 1981 Honda Accord, go figure) which I did copy to the police which they identified one kid on the video and they are working on the rest.

  168. SlingBox or Sony LocationFree Anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How come nobody has mentioned this yet? Hook up your surveillance camera(s) to a SlingBox or LocationFree base station and you can watch your home/baby/puppies/package delivery... anywhere you go on a cellphone or SONY PSP at a hotspot or on an office computer.

  169. Good surveillance software can help with the cost by azdio · · Score: 1

    SecuritySpy is one of the best software solutions I have found for affordable video surveillance. The software provides support for a variety of network cameras and similar solutions. MacOS appears to be the only supported operating system.

  170. O.K., I'll bite. by DRAGONWEEZEL · · Score: 1

    "I dare you to claim that they did deserve to die, for burglary.
    Seriously.
    The court system doesn't impose lethal injections on burglars, so why should YOU have the right to use lethal force on one?
    Next question"

    O.K. lets assume that you are in a similar situation, two guys enter the home, you and wife are sleeping, you wake up, have a gun, lets assume a shotgun. You are aware that firing your gun in the house could cause a lot of damage. You tiptoe to the bedroom door, trying to get the drop on them.

    Now rational thought, any that you may have ever had, is gone, because your mind percieves you to be threatened. Let's assume also that you yell giving them a chance "stop or i'll shoot." They bolt, and with their first motion, a twist of their torso, you keep your promise.

    From your perspective:

    First, once they move, you might as well assume they are reaching for a gun.

    Second, you don't know their motive. It could have been someone out to kill you for firing them, it could have been someone pissed off that day. They could be high on PCP/Meth/etc... (but not weed, as they would be far too paranoid to rob someone... 8')

    Lastly, thats your wife is in there, and she will expect you to do whatever you can to protect her, and will love you no matter what happens, but returning the favor, you want to find out who just entered your house and broke that secure feeling she had. If you don't, you the burglers may be alive, but your relationship with your wife will be strained.

    From the burgler:

    Your breaking the law, entering someones presumably locked home for whatever motive you have.

    Second, it's a known that you might die if you enter an environment where you don't know the risks. This is ingrained in us, and that's why most people when they explore, go out a little, then a little more, than a little more, etc. Columbus, Lewis and Clark, etc... were freaks who bravely traveled to new destinations w/o a care, risking their lives in the process against the unknown.

    Third, x in y houses have a gun, you know the risk entering that there is at least a possibliity of retaliation with a firearm.

    Your right, in a moral, ethical sort of way, the guy didn't "deserve" to die.
    You have to ask yourself that before you buy a gun (or more importantly, the ammo you load it with)to defend your home. "Can I live with killing an intruder?"

    I couldn't. But I don't think that I can impose that philosphy on someone else, nor would I. That's why I use knives. If they get close enough that I can use one, Your damn well sure I'll do my best to defend me and my wife. Hoping that they stay alive in the end, but will think twice about their career path.

    The intruders willingly took those risks on themselves. What he did deserve was the roll of the dice. The GM doesn't make the decision, you and the die do. This guy rolled for initiative and lost, bummer. The guy in the house, was doing what anyone might do in that situation.

    --
    How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
  171. Re:IQeye None of that woks for home and car by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    protection if the perp is wearing a Ghillie suit

    http://www.sniperghillies.com/

    http://www.ghilliesuits.com/

    Or otherwise looking like Sasquatch on the way in and a girl on the way out...

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  172. Not off by 100x, perhaps only by 18x by Tungbo · · Score: 1

    Your 1.5 million # is based on an extrapolation from 19 reports out of 45 !
    A sample of FORTY FIVE! Furthermore, they are self reported incidents with no means of verification.

    The report actually states on page 10:
    "Regardless of which estimates one believes, only a small fraction of adults have used guns defensively in 1994. The only question is whether that fraction is 1 in 1,800 (as one would conclude from the NCVS) or 1 in 100 (as indicated by the NSPOF estimate based on Kleck and Gertz's criteria)."

    If one takes the the NCVS #, one should extrapolate ~83,000 incidents.
    So the original poster would not be as far off the mark as you make it out to be.

  173. sorry, but two words... by robnator · · Score: 1

    paintball gun.

    Makes hash from the best of plans.

    --
    "If...you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning" - Catherine Aird
  174. better late than never by jtroutman · · Score: 1

    I've been using the Linksys PVC2300 of late. It has a built-in web server, will auto upload stills to an FTP server or email them to you and runs on POE if you can't get regular power to it. And the image quality is very nice. I had to buy an different lens in order to get the wide-angle image I was looking for, but it was only an additional $55, so no biggie there. Oh, and it has full-duplex sound capability.

    --
    I stole this sig from a more creative user.
    1. Re:better late than never by jtroutman · · Score: 1

      whoops, forgot the following:
      First, a link PVC2300. Secondly, the camera goes for >$300 and they have a wireless version as well, but, of course, that won't do POE.

      --
      I stole this sig from a more creative user.
  175. paranoia by airdrummer · · Score: 1

    surveilling the surveillors is a no-no...

  176. What about system/camera for continuous life feed by bastafidli · · Score: 1

    I would like to ask a slightly modified question and that is I have area on my property which I would like to continuosly monitor. So what I would like is a cheap/durable/sensitive camera, that I can let say hook to my TV/tuner and see what is going on in that area or my property day or night. Is there anything like this?

  177. hunting camera by deadstatue · · Score: 1

    if all you want is a good still shot of a perps face, look in cabellas hunting catalog for a motion activated, tree mount cameras. relatively cheap, good quality, with or without flash.probably the best image quality for the money, obviously you get no video though. but as you stated, grainy, crappy video is useless anyway.

  178. Supercircuits.com by Elbarfo · · Score: 1

    For decent cameras on the cheap, go to supercircuits.com and browse their collection of recorders and cameras. They have a pretty large array of IR-boosted cameras as well.

    Outside of that though, one of the best things you can do to increase both the effectiveness of your cameras and the security of your porperty is to install lighting over as much of your property as possible. Night/Motion-sensing lights can be had very cheaply and will do more to deter nighttime theft and/or break-ins than anything else you can do.

    You may think that the video quality of a non-megapixel camera is bad, but the reality is that the majority of commercial systems in use today simply don't use them. The general idea commercially is to put as many cameras out there as economically possible, give them adequate lighting (ALL cameras need good lighting, unless you start talking about very pricey ones), and choose a recording system that provides an adequate storage duration (usually 30 days) with a decent framerate and image quality.

    A decent quality 4-8 camera networkable and motion-sensing video system can be had easily these days for well under $2000. Now, if someone else is doing the installation, that price can go way up. It's far cheaper to do it yourself.

  179. Maybe the Army has the answer...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Recently, an MIT team won a defense award for developing a remote surveillance system for the US military. Each sensor has multiple cameras in it that can watch over an area, and the whole package is concealed to blend in with the local environment. During their presentation they mentioned that their next-gen system will have at least 3 multi-megapixel cameras and will transmit all of the data wirelessly over an encrypted link.

    Good news: price point is ~300 USD.

    Bad news: looks like its only open to the military for now.

  180. 5 cam $600 solution by bobsalt · · Score: 1

    get some of these, they are the best bang for the buck. I have even wrapped elec tape around them and put them outside -lol they have 5 triggers, one can be motion detection, other a timer. set them to ftp pics to a linux server (bare bones box $200 at newegg) so 5 cams + linux box = $600 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16881180006 I have all the scripts to rotate pics, create mpegs of each days pics, even time stamping using imagemagik. drop me a line if intersted...

  181. Re:Motion detection with barking is already availa by tresho · · Score: 1

    Northwestern's product appears exactly the same as the one I bought from x10 20 years ago. Of course it costs far more now.

  182. Try google.com by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    Cripes this is easy.

    Linux box, zoneminder, a cheap compatible video capture card and a couple of decent IR flood cameras from supercircuits and you are done. Less than $400.00 and that's buying a old PC. I got the capture card off ebay for $66.99, and my Decent IR cameras were under $100.00 each.

    Did you even try searching the internet? There are even digital PVR's out there on ebay for under $350.00 that will make the whole thing plug and play. Will you get HD quality? no. will you be able to do CSI style zooming? no it dont exist. if you want PTZ cameras you gotta spend a crapload and then you'll leave it pointed away from where the problem happened.. So get 4 cameras and call it good, with the right lens choices you can cover what you want.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  183. Digital video for about $300 by Huklebry · · Score: 1

    My wilife system works out really well. I had the same concerns, after someone smashed my shadow in my parking lot. The next time it happened this system recorded the incident in wmv format, and I emailed the clip to the police after I saw the damage. Took me about 5 min. I love it! $300 saved me over $1000. here is their site http://www.wilife.com/Default.aspx

  184. Yes it is Possible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I develop camera systems for home, commercial, and corporate use and for an entire package Computer, setup, and cameras it is about $999... I am located on the west coast and ship all over the United states. The system is used to remote access the camera system from anywhere that there is internet and you are able to manage it from the access point or from afar.

  185. Re:Blatant plug by vacuum_tuber · · Score: 1

    Jam or spoof the RF link? Yeah, right. False positives? Are you referring to the wireless sensors or the wireless link to alarm.com? In several years of operation we have seen zero problems of any kind with the sensors. As to false positives with the main link, I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about. It's a telemetry link with protocol and data, it's not just some presence/absence of an RF signal. Billybob might cut the phone line. If that doesn't set off an audible alarm he'll think the coast is clear. Next we're gonna put in cameras... just for giggles.

    --
    Look at the bright side: there's always seppuku.
  186. dunno... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a county deputy also lives across the street...

  187. Check if you're allowed to record public premises. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just a note aside: Before you are going to put a camera up to record your car parked on a public street, check your local laws if you can legally do that. At least here in germany people have a right to not be filmed on public premises without proper notfication, even by the authorities, let alone by ordinary people. So if your country has any such laws and someone notices the camera you might be charged with or sued for something, or it could be inherently inadmissable evidence in court.

  188. Is Cheap Video Surveillance Possible? by SpdrMan · · Score: 1

    I personally haven't had any problems nor experience with this but I came across a neat system that looks easy to setup. Although I don't know how much it costs, it might be worth a look - it's called QNAP NVR-1012 (http://www.qnap.com/pro_detail_feature.asp?p_id=95) and there's a step-by-step on how to set it up (http://www.qnap.com/pro_detail_application.asp?p_id=95). Hope this helps...