Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Security camera signs

[Lyle Scheer (wonko]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I don't know about that... Costco has some nice looking security systems
that start at about $700, which includes 4 wireless cameras and a base
box with computer and hard drive and firmware that automatically archive
the video, let you log in if you have the password, and basically do
everything for you.  I would think building this from piece parts would
cost just as much and then you would have to write the code to handle
all of it.

- - Lyle

Lion Kuntz wrote:
> Security cameras, sold as such, are high priced even for the
> cheaper B&W models, whereas webcams are cheap for color models.
> 
> If you want to see a PC in a lunchox that can power webcams, try
> this one...
> http://www.mini-itx.com/projects/lunchboxpc/
> 4 GB flash memory for $70 and you can skip the harddrive power
> loads and run it off solar-charged batteries...
> http://shop4.outpost.com/product/4740849?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG
> 
> You can also dedicate obsolte old computers to this job instead.
> 
> They are so cheap you can watch the baby sleep on one window,
> see who's at the front door on another window, watch the twins
> in the yard on a  third window, and do picturephone with the
> neighbor on a fourth window, on the same computer you are
> reading this now.
> 
> Suddenly, it's not just many eyes of the community, but each
> member of the community has twenty eyes each. And that is going
> to be true whenever any individual starts hanging cameras
> whether the committee approves paying for it or not, or
> individuals start voting with their Visa cards. That goes for
> condos, apartments, co-ops or co-housing, in cities,
> developments or lone wolves powered off-grid solar-wind in the
> outback.
> 
> Suddenly it's getting harder and harder to make a living as an
> outlaw.
> 
> ... Lion K.
> 
> 
> --- Rob Sandelin <floriferous [at] msn.com> wrote:
> 
>> In a study done in New Jersey, a high crime area had theft
>> reduced by 74%
>> over two years after putting up signs that stated the area was
>> under
>> surveilance cameras. The area actually had no cameras, it was
>> part of the
>> study. The site which had cameras and a sign had similar
>> results, a site
>> which had cameras but no sign had no better results than the
>> control site
>> which had neither camera or signs. I read about this in US
>> News and World
>> Report in the library sometime before Christmas. 
>>
>> So maybe putting up surveilance camera signs might be helpful.
>> Or maybe
>> crooks read the same report..... 
>>
>>
>> Rob Sandelin
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at: 
> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
> 
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFEKev700lQLawESXoRAtM4AKCbBz5LJ330oxn60DDJL/LalBfPHACfepbu
yMajJ11IN2qPdpEGQ5kiXPU=
=ULh4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----