In case someone breaks in. To keep an eye on the housekeeper. This past winter an ice dam sprung a leak in the roof. I was there and caught it promptly. But had I been away, the damage would have been severe. Cameras would have let me keep an eye on that. I don't think it's worth the tradeoff in terms of privacy. But I can understand someone else deciding differently.
People have pets, etc
Cameras on the other hand are useful for capturing a burglars face, their license plate, things they said to each other if the camera has audio, make and model of their car and last known direction. I am in a one party consent state that allows capturing audio.
I’m not sure why people think just because they have cameras that the police will follow up on the video evidence and make arrests. They’ll tell you to file an insurance claim and move on.
I’m guessing you’ve never had a break-in before? I’ve been burglarized and knew who did it and the police didn’t do anything about it.
I have. In big cities I completely agree with you. They have little interest in wasting time on such things even if I gathered finger prints and know the persons name. They go for easier wins. Most city cops have mostly given up at this point. That said they did get the guy that broke into my truck and I got everything back. He was a prior felon driving a stolen car and was in possession of firearms. Driving a stolen car is going to become more difficult with time due to real time LPR's being mounted on more marked and unmarked cars.
In my current location a rural tight knit community they would most certainly try to track them down, adjust their attitude and get some of my stuff back. I listen to them tracking people down. It's both reassuring and scary at the same time because some of them sound like stereotypical good 'ol boys. There are also a surprising number of cameras going up in this area which is intriguing to me being so rural so I will just contribute to their mesh.
I don’t. Lived in New York for over a decade. Had two laptops pilfered.
Police showed up the next morning, took a report and called me for questioning a day later. The 13th precinct followed up twice with the super for the lobby camera’s footage. We saw our neighbour’s and realised the thief was her hookup from the bar. Neighbour didn’t have their name or contact information, but did have (or was able to find) their Instagram. An arrest warrant went out, but that was it (they were out of state).
Months later, the thief was caught jumping a turnstile. The investigator called and informed us of their arrest. (We got the property back, but that was more convoluted.)
NoMad/Flatiron was then a nice but not extravagant neighbourhood. We were in a middling no-doorman building. The investigator gave a shit because the voters in that district prioritise feedback to their electeds when cops ignored them. (I wrote a letter to the sergeant in commendation of her work.) Meanwhile, my parents couldn’t get the cops in Cupertino to give a shit about their catalytic converter being repeatedly jacked. They complained to me but ultimately shrugged it off.
There is a tragedy of commons in civic engagement. The rural/urban divide may be a proxy for that variable instead.
In your case I could definitely see police taking it seriously, or in wealthy communities where police don’t have much to do other than investigate property crime. My experience is in a big city where as you said, police have mostly given up on investigating property crime. Rural areas also have fewer neighbors to witness things so cameras seem like a reasonable option to deter thieves and burglars.
Anecdotally, I had a break in where the perp was stopped in the act and they even ended up getting prosecuted. The system can work, too.
I've also been kidnapped by the police, ransomed, and then harassed for a year by the "justice" system. So this is certainly not some "I love the police" comment.
I’m not saying the police are worthless or irrelevant, simply that using insurance is how you get made whole after a burglary or theft. It’s a crapshoot whether the perpetrator is found, which in some cases, they are.
I’m also not suggesting anything in particular to prevent burglaries, I don’t have home security, a gun, or a dog. My cat isn’t going to stop a burglar. My position is that sometimes theft and burglary happens, and insurance is the best tool to mitigate the risk because the police don’t have the time or the inclination to fully investigate every property crime.
The plain answer to your question is that because some times they do. But the implication of your rhetoric is that they never will. That's the problem.
Being "made whole" is actually a separate concern from helping to catch the perp, and it doesn't help to brush off one concern in favor of another. Like for example if someone stole most of my computing gear, financial compensation by insurance could not possibly make me whole (months of bespoke setup and customization). But it would be nice to know that the perp got punished, regardless of whether they had already sold my stuff.
And personally, I'd double down on the cynicism and point to having video evidence as a good way of documenting the incident for insurance purposes, lest they attempt to screw you some how.
(Nothing in my comments should be construed as condoning having Internet connected cameras running proprietary crapware. Rather I'm just talking about the general motivation for cameras, and unfortunately many people are insensitive to the crapware)
That’s what I went with, as well as water and window-open detectors. It still doesn’t cover e.g. something smoking in the corner or a pest finding its way in.
If you do not confront them, the odds are that no one ever will. The police have passed far beyond useless when it comes to property crime.
If you can't trust your housekeeper not to steal from you (or do something else you want to catch on camera), you either hired the wrong person or are not paying them a fair wage. Either way, it's a you-problem.
Did Bernie Madoff and SBF steal because they were not getting a fair wage?
Having some technical networking knowledge I disconnected them from the Internet and set up a VPN where my wife and I first have to connect to prior to viewing the cameras.
Why do I surveil my own home? Because I have small children, when my wife and I go out and they stay with a baby sitter it gives us peace of mind to have the ability to verify everything is good. Also although we trust the sitters, we trust them even more knowing they know there's cameras.
Why did I get the cheap ass sketchy cameras? Cause I'm a cheap ass. The system I have cost about 2K with installation and spending 2 or 3x was outside our budget.
Dynamic DNS record services have been around almost since the beginning of the public internet, and it's not the only way to deal with a remote location that has a changing IP address.
It's far from "obviously the only way for you to connect" - you are just ignorant of your options
Regarding HikVision cameras, they're closed and untrustworthy just like every other brand out there; there's a huge list of compromised cameras, and only some of them were from HikVision. I wouldn't feel safe with any camera that I didn't put behind a physical separated and firewalled network that I would access only using Open Source software (read: no proprietary apps).
Well, babysitters (there is a reason they are called nannycams), and also often just for local app access to video baby monitors because no one makes consumer devices LAN accessible, they always use internet with a hosted server for app access.
> Using a brand like Hikvision is the bizarre cherry on top.
The virtual death of brick and mortar retail and the general Amazonization of retail (not just Amazon itself, but the other looks-like-an-online-retailer-but-really-is-an-ungatekept-open-marketplace sites) contributes heavily to that.
It's good for making catchy music videos too https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9xxK5yyecRo