Comment by apparent
6 days ago
I think the point is partly deterrence. Thieves might choose to burgle homes in areas without Flock cameras instead of areas with them to lower the risk of being caught.
Also, I believe Flock cameras immediately notify local PD when a vehicle reported as stolen passes by. Thieves often use stolen vehicles to avoid being caught, so this functionality makes it much more risky for them to do so. It basically tips off the cops even before you get to the home you're planning to burgle.
>Thieves might choose to burgle homes in areas without Flock cameras instead of areas with them
It doesn't really fix the issue then, just moves it around.
Not criticizing your reply here. It seems like that's the exact logic around it.
To some extent, it just moves things around. But it's not like thieves expect to net the same haul if they break into a home in Atherton and neighboring Redwood City.
Ultimately, it's about changing the cost/benefit and expected value calculations. Neighborhoods are not entirely fungible (especially a tony town like Atherton).
A good argument for globally adopting Flock cameras!
Why not install the cameras and simply never connect them if the point is mere visual deterrence? Similarly, it's not hard to imagine an ALPR system that doesn't save anything unless there's a match with a stolen car database. You don't need to go all the way to the privacy nightmare of flock to improve the situation. Municipalities do because there's no care given to privacy rights.
That's definitely one idea! I think stores have lots of cameras, but also use dummy cameras that have the same black domed appearance.