[e2le]

I'm not convinced off-site backups are enough to protect against burglars destroying the footage. There are many options available to them to prevent the camera from functioning.

1) In the case of WiFi cameras, sending of deauth packets or signal jamming the 2.4/5ghz spectrum.

2) Damaging of fibre/copper cables which might be out of view of the camera.

3) Turning off power to the property although this might draw attention.

Given the sheer popularity of WiFi cameras, I can't see it being too long before a device capable of spamming deauth packets becomes a common part of the burglars toolset. esp8266's with the appropriate firmware can already be found on ebay for less than £10.

[est31]

Of course in physical security, for every protection there's always a way for attackers to counter it. But it gets more and more costly each time. What I wanted to say with my comment is that off site backups do have value (compared to say cloud based door locks which don't have any advantage over internet free approaches).

For 1 and 2, ideally you'd avoid WiFi cameras for the reason you stated and use cable based ones and put everything into view.

To 3, actually this happened recently in my country Germany where they stole crown jewels of one of the german states. The alarm system died and allowed for silent entry but the CCTV still worked (no idea why it worked tho, maybe backup power for CCTV only but not for the alarm?). Ideally both your CCTV and alarm system run from some way of backup power.

[autoexec]

> I can't see it being too long before a device capable of spamming deauth packets becomes a common part of the burglars toolset.

How many break ins are professional thieves with any kind of toolkit vs drug addicts and kids who just smash a window with whatever they find or take advantage of opportunities like an unlocked car or a package left outside? I'm guessing that the vast majority aren't bringing tech, lockpicks or even masks.

[e2le]

You might be right, apparently only 4.1% of burglaries involve a lockpick.

https://www.art-of-lockpicking.com/criminals-dont-pick-locks...

[Johnny555]

I'm surprised it's even that high, lock picks are pretty time consuming and it's hard to be inconspicuous while you're doing it.

Ahh, I looked at the linked article, and it's not just lockpicking, it's "picked lock or window", which presumably also includes things like using a knife blade to slide a window latch open.

Further in the article it mentions this:

If you were to separate lock picking from shimming latches, the percentage of lock picking incidents would very likely evaporate.

...

However, because we have no data to separate these two methods of bypassing — that is lock picking and shimming –, we will stick with the higher survey number of 4.1% for good measure.

But wait, that’s 4.1% of ONLY non-forced burglaries. What about ALL burglaries— forced and non-forced?

...

That’s only 1.36% of TOTAL burglaries that utilize either picking a lock or shimming.

[autoexec]

As a hobbyist lockpicker, I still keep running into the assumption that they're most often used for breaking into places. Good to have a source to show they aren't "mainly used for crime"

[ALittleLight]

Actually, I think that source shows crime doesn't mainly use lockpicking.

[Johnny555]

I think you're saying the same thing as the post you replied to:

"Good to have a source to show they aren't "mainly used for crime"

"I think that source shows crime doesn't mainly use lockpicking"