According to the St Louis Fed 65% of US households are home-owners[1]. Now if there is some other data about "or otherwise have restrictions" to show how it becomes a majority of US, I would be interested in seeing that.
1 https://magazine.realtor/daily-news/2020/09/23/record-number...
Powerline tends to be sorta unreliable and only runs at like 5-15% of the rated max speed, but if you had buffering at the camera to ensure all frames made it to the otherside, you could work around that.
They are controversial with other radio users, because while the devices themselves don't emit much RF energy, your home wiring and wiring in the street will typically radiate most of the high frequency data into the air, disrupting FM radio and lots of other sub 500 Mhz radio users.
> I was trying to get a good signal upstairs, downstairs, and outside at the same time. I didn't want to run an Ethernet cable out a window or drill a hole in a wall or floor, so I was stuck with moving around a Wi-Fi access point. That was until I realized that I already had wire in the walls—coax cable! But wait, you can't use coax cable for Ethernet communication, can you? The answer turned out to be yes, you can!
This seems hyperbolic to me. You don’t need internet connected cameras and doorbells for your home to have a semblance of security. That’s what locks are for, and maybe a big fence behind the house.
Most people won’t ever have their home broken in to - according to a quick Google there were ~192,000 burglaries reported in 2021 in England & Wales. Extrapolate that over a typical lifetime and you’ll see 15.3 million nationwide, which for a population of about 65 million people means 76% of people never have anyone break in.
Wireless cameras and doorbells are, on the whole, products which rather than giving peace of mind leave people constantly worried that someone is going to do something, after all, we can see the constant stream of suspicious looking people setting of the motion detection.
All the camera allows you to do is point at some vaguely humanoid figures in your house to the police (who will likely not be able to do anything about it) and to your insurance (who likely would have paid out anyway)
What I'd like to know is if turning your house into a fortress makes you _more_ of a target to a specific subset of professional high-end thieves, as they know you have valuable stuff that you would like to protect.
The landlord can open those locks with their keys.
1. You’re correct, they don’t need to be Internet connected, they do need to be network connected. That’s how the video gets from the camera to the recording device.
2. Locks just keep an honest man honest, and are another thing you can’t change in a rental (at least in the US).
There are a lot of other precautions someone can take if they can modify the building, but pretty limited options for renters.
All that said, I take a very… American… view on this. I need /evidence/ after the fact, which is what the camera is for. I work from home and am pretty much always here, so the most likely scenario is I kill my home invader, and need that evidence for my defense. In the US, self-defense is an affirmative defense, meaning because I live in a heavily blue area, I’m guaranteed to be arrested and charged, and the camera provides evidence that the person entered uninvited.
My primary precaution against burglary and home invasion is having a tech salary that lets me afford living in an area where there are few burglaries and home invasions. The cameras are necessary for evidence after the fact, and to help with retrieving package deliveries promptly.
I’ve done similar things indoors, however there should be no gaps with properly hung and weatherstripped exterior doors, at least there aren’t in any of the places I’ve lived, purely for energy reasons.