CCTV around the home good or waste of money

[woodenhead]

I can see the benefit of forward facing in car video cameras - it helps to prove who is at fault in an accident especially with scams.

 

But CCTV outside and around your house, does it do anything or just give you worries because you can now see what previously went unseen or makes you angry when you see people up to no good and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it.

 

Next door had the police around yesterday, had video of hooded individuals trying car doors, house doors at 2am.  I was speaking to a PCSO last night as he was trying other houses with CCTV to see if they faces in their video.  Even if they did, what crime had been committed if all they did was try doors and would you even be able to identify and prove who the individuals were.

 

To me having CCTV unless you know of a specific threat to your wellbeing is just really playing into your own fears, doesn't actually seem to be a deterrent (any more than an alarm is now) and is just the latest area where people can make money from people using fear.

Edited July 6, 2019 by woodenhead

[Roy Langridge]

Friends of ours were broken into and had quite a bit of stuff stolen. They had Nest cameras which caught what went on and led to three teenagers being arrested and charged.

 

I don’t see it as a deterrent, but it does provide evidence after the event. 

 

Roy

[Damo666]

For me, it's a bit like having an alarm on your house when your neighbours don't. Which house will the burglar most likely target?

 

All about minimising risk.

[Colin_McLeod]

7 hours ago, Damo666 said:

For me, it's a bit like having an alarm on your house when your neighbours don't. Which house will the burglar most likely target?

 

All about minimising risk.

 

So are you saying it woukd be a good idea to steal your neighbour's alarm.

lol.

[John M Upton]

In my opinion CCTV is not really effective at preventing or deterring criminal activity but is a (sometimes pretty useless thanks to often really poor picture quality) tool at investigating what happened.

 

The average person with criminal intent is not afraid of CCTV anymore, indeed in the case of the more stupid elements of society, quite the opposite as they will play up to the camera in search of their YouTube moment. 

 

This was one of the reasons I listed recently when my employer was suggesting bringing in body cameras for front line staff, something I am strongly opposed to as I feel they are more trouble than they are worth and the cost would be excessive. 

Edited July 7, 2019 by John M Upton

[Paperlad]

We had cameras fitted in Sept ‘18 after some strange occurrences with the exterior lighting. The system is Hikvision HD and the picture quality is excellent.

 

I think a bit of paranoia set in after reading media reports about the declining numbers of police, local reports of ‘chancers’ trying car and house doors and we’re in a mostly rural location. We went through weeks of shall we, shan’t we before opting to have them installed.

 

Since  they were fitted they’ve been useful on two occasions. The first was when three young lads stole some eggs from a local farm and were recorded throwing them at the house, the second event was two females dumping a pile of McDonalds food cartons out of a car window directly opposite the drive. Neither occurrence was the ‘crime of the century’ but both times we were able to identify the culprits (the second from the registration num of the car) and by speaking directly to those involved the matters were easily resolved.

 

I guess cameras can be a deterrent if they are clearly visible and other than the two events listed there’s not been anything of note but I doubt that really proves anything. I do find myself checking the cameras regularly and they’re a great way of finding our cats when they hide in the bushes at night.

[Traintresta]

19 hours ago, woodenhead said:

I can see the benefit of forward facing in car video cameras - it helps to prove who is at fault in an accident especially with scams.

 

But CCTV outside and around your house, does it do anything or just give you worries because you can now see what previously went unseen or makes you angry when you see people up to no good and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it.

 

Next door had the police around yesterday, had video of hooded individuals trying car doors, house doors at 2am.  I was speaking to a PCSO last night as he was trying other houses with CCTV to see if they faces in their video.  Even if they did, what crime had been committed if all they did was try doors and would you even be able to identify and prove who the individuals were.

 

To me having CCTV unless you know of a specific threat to your wellbeing is just really playing into your own fears, doesn't actually seem to be a deterrent (any more than an alarm is now) and is just the latest area where people can make money from people using fear.

 

The offence is interference with a motor vehicle, and they were probably 'going equipped' so that would be another offence.  There is very little chance of catching this person until they re-offend.  However, it's crime prevention as effort can now be spent in patrolling to prevent this cretin doing it again, eventually he'll get caught.

 

Having CCTV can be a deterrent, but mostly it helps catch people after the fact and is used for ID purposes.  I work for the Police processing files to court, and you would be surprised how many people don't cover up and try to break into houses or vehicles.  If your CCTV has good night vision, can provide a clear image of a face and you know how to use it so you can burn a copy for Police when there has been an incident, it is very useful in court.

[Damo666]

10 hours ago, John M Upton said:

In my opinion CCTV is not really effective at preventing or deterring criminal activity but is a (sometimes pretty useless thanks to often really poor picture quality) tool at investigating what happened.

First domestic CCTV system I put in, back in 2012, had basic camera. Resolution was 720 x 480 (called in the industry D1). For the time it was a good system, mainly because the recordings were digital on a Hard Disk Drive, so no need swap tapes etc. When the Hard Disk Drive is full the oldest files are overwritten. Gives about 20 - 30 days recording (depending on how many cameras connected and if maximum resolution set).

 

New system installed a couple of years ago, resolution increased to 2048 x 1536, or 3MP. The difference in the images is like,.... well,.... old Lima tooling and Accurascale!

 

Cameras now available at 4 MP & even 2560 x 1920 (or 5 MP).

 

I've installed SWANN, they seem to have a good domestic product. If you buy through Costco you will get good value. Other brands are available, like Lorex, also good products, slightly more expensive then Swann but seem to have a slightly better product. (No connection with any of the above companies). From my limited investigation of systems offered by alarm installation companies, they seem to have a huge mark-up for something that any reasonable modeller can install themselves.

Edited July 7, 2019 by Damo666
Typos generally

[woodenhead]

2 hours ago, Paperlad said:

We had cameras fitted in Sept ‘18 after some strange occurrences with the exterior lighting. The system is Hikvision HD and the picture quality is excellent.

 

I think a bit of paranoia set in after reading media reports about the declining numbers of police, local reports of ‘chancers’ trying car and house doors and we’re in a mostly rural location. We went through weeks of shall we, shan’t we before opting to have them installed.

 

Since  they were fitted they’ve been useful on two occasions. The first was when three young lads stole some eggs from a local farm and were recorded throwing them at the house, the second event was two females dumping a pile of McDonalds food cartons out of a car window directly opposite the drive. Neither occurrence was the ‘crime of the century’ but both times we were able to identify the culprits (the second from the registration num of the car) and by speaking directly to those involved the matters were easily resolved.

 

I guess cameras can be a deterrent if they are clearly visible and other than the two events listed there’s not been anything of note but I doubt that really proves anything. I do find myself checking the cameras regularly and they’re a great way of finding our cats when they hide in the bushes at night.

And I think that's where I see the issue, you end up watching the videos looking for issues that would otherwise go unnoticed as they are trivial and become paranoid that the street is full of criminals.

 

If you have the video, you'll be compelled to watch it, I wonder if ignorance is better as you cannot worry about that which you do not know.

[woodenhead]

There is this article today about the next stage in the domestic cctv revolution 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/stories-48885776/residents-snapping-every-passing-car-security-or-spying

 

Residents coming together and paying for vehicle number plate readers (in the US, don't know if this would be currently legal here).  As I see it there will be a reduction at first then the criminals will find another method to approach which circumvents the cameras.  Then the CCTV side will step up and next it will be facial recognition which is where they expect to go next in the US.

 

I do wonder those if the monetarisation of fear by the CCTV companies is driving it not the actual risk to life and property 

[Trofimow]

I installed a basic system some years ago after a local epidemic of thefts from gardens and have never since had cause to use any of the footage.

 

Last autumn, as we were planning to go away for 3 months and leave the house unoccupied, I replaced it with an up to date system - not expensive and quite easy to DIY install.

 

Our insurers were happy to cover us for the long absence without the usual additional premium and stated that the CCTV system was a significant factor in their decision, so for us it has been worth doing.

 

 

[Damo666]

7 minutes ago, Trofimow said:

Our insurers were happy to cover us for the long absence without the usual additional premium and stated that the CCTV system was a significant factor in their decision, so for us it has been worth doing.

I'm always cautious about informing the insurance company if I add additional security measures. If they offer you insurance based on your security measures (CCTV, Alarm or other) and it's not working at the time of an incident, will they use this as a reason not to pay out / reduce a settlement?

 

You have the alarm / CCTV or whatever. Great. My advice, leave it independent of your insurance company, so that they then don't insist on conditions, such as being annually checked / maintained / calibrated  etc.

[Traintresta]

2 hours ago, woodenhead said:

There is this article today about the next stage in the domestic cctv revolution 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/stories-48885776/residents-snapping-every-passing-car-security-or-spying

 

Residents coming together and paying for vehicle number plate readers (in the US, don't know if this would be currently legal here).  As I see it there will be a reduction at first then the criminals will find another method to approach which circumvents the cameras.  Then the CCTV side will step up and next it will be facial recognition which is where they expect to go next in the US.

 

I do wonder those if the monetarisation of fear by the CCTV companies is driving it not the actual risk to life and property 

That would be a potential infringement of privacy laws here. Your CCTV system is only supposed to cover within your boundary otherwise some do-good-er will accuse you of invading the privacy of individuals in a public space. However, speaking with a practical head on, of people’s CCTV didn’t cover the area surrounding their boundary, we would loose a lot of evidence of public order offences and criminal damage (the old brick brought home window type thing). 

[johnofwessex]

https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/domestic-cctv-systems-guidance-for-people-using-cctv/

[Nick C]

18 hours ago, Damo666 said:

I'm always cautious about informing the insurance company if I add additional security measures. If they offer you insurance based on your security measures (CCTV, Alarm or other) and it's not working at the time of an incident, will they use this as a reason not to pay out / reduce a settlement?

 

You have the alarm / CCTV or whatever. Great. My advice, leave it independent of your insurance company, so that they then don't insist on conditions, such as being annually checked / maintained / calibrated  etc.

 

Yes - they will add an exclusion to the policy that states that the system must be activated whenever the house is unoccupied, at night, etc.

[Reorte]

Personally I'd say "no" but it depends upon where you live. It's a subjective thing - I hate the very idea of cameras everywhere and I've no interest in having one in my car either - I'd rather take my chances because I find that less unpleasant than the constant monitoring.

[woodenhead]

8 minutes ago, Reorte said:

Personally I'd say "no" but it depends upon where you live. It's a subjective thing - I hate the very idea of cameras everywhere and I've no interest in having one in my car either - I'd rather take my chances because I find that less unpleasant than the constant monitoring.

Despite having been caught out in a whiplash fraud claim my wife still doesn't want a camera in her car as she cannot be bothered to add/remove it everytime she gets in/out of the vehicle.

 

 

[Reorte]

28 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Despite having been caught out in a whiplash fraud claim my wife still doesn't want a camera in her car as she cannot be bothered to add/remove it everytime she gets in/out of the vehicle.

 

 

Of the reasons I wouldn't want one that really isn't one! Anyway why would you need to remove it? I assume they just record on a loop so the only time you need to do anything with it is when you need the footage, otherwise just leave it there running.

[O-Gauge-Phil]

I’m not sure if a camera says come in here I have lots of valuables or is a deterrent.

We have hd cameras covering all entrances plus some hidden in places where a thef should looking because I’m sure they would be wearing hoodies at the point of entry,  all wired back to a nas drive.

Also smart water on my trains etc.  I have a monitor so someone can see themselves from outside the door.  Burgular alarm.   I quite fancy moving away from London 

[woodenhead]

56 minutes ago, Reorte said:

 

Of the reasons I wouldn't want one that really isn't one! Anyway why would you need to remove it? I assume they just record on a loop so the only time you need to do anything with it is when you need the footage, otherwise just leave it there running.

Because it's something to steal from the car if left in, they may be cheap but thieves are like magpies, see something they want it

[polybear]

57 minutes ago, Reorte said:

 

Of the reasons I wouldn't want one that really isn't one! Anyway why would you need to remove it? I assume they just record on a loop so the only time you need to do anything with it is when you need the footage, otherwise just leave it there running.

 

The usual reason for removing them is in case some scrote fancies nicking it and flogging it on ebay.  Despite the fact they're so cheap now (I've seen 'em for 14 quid....)

However, you can get them that replace/are built into the rear view mirror, so are pretty hard to spot.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

I am definitely in for cameras in car - on the next purchase - having twice recently had to take evasive action from complete idiots driving the wrong side of the road.

 

I thought CCTV in the house was territory.  Mr Dribblee offers student accommodation... It will only catch the NEDs and they are hardly a serious problem, in the sense that most will get themselves caught, soon enough. Serious crime, if the criminal wants to do it, nothing deters save very expensive counter measures.

[ColinK]

This thread is interesting as I’m in the ‘not sure’ category. While I can see the benefits, I also think they say,  ‘I’ve got lots of things worth stealing’.  My views may be influenced by several houses I pass on my travels which have big electric gates, obvious cameras and in one case retractable bollards.

 

I do have the British Gas Hive system, initially installed to save cutting into a newly plastered wall to replace the hard wired wall mounted thermostat that had failed.  I’ve added a few interior lights to the system which I can programme (or switch on/off from my phone) which does make it look like somebody is in during the dark nights.

 

Hive are now offering interior and exterior cameras, but I’ve not been tempted yet.  

[Nearholmer]

I’ve got very contradictory views on this, despite having installed cameras to cover the front path and the car parking area at the back.

 

My good lady is now recovering from a severe illness, and wanted the cameras when she was confined to bed for long periods in the winter - they simply made here feel safer after we’d had our car broken into overnight as part of a series of thefts locally.

 

Trouble is, I think they can imply ‘we have things worth nicking’, and there are so many ways that a determined thief can nobble them, so that the benefit is mainly psychological, and possibly illusory.

[Oldddudders]

CCTV can give us all a good giggle. The attached pic shows, in the doorway in purple top, my cleaner in her house, with her son. To the left is her married lover (of 6 years!), who has just dragged his wife out of the house, and is now engaged in a full and frank conversation with her.