[bernierocks]

Many don't realize that we really only have two options for protecting yourself and your family:

1) A weapon, like a gun 2) a camera

Sure, we have the police, but by the time they arrive, it's usually after the fact and not easy to actually catch the person that did it.

Many countries, like Australia and England, have terrible gun rights, but essentially have turned into a surveillance state in its place, with the number cameras. It puts the fear into thieves because they know they will most likely be caught.

If you reject both, it will only result in more innocent people getting hurt or killed and crimes going unsolved.

I have ring cameras inside and outside my house. A group of 3 people broke into my house while I was on vacation. They saw the camera inside, and ran out of the window they broke through.

Nothing was taken, but if I didn't have the cameras, something would have been taken. On top of everything, this all happened about 5 minutes before my brother-in-law came back home for the night.

Cameras have also shown us all sorts of crime we would never have known: package thieves, trespassing, and just a better general awareness we never had before.

[d1zzy]

You missed the biggest weapon against crime: a functioning fair society. Crime isn't entropy, something that's inherent to the laws of the universe and that can only be managed, it cannot be solved.

A society where everyone and their mother is holding guns (and have cameras) doesn't seem ideal to me. Reminds me of this cartoon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFmrZp92QTQ

[rndgermandude]

>If you reject both, it will only result in more innocent people getting hurt or killed and crimes going unsolved.

I don't see this is true. There is few cameras in Germany and even fewer historically, while there is still pretty strict gun laws and the vast majority of the population does not own a gun. What's not rampant, however, is violent home invasions. Sure, non-violent burglaries are on another card, but that's just stuff, and often insured stuff. Even then, "pro" burglars long adapted to cameras (wear masks) and stuff like fingerprinting (wear gloves). What they didn't fully adapt to yet is that nice little spying device called their own mobile phone.

I guess it depends on where you live. If you live in a place full of irrational tweekers, failed by society, who are out of their mind, looking for a quick score to fuel their drug habit, who don't mind getting extremely violent...

But if you just have "regular" burglars around, they will try to avoid other people, and even if they break in while somebody is at home, they will most often fuck off real quick because a confrontation does not only put the home owner at risk, it also puts THEM at risk (a home homer coming at your burglar ass with a huge kitchen knife is still something you will want to avoid). At least our local burglars will fuck off when they notice somebody is at home.

[ilikehurdles]

Yeah you could arm yourself to the teeth with weapons and surveillance gear, or you can push for a more equitable society and well-funded social safety nets so that folks can get educations and get back up on their feet after a job loss or medical issue without feeling like resorting to crime is a viable option.

[asdfasgasdgasdg]

> If you reject both, it will only result in more innocent people getting hurt or killed and crimes going unsolved.

Please cite some evidence that doorbell cameras have a causal impact on crime rates. Or guns for that matter. I doubt there's anything compelling. There's probably a small marginal effect, but there are bigger levers we can turn. The way to actually help people not get hurt is to make it so that fewer people want to do crime. (Which, BTW, we've been doing a pretty bang up job of the last thirty to forty years! Good news!)

[svachalek]

Anecdote here:

There were increasing reports of burglaries in my neighborhood and one night my home was broken into while we were there sleeping. I installed a Ring camera the next weekend and was awakened to the world of my little cul-de-sac on an average night. There were generally multiple cars coming in, looping around, and leaving in the early-a.m. hours. But it lights up bright and immediately whenever someone comes back there, and in a matter of about two weeks, this dwindled down to absolutely no traffic. Now if I see an entry at 2:00am in my log, it's almost certainly an opossum video.

[factotum]

That's an nearly impossible metric to pin down. You'd have to ask criminals who would have done something in specific instances whether the cameras dissuaded them from doing it. Good luck with that.

What I can tell you is our cameras have assisted both us and police (via my consent) to identify a group of individuals who were breaking into cars in our neighborhood. Word will eventually get around that my neighborhood has cameras and people who are watching. That's a powerful deterrent.

[vorpalhex]

You can surrender all of your liberties, and not actually end up any safer.

People are scared, and being scared, want to do something - and going through baggage checks, installing cameras, scanners, pat downs - well that all feels like doing something. Of course, it's not really, it's theater.

[factotum]

Our cameras have helped us identify the person who broke into our car a few weeks ago. That is not theater.

[vorpalhex]

Did you get back your items? Was the person arrested and charged appropriately?

My neighbors have posted many reasonably clear, useful images of break-ins and shared them with the police. It has done no actual good - no items recovered, no perpetrators dissuaded.

[factotum]

Nothing was stolen, but if the person keeps doing it and is caught, that's just more evidence against them. Things like this often play out over a long period of time. I'd rather work towards actively deterring people than sit here and think up infinite paranoid scenarios.

[vorpalhex]

I once caught dashcam footage of a hit and run. Clearly see the license plate, the vehicle occupant - easy case closed stuff. Called the local non-emergency number for the police station and they wouldn't even give me a place to send the footage, much less do anything about the fleeing driver. Had I been smarter, I would have given it to the insurance company of the car that had been hit - but lesson learned for next time.

Footage does nothing to deter people and it has no consequences. It can only be used against the interest of common people - because stopping crime does not lead to meaningful profit. Selling security devices to folks, charging per the hour for security checkpoints, selling x-ray machines, well, that's very profitable - but you can't do those things when nobody is concerned. Harvesting data, selling facial profiles - again, profitable, extremely so.

[ilikehurdles]

I've had a bike stolen from a closed off area surrounded by cameras and needing badges to enter. The police were called and didn't even bother with pulling footage, in fact no one did. I've heard almost a hundred stories about dashcams capturing the plates of at-fault drivers in accidents and nothing coming of it.

[CamperBob2]

This is a problem with shitty police departments, not cameras.

[bernierocks]

'You can surrender all of your liberties, and not actually end up any safer."

You mean giving up my ability to defend myself with a gun (many want to remove the rights of law abiding citizens) or use a camera to catch potential criminals (what you are proposing here in your comments)?

Like I said, I have cameras in my house and have already prevented at least a couple of crimes. It has made me safer for sure.

"well that all feels like doing something. Of course, it's not really, it's theater."

We haven't had a major attack in the US since 9/11. It's really almost impossible to prove what someone would have done without the security and decided against it.

[vorpalhex]

We didn't have a major terror attack in the US using airplanes before 9/11 either. For what it's worth, I've never spilled coffee on myself when wearing my lucky blue shirt either.

People should defend their liberties, whether that's a right to privacy or a right to own firearms. Having a camera is not de facto bad - but having a camera whose data is controlled by a for-profit company is a shift away from liberty.

[bernierocks]

"shift away from liberty."

We have the freedom to choose a company like Ring/Amazon. It's not forced on us by the government.

"We didn't have a major terror attack in the US using airplanes before 9/11 either"

We also didn't have the terrorists with that level of sophistication. We still do today. Increased security definitely has a role in a decrease of terror attacks, but how much or how little would be needed to maintain this level? That much is unknown.

[vorpalhex]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Terrorists have always been complex - both foreign and domestic, both in the last century and the last millenia. Terrorism is not new. Profiting nakedly off of the threat of it is.. well, unusual.

Remember that the people selling you security are not reliable indicators of truth. They are profiteers - and you are the one they profit from.

You can choose to do business with Amazon - but you can't choose if their cameras record you or if your facial profile gets added to their services. You don't get to object when the fed subpeonas AWS for that info because you don't get standing. You are not the consumer, you are the product.

[bernierocks]

"Profiting nakedly off of the threat of it is.. well, unusual."

We aren't talking about profiting from terrorists. We are talking about the idea of increased security making you safer from terrorists.

I suppose by this thinking, we should get rid of most firewalls, 2FA, and password managers because it won't actually make you safer.

Good safety practices are generally not convenient. It sounds like most people don't want the hassle of dealing with inconveniences at the airport, which will make them safer.

"Remember that the people selling you security are not reliable indicators of truth. They are profiteers - and you are the one they profit from."

I installed cameras because there were breakins in my neighborhood..and it paid off. Not only did I catch thieves in my house, I was able to give the footage to the police. Many of my neighbors have caught people breaking into cars and people trespassing on their property after midnight.

"but you can't choose if their cameras record you or if your facial profile gets added to their services. You don't get to object when the fed subpeonas AWS for that info because you don't get standing. You are not the consumer, you are the product."

You can trot out this cliche, but it doesn't make it true. I'm the consumer..and it's not like any of these other ring cameras (besides the ones I installed myself) are pointing inside my house. My neighbors all have cameras and it only records public space.

I have no problem with this. I have no expectation of privacy when I'm out in public and neither should you.

[Rebelgecko]

Did the camera help the police catch the people that broke in?