Big Uncle Is Watching You
Uncle Andrew
I’ve just about had it.
In 2001, our house was burglarized, so we put in an alarm system.
Last month our mailbox was rifled. We’re working on convincing our block to get a bank of locking mailboxes.
Last week, in the wee hours of the morning, our roommate’s car was broken into while parked in our driveway.
Our neighbor Diane had an interesting explanation for the recent rise in property crime. She told me that everyone she knows who lived in Des Moines (the quasi-swanky coastal community just south of us) who could afford to do so has moved out in the last five years, because residents of Federal Way (the not-so-swanky community south of Des Moines) were coming up into Des Moines to burglarize houses, cars and mailboxes. Now that Des Moines has been thoroughly picked-over, the criminals have simply moved up the highway one stop, to sunny, naïve Normandy Park.
So….here come the cameras.
Four years ago, I was all bent out of shape about having to become one of those “alarm guys”, and now I’m going to put up security cameras. I feel like a complete ass. I am now officially an Embattled Suburban White Guy, defending my castle from the barbarian hordes. (Could Republicanism be far behind? 8-O)
But I can’t handle it any more. I hate, I mean really hate, the feeling of being under siege. Every time I leave my house I picture an army of meth tweakers circling it like buzzards, waiting to see if it twitches or if it’s safe to land and join the feast. A guy came to the door last week selling “magazine subscriptions” and I wanted to jab him in the solar plexus with a nightstick just for showing up at my door unannounced.
Anyway, neurotic self-examination aside, I’ve decided to hang small wireless network cameras in each of our three most vulnerable points-of-entry: the windows in the garage and basement, and the sliding glass door in the back. We know for a fact that the last bunch that burglarized our house checked out every door and window at ground level before choosing the garage window; at that sort of range, I think I’m quite likely to get an excellent mug shot. I’m probably going to go for a set of D-Link DCS-900W Wireless Network Cameras.
Since I’m already hosting a Web server in-house (you’re soaking in it), I’m going to coordinate the cameras using a nifty program for OS X called SecuritySpy, which will allow me to sort images by motion detection, store them locally and also upload them to the parcel of Web space provided by my ISP, in case someone runs off with my Web server. I can also have SecuritySpy email me when a motion-triggered image is captured. Perhaps I’ll get a chance to reenact the drama of the thief who got nailed by a Web cam in February of this year.
So, just a word of warning to friends, family members, door-to-door vacuum-cleaner salesmen, and the human garbage that prey on suburban homeowners: Big Uncle is watching you.
And He feels terrible about it.
All portions of this site are © Andrew Lenzer, all rights reserved, unless otherwise noted.
June 28th, 2005 at 9:57 am
I think you ought to wire the cameras up so there’s live current running through
them. That way when the tweakers are stealing the cameras, they get *ZAPPED* like
bug. Now THAT is a deterrent.
June 28th, 2005 at 11:19 am
I actually pondered the legal ramifications of electrifying the sills of all our first-floor windows….couldn’t think of a way to fire-proof it. 😛
June 28th, 2005 at 11:41 am
You and Nick Kristof seem to be on the same wavelength here. Check out his most recent editorial: in the New York Times. And if you’re not an online subscriber and don’t want the momentary hassle of becoming one, let me know. 😉
June 28th, 2005 at 4:20 pm
What? You people have to lock your door? Actually I would like to see someone try to make off with the 300 pound 53 inch TV. That might be worth the price of the TV just to see. But seriously, the only time we lock our doors is at night when we’re sleeping and that just so anyone “visiting” our teenage daughter in the night will have to make a bunch of noise doing it.
June 29th, 2005 at 7:15 am
Oh God….flashback to sneaking up to Liz’s window at 7:00 in the morning…. 😀
This would probably be the case in our neighborhood as well, were it not for the proximity of two major highways that make getting in and out of the area a snap. Who would have dreamed that an “easy commute” worked both ways….
The last time our house was ransacked, one of our only consolations was the fact that the little bastards made off with a five-year-old, broken VCR. Take that, you fuckers!
June 29th, 2005 at 7:24 am
Hey Susan, thanks for the link to that article. I have to admit, though: the most pertinent part of it to me was the idea that our burglar alarm is simply passing the crime along to some other poor schlub…criminy, how depressing is that?
June 29th, 2005 at 9:47 am
Are you forgetting your neighbors to the north? Burien and White Center have a much higher percentage of meth maggots and other scum of the earth than Federal Way. Why do you think Jake likes working there? It lets him keep busy every day arresting people. And you have an easy escape route with the road right by your house.
June 29th, 2005 at 10:34 am
Hey, I’m just reporting what my neighbor said. I admit my comment about Federal Way being a not-at-all-swanky community was overblown. I’ve even edited it.
No offense to the good folk of Federal Way. 🙂
June 29th, 2005 at 10:41 am
There are slime in Federal Way too. The only ones you might offend in Federal way are the politicians. And there is no way to offend the truly offensive.
June 29th, 2005 at 11:38 am
I was actually thinking that if LoJack-type systems are proving to be so effective in dropping the overall car theft rate because they’re undetectable in the general population (a thief doesn’t know if any given car has LoJack or not), then maybe someone will apply that same school of thought to home break-in detection systems. You know, instead of noisy burglar alarms with signs in the front yeard,, maybe some enterprising WebHead will design a nifty WebCam/police alert system, and spread the idea/planning freely with the only caveat being that users _don’t_ advertise their usage with signs, etcetera… Might prove equally effective if enough folks catch on – particularly if the system results in convictions. 😉
July 1st, 2005 at 1:38 pm
Carrying Dalek’s comment to it’s next logical conclusion, if the area had a 90% gun ownership and training was required to purchase a firearm, odds are the bad guys would go elsewhere. Only thing is you’d have to make sure the bad guy didn’t get back up, otherwise he might sue you for being injured while he was trying to rob you.
July 2nd, 2005 at 3:42 pm
Ah, my favorite agent provacateur…. 😉
Actually, the Normandy Park cops told me that one of the three things house thieves are really looking for when they burglarize a home, along with cash and drugs, is guns. Burglars don’t generally target houses that are occupied. Unless you’re going to leave someone at home day and night, gun at the ready, you’re probably making your house more likely to be burglarized with the knowledge that there are firearms in the house.
July 4th, 2005 at 10:53 am
And just what does a house with guns in it look like?
July 5th, 2005 at 7:05 am
Pretty much exactly like a house with a hidden alarm system. 😉
My point is, news that more homeowners are purchasing guns won’t discourage burglars who target unoccupied houses, rather the opposite.
July 9th, 2005 at 5:00 am
Something that gets overlooked when people talk about keeping guns for home defense is the issue of having the will to end somebody’s life. Many gun use advocates claim an armed populace deters crime because wherever the criminal goes they will meet death. These advocates seem to assume that because they feel ready to take a life everyone else is capable of doing the same.
The thing is, many gun control advocates recognize in themselves their inability to take another person’s life and view this inability as moral strength. Advocating for placement of guns in the hands of people who are emotionally incapable of taking a life is advocating for giving those guns directly to criminals and also advocating for the murder of the homeowner who surrenders the weapon.
I am proud that I reject the idea of taking another person’s life to protect my property. That is why I don’t keep a gun. What I fear, however, is that not all gun use advocates adequately secure their guns when they are not home and that some may not really be ready to take a life when confronted by a robber. The result in either case is that illegal guns get into the hands of criminals and this makes life more dangerous for me.
Guns are dangerous; there presence within the community makes life more dangerous for people living in the community. I do not believe this means that guns should be taken from people who want to responsibly and safely keep them. I do believe, however, that gun owners should be subject to liability if their guns get stolen and used for the commission of crimes.
July 11th, 2005 at 9:34 am
In case any bad people read this, I’d like to point out that although Joe and I don’t own a gun, I have a variety of non-lethal, but very painful, weapons and I am not afraid to leave you in a coma.
Joe and I are completely united on the no-guns issue, but I’ve also had a lifelong passion for self-defense training and sensible precautions of self-preservation. (I can’t count on my stature to scare anyone away. I need skills.)
July 11th, 2005 at 9:49 am
Damn, guess I’ll have to change my plans for this evening. 😛
July 11th, 2005 at 1:07 pm
Yeah, right. Like you were gonna drive all the way up here.
Once again, Andrew, you are foiled by the fact that you would have to leave your house. 😉
July 11th, 2005 at 1:11 pm
On a serious note, Joe has once again provided a sensible, well-reasoned argument to make his point. Rock on, honey.
July 11th, 2005 at 2:25 pm
Arrgghhh….Interstate 5, my ancient nemesis….