I was thinking about getting one of those Ring security cams that replaces your doorbell.
What’s to keep someone from just taping over the camera, or simply ripping the thing off the wall?
Home security is meant to be a deterrent - your average criminal is (hopefully) going to just pick a house that doesn’t record them walking up to the camera and taping over it.
Got it in one.
There will be a video record of them doing so. The recording is motion-activated, so as soon as they come into view of the camera (potentially when they’re as far away as the street), it starts recording. The video file is not stored in the doorbell hardware; it’s on the company’s servers, somewhere far from your house.
Nothing. Except that you have to get close to it in order to tape it over or rip it off, at which point you’ve already been recorded. And the presence of it suggests a higher likelihood of there being more cameras inside.
Also, when you rip it off (or at least, turn it off), the owner is sent a notification. In fact, many of them send a notification to the owner once someone gets near it.
“Ripping the thing off the wall” in an expedient manner would likely require a claw hammer or pry bar, as the Ring is attached with fairly long screws, and the outer portion/case is secured with a non-standard screw that is somewhat out-of-view.
FYI, Amazon announced plans to buy Ring.com. So you can expect more integration with their existing products, like Alexa, although the Ring.com products have already been integrated somewhat with Amazon’s products.
Uh, I would expect most burglars would be masked/face obscured so that they couldn’t care less if they were photographed.
Check out a search on YouTube for “thief caught on ring camera”. You’d be surprised.
Plus wearing a mask over your head makes you stick out a ne’er-do-well in the neighborhood in a way somebody just casually approaching the door and checking the locks would not.
Also, keep in mind that not all of these doorbell/cameras save your recordings for you. Most will stream video to your smartphone, but if you want the video archived to the cloud, some make you pay for that service, usually as a monthly subscription.
These are more useful for simple identification of who is at the door than they are for security surveillance systems. They do offer a montlhy subscription to store recorded video in the cloud, which will cost you about the price of the camera every few months, or you could probably rig up a tablet to record full time or something, but at that point you’d be better off with a dedicated security camera and a DVR to record.
Any one such camera can be defeated with an air gun or simply pointing a bright flashlight at the lens while approaching it with a piece of tape. The key is to have a camera that can see that camera, and another that can see that one, in a pattern where no one camera is isolated from view of at least one other.
Ring costs something like $30 a year for cloud storage of the video. The cameras cost in the neighborhood of $200, so… no.
To the extent that someone does something to the camera, the odds are quite high that the motion detection would not only trigger the camera to record what is happening, but also simultaneously send a notice to the owners’ smartphones that something is happening.
So let’s say a masked man runs up to the doorbell and smashes it with a hammer. A couple seconds of video will be stored to the cloud. The owner will also get a notification at that moment that there was motion at the doorbell. If the owner chooses to watch the video feed at that moment, the owner could call the police to report the incident. Of course, such notifications come throughout the day and people don’t exactly sit around watching their smartphone every time a motion occurs, but that’s a different issue than crooks being able to smash the doorbells with complete impunity. The level of risk to the crook depends on the attentiveness of the owner, who could call the police if he became aware of something weird going on.
Like I said: air gun or flashlight. You can disable any one of them from a distance. A 2000 lumen flashlight will make the camera almost useless even in daylight, and completely blind at night. You need a camera that sees the other camera if you want to capture all but the most hapless criminals. (of which there are many so that isn’t to say there is no use for them at all)
you’re right about the video recording subscription. The deluxe plan is actually $100 a year but still less than I estimated. Even so, if there is a lot of motion outside uploading that constant stream will slow their internet down. Its a lot more practical to have a DVR at home if 24x7 recorded surveillance is the goal.
I agree. But the claim isn’t that a video doorbell can’t be overcome at all, but that the video doorbell is actually a quite useful tool under many circumstances. The doorbell may be sufficient in many cases to simply deter a thief from burglarizing one house… and then possible move on to the neighbor.
The Ring does not constantly record video, to my understanding. It only records when the motion sensor is activated. So if the goal is constantly recording video, a consumer should most certainly NOT buy a Ring.
I don’t know where you live, but here in normal land, I’d guess that “all but the most hapless criminals” by that definition would include at least 99.95% of them. Unless you’re worried about someone planning ahead to attack your specific house with a foreknowledge of the security system, worrying about the thieves sniping your camera from afar or using a flashlight to blind it should probably be lower on your list than space debris crushing the house on reentry.
You’re not describing typical burglars, though. Most burglars will simply avoid homes if they’ve got some sort of protection in favor of easier targets. Cite.
The carefully planned burglary with gadgets and countermeasures is largely the stuff of movies.
This. I haven’t heard of many (any, really) instances of miscreants disabling residential security cameras with air guns or 2000-lumen flashlights to facilitate illegal activities. For starters, a person would have to be a damn good shot to nail a 1-inch doorbell from far enough away to not be seen by the camera, and he’d also be very visible to neighbors unless he went to great lengths to camouflage himself.
If someone elects to rob a house, chances are he’s not the brightest bulb, and is unlikely to take such extensive precautions to facilitate his crime. As TimeWinder suggests, for every bad guy that is that smart, there are 1999 who aren’t, and that’s what the typical home security camera installation is for.
In my neighborhood a Ring might deter a person stealing a package from your porch, quite common. A ski mask will deter the Ring, which our local security expert says doesn’t produce a very useful video anyhow. And the thief will be gone long before the police are called let alone come.
Since I live across from a school on a high traffic street I’d be more worried about someone entering my backyard than through the front door. And the Ring would never even pick that up. A camera over the garage would be far more useful.
It might be useful in deterring fake salesmen who are actually checking for empty houses, but a camera system would do just as well.
Your local security expert doesn’t know about zoom and enhance? Pffft. Loser.