D.I.Y. Home Security

theodp writes "The NYTimes reports that pre-wired home security installations by alarm companies are on the way out. Thanks to wireless window and door sensors and motion detectors, installing and maintaining one's own security system is becoming a do-it-yourself project, with kits available from companies like InGrid and LaserShield. Time to start cranking out some new iPhone and Android apps, kids?"

Comments

Wireless = less secure

[TheLink]

Wireless = a burglar could disable them remotely?

Either by jamming or by spoofing.

Or trigger them often enough remotely so that they eventually get disabled ;).

Re:Wireless = less secure

[SIR_Taco]

Having used to work installing alarms systems, jamming wouldn't work. A lost communication with a device triggers a fault same as if you were to cut a wire. Spoofing also wouldn't work because if more than one identical ID/Serial#s also create a fault.
But yes I suppose you could keep randomly jamming them and setting off alarms until they finally give up and disable it.

Re:Wireless = less secure

[Anonymous Coward]

99.9% of people that break into homes are stupid. .1% of them are smart enough to figure out commercial security systems. 0% will bother with a custom system.
In this case, security through obscurity is real security.

Re:Wireless = less secure

[whoever57]

Having used to work installing alarms systems, jamming wouldn't work. A lost communication with a device triggers a fault same as if you were to cut a wire.

1. Find a target house,
2. Use jamming enough times that the owner turns off the alarm.
3. Break in.
4. ???
5. Profit!

Re:Wireless = less secure

[cgenman]

Could you search for sources of wireless transmissions to find out which doors / windows are armed and which ones aren't?

Re:Wireless = less secure

[marcop]

There are antijamming measures in good wireless systems. Typically the negatives of a wireless system are cost and limited expandability. I got my system here:

http://www.homesecuritystore.com/ezStore123/DTProductZoom.asp?productID=1164

And don't have it hooked up to a monitoring service. Instead it calls up to 3 numbers to alert them of a problem. Overall it cost me about $500 for a medium sized home, but I don't have a monthly bill either. I like my setup a lot. However, some other random things to consider:
- I found out that if you have more than 3 false alarms in a month then the police (NY) will charge you per incident afterward.
- Without a monitoring service there is no insurance discount.
- It's generally not the most foolproof.
- The unit in the link can communicate with X10 devices so you can do some fancy stuff like flashing the house lights when the alarm goes off. I also have the X10 lights controlled to an inexpensive X10 mini-timer that turns the lights on and off during the day to simulate someone being home.
- The unit above is a PITA to setup and can be a little quirky.

I use the system for a couple reasons... at home it gives me a peace of mind that I didn't leave a door open accidentally (like the garage), and I will be alerted of an intruder. While traveling the system will alert me of a possible intruder. I then have a friend go to my house a little while later to re-secure the home. I don't want them confronting an intruder, simply re-locking the door or replacing a broken window. A friend once gave me some good advice...
an intruder will get into your house if they really want to. Simply have your most important stuff with you or better secured (i.e., documents in a bank) and then get replacement cost insurance for the rest.

Re:Wireless = less secure

[GrahamCox]

Wireless = a burglar could disable them remotely?
Either by jamming or by spoofing.
Or trigger them often enough remotely so that they eventually get disabled ;).?br>
I used to design radio-based alarm systems in the 1980s. These were the first things we'd make sure couldn't easily happen. In those days we only had one narrow-band channel to work with (allowed by law) so anti-jamming was basically a case of a loss of signal from the sensors and/or a blocking signal present at the receiver would trigger an alarm, which meant that (3) was a definite possibility. The 'loss of signal' detection implies that the sensors transmit continuously - they don't, but they do send a brief 'check-in' at periodic intervals. The check-in period was a pseudo-random sequence to prevent different sensors checking-in on top of each other (since they couldn't 'listen out') and as a result the receiver could very quickly determine whether a sensor had missed its checkin. Later spread-spectrum techniques got around most kinds of dumb jamming attempts - it would still be possible to spoof the system in theory but only using relatively sophisticated bogus transmissions. And spoofing is reasonably easy to prevent in the decode software. I assume most modern systems today will use much better techniques than we had at our disposal twenty years ago.

I'd say this though, as a former alarm engineer - if you really have something to protect, the best security is physical, not an alarm. If you can't secure your own building go to someone who can, e.g. safe deposit boxes. Alarms are pants, whether they use wireless or not.

Re:Wireless = less secure

[dragonturtle69]

Creating what seemed to be false alarms was once a common method for defeating car alarms. Eventually, the owner would think that the unit was too sensitive and disarm it.

Re:Wireless = less secure

[Anonymous Coward]

We did something similar as a prank in high school. A lab had an microphone sensor, so we hid a watch in the casing. The school turned on the alarm at night about 8:30. The watch beeped and the cops showed at 9:00... then 10:00 then 11:00 then did not bother at 12:00. That's when we popped the window open and entered to play our prank in the "high security" lab.

Re:Wireless = less secure

[plover]

While he was at work, a neighbor's house was broken into this spring. The burglars entered through his attached garage, and used the victim's own power tools to then open his safe right in his bedroom.

I'd say those burglars are keeping a lid on their costs.

( If they entered my house, with any luck they'd fix my circular saw for me before discovering I have no safe. )

Re:Wireless = less secure

[karnal]

OMG!!! *Rushes to patent office to patent Wireless Pants*

Re:Wireless = less secure

[Anonymous Coward]

See, anyone truly interested in security will have binoculars and a rifle as well. You get constant false positives, you look for the persistently present vehicle with an unknown person inside. You then politely dial the local police and report a stranger tampering with your security system.

If that fails, you disable the security system after ensuring the rifle is prepped. Post signs saying 'trespassers will be shot'. Issue a single verbal warning. Do not shoot to wound. Wounded people sue. Dead people rot.

Re:Wireless = less secure

[Technician]

If you really installed them, you would know for a fact to conserve battery life, they have a long check-in interval for monitored sensors. By the time I opened the door and brought in my tool caddy, etc, I would have had plenty of time to find valuables, disconnect the main box, and leave. Do your homework. A missed signal will take a while to become a trouble report. My alarm's wireless has long check-in's and 3 have to be missed to be a trouble report. For this reason the perimiter is WIRED, not wireless. The frequency of operation is well known by brand, so wireless portion is only used on interiour sensors such as the medicine cabinet (foster kids) and shop cabinets.

The level of security varies by the installed system vunerabilities. Wireless is a weak spot that won't detect short term interferance as an attack. Primary entry points should be wired.

Re:Wireless = less secure

[Technician]

This would take forever. The devices to save battery life only transmit a short packet every half hour or so. It varies to prevent repeated collisions with other sensors. 1 missed packet isn't reported as a fault. A series (varies by brand but usualy 3) of missed reports becomes a fault. This fault generation can take hours, plenty of time to raid and be gone again. Use wired for the perimiter.

Re:Wireless = less secure

[Eivind]

Not easily. But anyway, you're missing the most obvious thing.

Most burglars are, infact, STUPID.

You don't need to be secure as in perfectly protected, you just need to be secure as in "more trouble than it's worth", or "more trouble than the house next door".

If you've got the kind of stuff that would attract the non-stupid burglars, then this changes somewhat. If that's you, you can afford a professional alarm easily enough, though.

Re:Wireless = less secure

[zmollusc]

While he was at work, a neighbor's house was broken into this spring. The burglars entered through his attached garage, and used the victim's own power tools to then open his safe right in his bedroom.

It must have been a crappy safe. Or patient burglars. A decent safe will take several hours to open using the right tools against the weakest point.

Re:Wireless = less secure

[Anonymous Coward]

Notice the effective use of the "post anonymously" check box!

Re:Wireless = less secure

[Anonymous Coward]

They'd fail miserably if they tried that at a friend's place. He has cameras with a motion detector set to take a log of people outside the house in case they're casing it. Then he has a high res camera for the backdoor where they will more than likely enter since it's easy to get into. When it then detects motion at the wrong time of day, etc. it sends the images to his phone and he watches the daily log for suspicious behavior.

Re:Wireless = less secure

[mweather]

And he'll still get robbed blind in 90 seconds with nothing to show for it but a nameless face.

Re:Wireless = less secure

[the_womble]

I know a diamond dealer whose safe was just taken away whole to be broken into at leisure. She got a larger and more securely fitted one next time.

Re:Wireless = less secure

[LoRdTAW]

Honestly most break ins are by desperate thieves who more than likely have zero technical know-how. My house was broken some years ago and my neighbor saw the guy run away, a skinny looking junkie. Same thing last month when some guy made a laughable attempt to break into my grandmothers house. He was so messed up he couldn't even aim rocks at a window 10 feet away. He also cut five screens and ripped two out but never broke a single window. He was that disoriented. A neighbor chased him away before he could do anymore damage. My aunts house was robbed as well, her cordless phone and jewelery were taken. Simple and fast grabs.

These people don't give a shit about fancy alarm systems. They will keep trying to break into one home after another until they find one that is empty and unprotected. This isn't Hollywood, there isn't a James Bond trying to steal secrets off your computer. Just junkies and desperate people trying to snatch as many small and expensive items they can find. They then turn them in for quick cash and get high. Sure there are more elaborate schemes but they are far and few between (any examples?). Those stupid shows on cable showing "professional" thieves stealing fucking chandeliers and furniture are over exaggerated nonsense.

Want to know what I lost when I was robbed? Three SLR cameras, a Playstation and two cable boxes. They are small, easy to carry and will get them enough money to feed their habit. How did the thief get in? He smashed a window and crawled in while we were school and work. Would an alarm have foiled him? Maybe but the cost of the items lost was far less then an alarm system. The less cover a thief has the less likely he is to target your house. Lights that keep vulnerable areas lit at night help allot, so do motion lights. Also keep shrubs trimmed down, don't give them cover. My home is now pretty sucky to break into by taking a few simple steps to keep it less enticing. Also don't leave objects around that act as a ladder allowing them to reach windows. I know this isn't always practical but it can help.

Re:Wireless = less secure

[TheLink]

"If that's you, you can afford a professional alarm easily enough, though."

Maybe a bunch of smoke/fog machines might help too.

If soon after the alarms go off you fill the entire house with dense smoke, they might not be able to see well enough to make it out with your stuff...

Of course they might try to steal the smoke machines - they're cool after all :).

Re:Wireless = less secure

[Smauler]

Get a first time headshot!
Mentally say "Headshot" as if it were counterstrike
Realise you've shot your 85 year old deaf granny bringing you round some cookies.
???
Profit?

Re:Wireless = less secure

[Dan541]

People install surveillance cameras because they work, not because they expect to be robbed by someone they know.

Re:Wireless = less secure

[bickerdyke]

Then he has a high res camera for the backdoor where they will more than likely enter since it's easy to get into.

Instead a HiRes-Cam.. wouldnt he better invet that money into a stronger backdoor? you know.. like.. with a lock?

Re:Wireless = less secure

[GrahamCox]

If you really installed them, you would know for a fact to conserve battery life, they have a long check-in interval for monitored sensors. By the time I opened the door and brought in my tool caddy, etc, I would have had plenty of time to find valuables, disconnect the main box, and leave.

I'm not sure what the state of the art is now, and I suspect that a low-cost system would be pretty poor and you'd be right about the above. However, it need not be the case. In 1987/88 I worked on designing a system that used periodic check-in (or supervisory, which was the term we used) as they all did, but a complete transmission took 110mS including all the preamble and error correction coding in the bitstream. We used 1800 baud MPSK which was considered fast for its time and the bandwidth available to us. The supervisory signal was transmitted every 28 seconds, so duty cycle was 1/256. The quiescent draw of the sensor chip was under 10uA (a very hard figure to achieve, just possible with custom silicon at that time) and I think the transmitter draw was about 40mA when keyed. So the overall current draw was getting on for ~30uA on average. Using a certain 3v lithium cell our battery life was predicted at almost 7 years, though since the project ultimately never saw the light of day, this was never tested in the field. Even requiring several missed supervisories to trigger the alarm (which we did) would mean you still would only have a minute and a half to carry out the burglary - though we used other means to detect deliberate jamming as well which would kick in sooner. It's quite easy to discriminate between a deliberate blocking signal and random short-term interference. Spoofing was also really hard to do because you not only had to spoof a sensor known to the system, but do so with precise timing and correct data format, etc while knocking out the real sensor. Really the purpose of supervisory messages was to detect a sensor going offline for some reason (such as a dead battery, though it would have sent low battery reports for months in advance of that event) rather than detecting jamming. I forget all the details but you could program the response to a missing supervisory anyway - perimeter sensors would trigger an alarm but internal ones typically wouldn't.

While that particular system didn't make it into production, I know that similar ones did, but since my career went in another direction not long after that, I didn't keep up with the industry. I don't know what is common today. I'll say this though, one reason we developed the system was because of the shockingly poor quality of existing radio technology that we'd initially bought in from the US (we were a British company). These systems used an 11 baud (!) data rate in a transmission taking well over a second, with several repeats "just to make sure" (i.e. the redundancy in the bits sent was accomplished by simply sending the message several times rather than using any form of error correction). The modulation was on-off keying so the transmitters had to have incredibly low power to pass any sort of type approval, at least in the UK. The receiver was also a joke - a bandwidth as wide as a barn door, using a super-regenerative design for low cost. Deaf as a post and jammable with the crudest of techniques. If low cost systems today still use anything like this system, I'd say that any security they provide is purely imaginary. Our receiver was deliberately and carefully designed to be very selective, so any jamming signal had to be dead-on frequency or else very, very powerful to overwhelm the front-end. It was also very sensitive so the low power of the sensors was less of a handicap (we were limited to maximum 10mW ERP by law). There again, careful design of the transmitters for low spurious emissions and an efficient modulation scheme and a proper antenna design meant that we could actually put out close to that power and still not cause interference problems ourselves.

No doubt ours was a relatively expensive design but on

Re:Wireless = less secure

[Technician]

Sorry. I'll try to be more clear. If I take a wireless sensor for your alarm and remove the logic but keep the transmitter and transmit garbage, I can mask the real sensor signal while I walk into your house without the alarm box noticing. When your real sensor was supposed to call home to say I'm OK, one or 2 missed reports doesn't cause an alarm. By the time the noise causes enough lost reports, I'll be long gone as the reports not caused by door opening are only a few a day. All that is needed is for preventing the main panel from hearing the door sensor when I open the door. The missing report won't be noticed for up to over an hour.

Re:Wireless = less secure

[Hal_Porter]

I think junkie crime would be kept down if people were allowed to beat the shit out of the junkies they caught.

Right now that's a very bad idea legally. Hell I'd go for a Texas style law where people lose all or most rights when they break into someone else's house. Then you could whack them with a baseball bat or something and hopefully kill them. I think the government should fund a Sudden Justice program on the BBC where homeowners in bad areas for burglaries catch burglars in beartraps, rig devices to tip boiling water over them or build shotgun shell boobytraps at groin level.

Why dick around? Burglary happens because burglars feel safe. Make them feel less safe and they'll do something else.

Re:Wireless = less secure

[Lumpy]

And it's easy to case the joint as the Gas meter reading guy. wear overalls and a hat and you'll never get a good face shot.

Case the place, come back with a ski maks and a spray can of black paint and your buddies cameras are all toast.

Oh he has some mounted high? An extenda pole to spray wasp nests fixes that. I always giggle hard when I see "vandal proof" cameras... yeah right, they cant stop spraypaint.

So simply show up during the day when service people would be around and he's hosed. Very easy to get around. Or better yet, wait to watch him leave and attack at that time.

Hell most homes are broken into in broad daylight.

Re:Wireless = less secure

[electrictroy]

>>>Unless of course, you have something in the house that actually is worth protecting.

Sell it on Ebay, put the cash in a bank where it's safe (or at least insured). That's what I've done with most of my wealth. I saw no reason to hang-onto a bunch of old DVD movies or PS1/2 videogames that are just collecting dust from lack-of-use. So I sold them for cash, and put the cash in the bank. It's a lot safer there (and a lot cheaper solution) than leaving valuables inside my vulnerable house.

Re:Wireless = less secure

[Lumpy]

Exactly.

The best security system you can buy are surplus ADT signs and stickers off of ebay. install them during the day (take a day off) or if you live in a bad neighborhood, have a buddy come over with a white van and blue coveralls and install them after he comes in to drink beer for 2 hours. Make sure your scumbag neighbors see the service van and some guy installing the signs and stickers.

Now when casing the joint, they see the sticker and go away.

Now the drug induced teenager that was mauled pretty bad by my dog in my living room... the signs did not stop him. A German Shepard excited by the sound of a wailing siren did.

Funny that... if you do a B&E and get mauled by the dog inside, you cant sue and you cant be charged with any crime... but the kids parents did have to pay for all damages including new carpet to get rid of their scumbag kids blood stains.

You want real security? get a BIG german shepard.

Re:Wireless = less secure

[PhilJC]

"You want real security? get a BIG german shepard."

Couldn't agree more. I grew up with two german shepherds as my dad was a police dog handler and one night we found a particularly stupid burglar huddled in our basement with the two dogs padding around the door. He'd obviously managed to get himself in, saw the dogs and ran for the nearest door (our windowless cellar). Given that they weren't small dogs and it was an old house the creak of the floor boards above the guy as they walked around upstairs simply drove the guy crazy and it took about half hour just to coax the guy out so my dad could arrest him.

Oh and the reason I say he was a stupid burglar? My dad's police dog van was parked on the drive the whole night.

Re:Wireless = less secure

[howardd21]

That was pretty slick, but of course it required you to have access to the housing *before* you broke in.

Re:Wireless = less secure

[Victor_0x53h]

You make a very valid point, but, beyond casing the house as the gas meter guy, what you described sounds like too much of a hassle. I'll rob the house next door with no cameras to contend with, thank you.

Re:Wireless = less secure

[FictionPimp]

I'm not sure I put my money on a system that can be beaten with a simple ski mask.

They work in business because the crook doesn't know if the camera is being monitored. The chances of 24 hour monitoring at a house is next to none.

Re:Wireless = less secure

[Lumpy]

nope. cus he's got cameras and that means stuff inside that is valuable.

The amount of security you have also indicates the amount of stuff you have.

I have cameras, but all hidden and very hard to see if you do not know where to look. I use them as evidence and not a deterrent. and it works. I get my deductible removed from any theft when I gather evidence of the break in.

Re:Wireless = less secure

[MikeBabcock]

Cameras don't work and never have. Study after study shows cameras in London don't prevent theft.

People I know in my town with nearly one hundred monitoring cameras LIVE in their music store still get robbed regularly. Sometimes they manage to catch the person.

Cameras are NOT a deterant to most people. The people who think cameras work are the same people who wouldn't rob you anyway.

Re:Wireless = less secure

[MikeBabcock]

Let me guess (as per a pervious post of mine); you're not a thief, are you?

Not that you'd admit it on Slashdot.

Re:Wireless = less secure

[smellsofbikes]

>And it's easy to case the joint as the Gas meter reading guy.

I have a story about that. My grandmother was very old, living alone, and didn't believe in banks. When she started to go blind, we started cleaning her house out, throwing away all the junk she'd accumulated, so she didn't break her neck tripping over some horrible thing she'd found in an alley 20 years earlier and saved because she thought she could fix it up. Anyway, one thing we cleaned out was her bedroom, and when we told her, she said we should clean under the bed because she'd stuck some money under there and she wanted to make sure we didn't throw it away. So we removed it and counted it, and I'm just going to say it was, by an order of magnitude, more cash than I've ever seen in my life.
Two weeks later, a guy came to the front door, saying he was from the city water department, and asked her if she could tell him where the water line was, beneath her garden, so she walked out, largely by memory, and pointed out where the water meter pit was, and went back to her house... and found a bunch of things moved. She called the water dept and they said they hadn't sent anyone over.
Having someone lure you away from the house while someone else goes in quickly and burglarizes it is a pretty effective scam. Apparently they hit a bunch of houses in the area doing that.

Re:Wireless = less secure

[smellsofbikes]

They found what she'd put in there in the last two weeks, yeah. The rest of the loot we'd put in a shopping bag and taken to a local bank (without her knowledge) and invested. It paid for three years of her nursing home care.

Re:Wireless = less secure

[Lumpy]

breaks today? 4 but the boss only knows about 2 of them...

oh wait Break in's? 3 I live in a nice neighborhood on the border of the rich people and the ghetto. twice has been some piece of crap punk friend of my daughters and 1 was a random idiot. in all three the camera footage identified the culprit and had him arrested in 24 hours. once they wanted to see the video because the cops though it was funny that my dog was mauling the bastard.

Now I work in the high end home automation and theater field. so I get nice hidden cameras and DVR's for almost nothing.

Re:Wireless = less secure

[Lumpy]

Most of what we sell are insane priced. but you should NOT pay more than $50.00- $100.00 each for cameras.

Get a DVR off of ebay. a 4 channel 160gig should cost $250.00 and they work well. we sell the same DVR but rebranded for $1000.00

Super circuits for cameras. get Black and white. it's stupid to use color for security. you want low light capable and high resolution. Black and white is where it is at.

finally you need to figure out what lense you need for what locations. 2mm = wide as hell angle 12mm = telephoto. zoom lenses give you the ability ot change it but they are expensive.

Stilll alive?

[Ostracus]

"Thanks to wireless window and door sensors and motion detectors, installing and maintaining one's own security system is becoming a do-it-yourself project, with kits available from companies like InGrid and LaserShield. "

Does any of them come with a portal turret?

Re:Stilll alive?

[buswolley]

Tired of thieves stealing his tools, my grandpa electrified the padlock with one of those electric fence units used with cattle and horses. Difference, 3' from the unit instead of 300' of fencing wire.

Fail.

[assemblerex]

Wireless? Good thing most criminals are stupid.
Watch the neighborhood kids set this off with a modded cordless phone...

Cellphones

[TubeSteak]

If you could figure out a way to hook an old cellphone into your homebrew security system, you could have it auto-dial 911, since any cellphone, even one without a service plan, has to be able to make that call.

Add in a pre-recorded message and you have replicated most of what the home security companies do with their monitoring.

Re:Cellphones

[plover]

AFAIK, in most localities an automated system is not permitted to call 911 directly. You're better off having a cheap prepaid cell phone call your cell phone so you can then call the police / fire.

But you'd better have a lot of confidence in your alarm system. Most municipalities will charge you for the first few false alarms, and will then either force you to remove the system or charge you with a public nuisance misdemeanor.

Best reference I've found on D.I.Y. home security:

[kbrasee]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Alone

Honeypot@home

[jedwidz]

What I wanna do is set up a honey pot dresser drawer that's wired to a silent alarm, maybe one that sends me an SMS and activates surveillance cameras.

The contents of the honey pot drawer would of course include something of value with a homing beacon concealed in it.

(But maybe I won't bother now everyone knows how secure my house is.)

Lasershield Hack

[__aajwxe560]

While most home burglars are not necessarily the most sophisticated, I have read a few reports of the ease of use of hacking the LaserShield. This basically involves breaking the communication between the base unit and sensors, such as by just having a two way radio turned to the same frequency and sending some noise over it to break reception. The base unit does not seem to regularly poll the remote sensors from what I can tell, and so is unaware of a break in communication. Engadget has a video demonstrating the hack here.

While little security is better than none, I still think its important to understand the risks of poorly designed wireless security system devices versus well designed ones or even more conventional wired security system devices.

Re:Lasershield Hack

[kmac06]

What are the odds the average burglar will (a) realize you have a hackable home security system, and (b) actually hack it. The point isn't to make your home 100% impregnable, just make it harder/less likely to get hit. If you can stop 19/20 robberies, that's pretty good.

Re:Lasershield Hack

[Bios_Hakr]

If that's true, then LS is run by a bunch of idiots. The default state for any alarm system should be ALARM. If the telephone line is cut, the CO should get an ALARM signal. If the batteries in the base station die, the CO should get an ALARM signal. If there is interference between the sensors and the base station, the BS should send ALARM to the CO.

Re:Lasershield Hack

[atraintocry]

If my neighbor blamed me for his house getting robbed because I had an alarm and he didn't, then he basically deserved to get robbed for being such an ass.

Not work it

[burningcpu]

For $10 more a month, an alarm company with hundreds of dispatchers can respond to your alarms for you. Tough for you to respond to the hold up alarm going off at your house, when you're the one that tripped it.

Re:Not work it

[Wog]

Hold up alarm? For less than $100 every four years, you can get a carry permit, which will not only keep you from being held up at home, but equip you to protect yourself away from home!

Also, from my personal experience and the word of many cops, the authorities will dispatch a unit faster to a homeowner reporting a break-in than an alarm company reporting that an alarm has been tripped.

So though I'd never rush home to try and stop anything myself (we pay young guys who really want to catch burglars for us), being notified and calling the cops myself probably has a better chance of getting an officer there within 45 minutes.

Webcam + sw

[YrWrstNtmr]

If you're not looking for 3rd party monitoring, there are quite a few windows apps that monitor webcams. Currently, I use SupervisionCam. Monitor several cams at once, and perform multiple actions on motion detection. Email, FTP to elsewhere, run an external app, play a sound (BarkBark!). Or, have it capture 1 frame every couple of seconds, and go into high gear on motion detection.

Just be sure you have your motion sensor set right. Otherwise, you might quickly fill up your email or webserver space.

2 or 3 cams pointed at various entrances is cheap and easy.

Re:Webcam + sw

[houstonbofh]

In the spirit of FOSS, http://www.zoneminder.com/ is a Linux based network camera system with built in motion detection. Works very well, and saves images a jpeg, not a proprietary lossy compressed stream.

Re:Webcam + sw

[Jozef Nagy]

FINALLY someone mentions ZoneMinder. It's an amazing system that's highly underrated in my opinion. I've been deploying ZoneMinder based security systems for a few years now. It's versatile, very complex, and because it's free and open source, your only costs are hardware. It's the best solution for small/home businesses on a budget. However, I'd have to say that it's major caveat is that it takes someone with Linux and systems building experience to get working optimally. If you just want some random camera hooked up to your home server then it's a simple install. However, if you want an n-camera setup recording in various ways, then you'll at least need to know how to put together a beefy enough system and monitor the load to optimize ZoneMinder. For example, if your disk array is being reamed, then you might want to lower the framerate you're recording at, etc.

For personal use I plan on setting up a webcam pointed at my birdfeeder w/ ZoneMinder running on my home server. It's a neat thing to do. And if my work lets me, I'll install a camera in our kitchen. Soon enough the milk pilfering culprit will be caught!

I for one...

[nathan.fulton]

While I don't do the security camera thing, I do have my laptop send periodic pictures (including 5 seconds of video and audio at login) to my server using the built-in webcam and some OSS products. It only does this when it isn't at home, and it encrypts the files, so it's a great way to ensure that my computer is safe without becoming a privacy threat to myself.

I did this because I had some equipment stolen a while ago. I don't mind if people break into my house, as long as they leave everything how they found it. So instead of securing my house, I secured my property by having everything of value phone home when it's out and about. It's an alternate (cheaper) approach people might want to think about.

Problems...

[Darkness404]

The problem is, if the alarm system fails, who do you blame? Its easy to say to the police/insurance agency "I had my alarm installed from *insert major alarm vendor here*, I set it but it failed or they disabled it" and they would believe you and care more about your case. If you said oh I bought my alarm from *insert minor DIY alarm vendor*, set it up myself and can control it from my iPhone, they will think its cool, but would blame the error on you and your case drops from near last priority to dead last.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

I'll stick with what I have..

[fucket]

The shoelace and shotgun seems to be working okay so far.

Re:This isn't news...

[zappepcs]

You have just identified a new service for alarm.com or some new start-up - monitoring home installed alarms systems. Can't be that hard as the protocols are not exactly rocket science. Build a cheap-ish modem for Internet connection and you're off to success. Damn, forgot

1 - identify simple interface protocol
2 - build modem to connect user's alarm system to
3 - set up monitoring data center(s)
4 - ....
5 - profit

I'm just wondering what I'm going to do with that 8 foot long flexible shaft 3/4 inch auger drill bit I bought! damn!

Dog + Gun works good too...

[SpuriousLogic]

My dog barks, I shoot. Pretty simple setup. No electricity, phone lines, cell signals, wireless, or anything else to not work. Plus, if I miss, my dog is none too friendly to strangers (Chow/Shepard mix). The minute someone even gets close to the house, he makes a VERY scary noise.

Re:Dog + Gun works good too...

[Pinckney]

And if it's the neighbour's kid retrieving his ball, you've committed murder. Congratulations.

Well yeah, if you shoot anyone who sets foot in your yard...

Don't take everything literally. Realistically, the grandparent probably won't shoot at anyone unless he can verify them as an intruder. His state probably has castle laws, too, making it perfectly legal, as long as he takes a bit of care. .

Re:Dog + Gun works good too...

[Bromskloss]

My dog barks, I shoot.

Poor dog.

I'll stick with what I have..A bible.

[Ostracus]

I know you're joking but in case anyone takes you seriously. That's actually illegal.

Re:I'll stick with what I have..A bible.

[fucket]

In that case, I hope they knock when they come to arrest me.

Re:I'll stick with what I have..A bible.

[istartedi]

No. AFAIK, it's not restrictions against "machine guns" that make this illegal. It's specific restrictions against "booby traps". If such traps were allowed, just think of the consequences for authorities enterring homes where, for example, elderly have died alone, warranted searches are being performed, gas leaks have been detected, etc.

Re:Security Camera Software Help

[houstonbofh]

Try http://www.zoneminder.com/ which hits everything you mentioned. (If the webcam is Linux supported)

Re:Yeah, no more ADT...

[plover]

ADT sent me a great* scare ad a few years back. It read something like "SUMMER IS BURGLAR SEASON! DID YOU KNOW THAT 28% OF ALL BURGLARIES OCCUR BETWEEN MEMORIAL DAY AND LABOR DAY?"

Well, I know that on average about 28% of all days in a year occur between Memorial Day and Labor Day. That either means the burglary rate is essentially flat year-round, or that any rise in the rate at some other time of year is offset by a corresponding decline in the rate at another point in the year. But in no case does any of the math yield the insight that makes summer "burglar season."

* by great I mean so stupid that it stood head and shoulders above the rest of their stupid ads.

As usual, the field is already tilted

[brundlefly]

I'd love to wire my house security system myself. But I have a financial disincentive not to: my homeowners insurance (State Farm) gives me a significant discount for using my local (Bay Alarm) monitoring provider. The insurance discount almost covers the cost of 24/7 monitoring.

Over time I *would* eventually recoup the costs of DIY. But it would take years to break even. And I have no idea how long it would take for the insurance amortizers to figure out the costs of vigilant DIY alarmers vs. happy outsourcers. I can't even hazard a guess which direction those splits would trend towards.

Bottom line: tech is cool; business is challenged; limited mainstream appeal.

The only thing I need.

[mnslinky]

Sharks.

With Lasers.

'Nuff Said.

A few thoughts on RF alarm systems...

[Helix150]

Much of this discussion has been about the jammability of RF-based alarm systems.

I've done it (testing my own system). It's NOT hard.

All the wireless sensors have a lithium battery that lasts for a few years. The sensors do NOT transmit continually- that would run down the battery in a matter of hours not years.

Each time they transmit anything, it's in the form of a data packet including headers, the transmitter's unique ID, battery status, what it wants to report (open/closed/etc) and a few checksum bits. Furthermore all the wireless sensors (generally) use the same channel in the 433MHz range. To avoid stepping on each other, each packet is transmitted a few times separated by a pseudorandom delay. The sensors also transmit a 'tamper' signal if the sensor casing is opened or ripped off the wall, and a periodic 'superivision' message once every hour or so to let the system know they're still alive.

Whenever you open or close a door connected to a wireless sensor, it transmits a burst updating its status. If it transmits an 'open' signal when the alarm is armed, the alarm goes off. If the alarm doesn't hear a supervision packet from a sensor for more than an hour or two, it signals a trouble condition.

Most importantly- the transmission is ONE WAY- the sensors don't have receivers. The sensor doesn't wait for an acknowledgment from the alarm that its packet was received-- it sends its packet a few times and then considers it sent.

Since many devices (including non-alarm stuff like wireless thermometers and other brands of alarm gear) use the 433MHz range the alarm uses, wireless alarms are designed to tolerate SOME interference on the channels the alarm uses.

By SOME i mean less than 60 seconds of continual interference (as per UL standards for wireless alarm systems).
So any jamming you want to do only has to 1. cover the data packet and 2. last for less than 60 seconds at a time. As you can imagine this isn't too hard if you can switch your jammer on/off easily and have a good idea of where the sensors are.

So to break into a building equipped with a wireless alarm:
1. figure out type of alarm and buy portable jammer for alarm's frequency (cheap)
2. guess where the sensors are
3. key the jammer when you are about to trip a sensor. When you do, quickly tear it off the wall / smash it.
4. steal stuff
5. be out in less than an hour so the alarm doesn't miss any supervision packets. And if it does miss one chances are it'll create a 'trouble' alarm not a 'burglar' alarm; no cops will be called.

Any security system can be beaten- there is no such thing as perfect security. Wireless sensors can be jammed. Magnetic contacts can often be fooled with bigger magnets. Motion sensors can be beaten by holding up bed sheets (as per Mythbusters test).

However if a burglar is crafty enough to jam an RF alarm or fake out magnetic contacts, chances are they are pretty smart and there isn't much you can do to keep them out. Most break ins are dumb criminals doing smash n grab jobs, the alarm is there to blast a 120dB siren in their face and hopefully freak them out enough that they run away.

Re:this seems stupid to me

[mnslinky]

1) Security systems often detect jamming. This would cause a fault, actually a 'jamming' fault on Ademco systems.
2) That's exactly why I hate wireless alarms. Ugh. If a customer wants wireless (cheaper on labor), fine, but not my recommendation.

Re:Home wireless security systems

[Barny]

An alarm system from a licensed installer will reduce the cost of your insurance premiums (at least it does here), not worth doing it yourself since your insurance savings will eventually pay for it anyway.

Re:Yeah, no more ADT...

[penguin_dance]

No ADT doesn't come in and remove the equipment--that was likely the previous owners--but they're still a scam. You BUY the equipment along with the monitoring. But if you cancel, not only does the monitoring go away--the equipment that you bought NO LONGER WORKS! Unless you can either hack it or sign up with a different monitor, you're screwed. That's just wrong. You should be able to get the use of your equipment with or without their service. It's the alarm that scares the burglar away--they don't know that it's not being monitored. In fact you're probably fine if you just have one of those signs out front that says you have ADT or whatever system.

The other rip-off we discovered here is you have to register your alarm with the police or law enforcement agency in your area. If you don't then they might not respond if the monitoring company calls.

Easy, Cheap and Low-Tech

[bschorr]

Go to Sears and buy a couple of pairs of mens work boots in the biggest size you can find. Put them on the front porch. Tack a note on the front door that reads: "Bubba - Junior and I went to get more ammunition. You and Lefty stay away from them dogs; they ain't been fed yet and you remember what happened last time."

Old and Tested

[pi_rules]

I'll stick with the dog + firearm approach.

The dog, at 2 years old, is better than any electronic sensor out there. I live in the country, not ultra-remote but far enough away from me neighbors that I couldn't hit their house with a thrown baseball, but he still alerts on things like the meter reader being next door.

I have no idea how he does it, but he'll go ape and 5 minutes later there's a meter reader in my yard.

Criminals aren't generally very smart, but as a rule they tend to pick the easier targets. Stickers on the windows identifying home security systems are just a notice that they need to grab and go. An 80lb. dog staring at them through the window is a signal that maybe the neighbor's place is a better target.

I suppose I could invest in some cameras, but I'm not really too concerned with catching a burglar, just deterring them. If I'm not home and they go into Full Retard mode and decide they want to wrestle with my dog then have at it.

If I am home the dog lets me know when we have possible "visitors" far quicker than any electronics would. I can't put motion sensors in my neighbor's driveway, but the dog picks up on that stuff. I work from home about 80% of the time and it happens almost daily. He sees something like the school bus stop out in front of the house, barks, runs over to me and starts nuzzling me. I look at what he's seeing, pet him, and sometimes hand him a treat.

If it's an unknown person in my driveway I slip a gun onto my belt (if I'm not already wearing one) and I'm usually at the door before they even have a chance to ring the bell. Sure, it isn't typical, but I shoot as a hobby and I'm comfortable keeping loaded firearms handy.

Security has to be multi-layered. We all know that as computer geeks. The best technology in the world can be defeated through social engineering. "Fancy" wireless security systems can be defeated with RF interference. Heck, you might just forget the turn the darned thing on one night.

A dog? You can't really turn that thing off. You'd have to work to train that territorial protection mechanism out of them. That's my alarm system.

Once the alarm goes off, what do you do? Well, you need to identify the threat and deal with it. Manually calling 911 on a cell phone is a good thing to do, as you can describe the nature of the situation far better than any home-brewed security system can.

Beyond that we've got dealing with the actual threat itself, and nothing's better than an old reliable firearm. Personally I keep a Remington 870 Wingmaster w/ an 18.5" Mossberg manufactured cylinder bore barrel topped with rifle sights and 4 rounds of Federal reduced recoil 00 Buck handy at night. During the day I've usually got a S&W 1911SC, Glock 23C, or CZ-RAMI in .40S&W on my belt or a Kel-Tec P3AT nearby if I'm not actually wearing a "real" gun but want something I can clip to my pants in the event of an unexpected visitor at my door.

When it comes to keeping me and mine safe and secure I believe simpler is better and like to stick with older technology. While you're farting around with RF systems and sensors I'll be over here feeding my dog peanut butter flavored treats wen he does his job.

Oh, and for the record my dog is a pet first and foremost. He's here for companionship. Sure, he costs more than an alarm system, but he's worth it. The fact that he's such great asset in security is a side benefit. If there ever comes a day where he's too old to care about that stuff we'll just get another and let this one continue to be a pet.

Re:Old and Tested

[mk2mark]

Dogs are great, I agree. We have a boxer that looks tough, and is extremely curious - meaning that a) she's aware of everything around the house, and b) even though she might only lick you to death, a boxer itching to come and see you can be an especially daunting prospect, particularly if you're aware that your goal involves getting past said dog.

However, I really don't get the gun thing. I'm not anti-guns (we have 3 in the house), but the idea that one will somehow protect you is nonsense. For the 2 parties (you and your burglar) involved there are 4 possibilities, neither party armed, you armed, him armed, both parties armed.

Where you are armed and he is not, sure you have the advantage. But generally unarmed burglars aren't confrontational, and you have your dog anyway (which also covers you for the neither party armed scenario).

So basically it's fair to say when you have your gun, it's protection against an armed assailant.

By their nature armed assailants will be confrontational (why would they risk bringing the gun otherwise?) So you're basically facing a shootout. Your fancy tuned gun with special ammo sounds lovely, but unfortunately your burglar isn't going to be taking time to examine your superior firearm, so despite it your still relying on getting the first shot off, and hoping your nice equipment does its job.

Finally you have the situation where he's armed and you're not. You stick your hands up and hope he doesn't shoot. But when you think about this, why would he shoot? He wants your VCR not the risk of a second degree murder conviction (although speculatively he might be persuaded if he's caught you off guard and spots your wingmaster hanging out of your belt).

Basically, (by this reasoning at least) the only thing your gun does is increase the chance of a shootout. And even if you're successful, your vcr is safe, you've showed that guy that broke in, but you've also killed someone, and I'm not sure whether the consequences of that are worth your VCR.

Re:Old and Tested

[grassy_knoll]

The flaw in your reasoning is the presumption that an intruder is only there for your stuff.

Most break-ins are junkies looking for something to pawn for drug money. Just someone home tends to deter them.

However, those that see someone home and continue to break in seem far more dangerous. That indicates a willingness to use force against anyone home... rather different than just a smash and grab. Perhaps you're the wrong color, and they've decided you need a beat down or your head cracked open. Maybe you're a woman... any why not have a little fun?

Armed people trying to break in moves from "burglary" to "home invasion". That implies a much different motivation than your stuff.

In any event, at best an armed homeowner has one more method to deter a burglary. At worst, an armed homeowner has the means to defend themselves from death or grievous bodily harm.

Prior Art

[gooman]

"Oh no Grommit, it's the wrong trousers!"

My highly effective DIY security setup:

[uvajed_ekil]

One dog.
Seriously, if a burglar sees or hears a dog, he'll move on to other houses until he finds one without a dog. If you have secret plans and chests filled with treasure, and everyone in town knows about it, maybe you need something more sophisticated, but a canine deterrent system is more than effective for the average home. And an alarm system won't wag its tail or lick your face when you come home from work. Or, go whole-hog and get four dogs, and a monkey that can dial a phone.

WTF !

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's an unknown person in my driveway I slip a gun onto my belt

Christ, where the fuck do you live. Bagdhad or The Congo?
FWIW, I live in a rural area and have a shotgun for vermin and bagging the odd rabbit. You my friend, have issues.

Besides, an electronic security system won't shit on the carpet :-)

ADT, cellular problems, brand awareness

[Scot Seese]

  What this article does not address is the actual cost of having an alarm system, crime prevention statistics and technical problems associated with different systems.

  Truthfully, most professionally installed, professionally monitored alarm systems end up being almost free. Free, as in speech, or beer. Most insurance companies will give you discounts on your homeowners policy if you present a certificate from a national brand monitored alarm service. This discount can end up being as high as $30-40/mo., which essentially pays for the monitoring fees charged by your alarm company. Toss in free installation specials (or $99 installation, which ADT runs frequently) and the cost is tough to beat.

  I've seen statistics that show that having the large yard signs from a recognizable, national brand monitored alarm service will roughly reduce the likelihood of a break in at your residence by 80%. Most robbers are poor & dumb. They want to cut a window screen at the back of your house, slip in, smash, grab & ransack through your house for 5 minutes looking for firearms, cash & jewelry and GTFO. That monitored alarm gives them a pretty good chance of egressing just as Johnny Law pulls up, they know it, and they'll pass by your house without trying.

  There are drawbacks. We use Vonage for our primary phone service at our house. ADT will not install on Vonage, as they claim it's unreliable and incompatible with some of the signals they send to the monitoring service, so they like to put a module in the basement with a digital cell phone card in it + battery backup. The problem we have been having is, about once a week, usually around 1-3 AM Monday or Tuesday mornings, the alarm panel starts screaming as though it's about to go off. Repeated calls to ADT tech support produced this finding: The cell companies "reboot" their towers roughly once a week, and the alarm module in the basement is seeing the loss of signal to the tower, it is assuming that tampering is taking place and is causing an immediate alarm - without any way of actually reaching the monitoring service. Will ADT send someone to the house to investigate a possible workaround? Yes, for a $200 truck roll fee + $100/hour labor. And we are prepaid two years ahead.

  Being a good American, I vigorously exercise my second amendment rights, and also own a bionically sensitive 3 year old lab-hound mix. My wife and I aren't concerned about evening break-ins. It's the daylight "house is empty, everyone at work" smash & grab that we worry about, particularly that they will hurt, kill or release our animals and generally just make a mess of things, leaving that charming sense of violation and insecurity behind. I'm sure most of the readers share this concern.

  My problem with homebrew DIY security systems is.. the DIY part. Hours and hours of time spent installing an alarm system that may not get the same quality response from the police as a human being at ADT's monitoring center (we've had 1 false alarm at our house, and I can vouch for the response time being very satisfactory.) ADT has spent millions of dollars on a quality program designed to reduce false alarms, and have blitzed the police with publicity trumpeting this fact - the goal being to impress upon them that ADT customers rarely have false alarms, when we call you, you had better get there quick.

  I'm not sure that user installed security systems are worth the installation time and lack of name recognition with the most important demographic - would be burglars.

the error in your logic

[circletimessquare]

is not giving value to and considering the range of different possible negative outcomes. there is not one outcome in all of scenarios, but different outcomes depending upon the existence of a gun or not in the hands of the victim

the most obvious difference is being robbery victim versus being dead

when you don't own a gun, your chance of being victimized goes skyhigh to almost certainty, absolutely. but also when you own a gun, your chance of being dead actually goes down appreciably

in this calculus of possible outcomes is the difference between the entrenched difference in opinion of the perceived value gun ownership between gun owners versus gun nonowners

certainly, there are sick fucks in this world who kill without reason, and would shoot an unarmed victim simply for the thrill, or a number of other sick reasons. these people are real. but they are also quite rare. your chance of meeting one of them in a confrontation is far smaller than meeting a garden variety armed thief who just wants your vcr. if you have a gun, you then enter into an ok corral scenario where your life is at risk that you would not have entered into had you not owned a gun

a gun increases your ability to control confrontations, but it also escalates what is at stake in a confrontation. sometimes, it is just better to be a victim, to be powerless, to lose your vcr, than raise your chance of losing your life, simply for having a gun, just for the sake of a stupid vcr

but its a psychological difference: i think a psychological profile of your average gun enthusiast would reveal issues with power, and the need to be certain they had the ultimate upper hand. this need to remain in power, viscerally, on matters of life or death, i think points to a history of vioent victimization or ongoing abuse in the psychological history of the average gun enthusiast. such that they vow never to be victimized again, because staying in power is more important to them than losing their life

meanwhile, the average non gun owner simply wants to live, go ahead, have the damn vcr. they have no issues with losing power temporarily if it means they get to have a better chance at staying alive

Re:Security Camera Software Help

[b0bby]

+1 on Zoneminder. I bought a capture card & 2 analog cameras for work; it took me an afternoon to set up on a cheap Dell, including a minimal CentOS install. With an 80GB hard drive, I can easily keep 2 months of detected motion events (right now that's pushing 30,000 events, using 75% of the disk). I have to say, the capture cards + analog cameras seem to be much better than the USB webcams I messed with before, though they are more expensive. Start with an old PIII & a webcam, and see how you get on.

Security Cameras

[PPH]

If at all possible, include a few security cameras around the house. An alarm system is nice to protect the contents, but we have a bunch of kids with nothing better to to than vandalize stuff. Alarms won't catch this, but cameras will. In addition, they will pick up burglars as they enter or exit and (if you have the proper field of view) license plate numbers.

The vandal problem in our area seems to be based on an overabundance of the bored kids of rich parents who think they own the world and don't fear the cops. Daddy can pay them off. Having pics is a great way to motivate the local police force in that either they handle the problem, or the kids will show up on YouTube. Or, if you don't want to go that route, having the pics means that their daddy will owe you a favor, which can be much more profitable than seeing Junior spend the weekend in juvenile hall.