I’m not sure how it’s so hard for people replying to you, to understand, cameras are a deterrent. Crime is often opportunistic. I grew up in 80s Miami, the common tactic was knock on your front door to see if anyone’s home, when no one answers, they’d kick in the backdoor.
replyCameras deter crime. Not ALL crime. Criminals aren’t stupid and will simply go burgle someone that isn’t recording.
> Most casual crime is opportunistic, and cameras and lights add uncertainty to the opportunity. Most people aren't willing to chance the camera for an opportunistic score.
replyPeople have been stealing things from stores which have had cctv for decades. Your premises are manifestly false.
It's a good thing I don't live in a store, then
replyThis comment used to say something about shooting people on sight, which perfectly tracks with the demo that owns these cameras.
replyNo it didn't.
replyI know you think you're being clever but in a week this archive will have your original comment https://hackerbook.dosaygo.com/?view=news&p=1&year=2026
replySure, theft still happens, but I don't see why home theft wouldn't be reduced by the presence of CCTV or other video surveillance.
replyCCTV doesn't work well when people feel like nobody is going to bother to check its footage (e.g. pocketing a $2 drink from a big-box department store). But when it comes to homes, there are much higher chances of captured footage being used and examined, so it may cause opportunistic burglars to look at other houses instead.
The question isn’t whether people EVER steal when there is a camera, the question is whether they will still LESS.
replyJust because something doesn’t work 100% of the time doesn’t mean it can’t be effective.