> 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.
People have been stealing things from stores which have had cctv for decades. Your premises are manifestly false.
The reason why people steal from stores is because there are rarely consequences unless you get caught in the act. Most stores won't file a report over a can of tuna, it'll get chalked up to losses and prices will go up on tuna cans to cover the loss, as it's low friction.
Someone's private property getting trespassed/burgled will have a much higher chance of resulting in legal consequences.
The question isn’t whether people EVER steal when there is a camera, the question is whether they will still LESS.
Just because something doesn’t work 100% of the time doesn’t mean it can’t be effective.
It's a good thing I don't live in a store, then
This comment used to say something about shooting people on sight, which perfectly tracks with the demo that owns these cameras.
No it didn't.
I 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
Sure, theft still happens, but I don't see why home theft wouldn't be reduced by the presence of CCTV or other video surveillance.
CCTV 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.
Or it tells the burglar there is sth valuable that's being protected and to make sure to cut the fiber before they do anything.