• variants_of_concern@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    But more realistically someone robbing your house is going to ring your doorbell to see if someone is home, then just walk around checking for unlocked windows.

    • Bonehead@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      True, but again it’s about making it as inconvenient as possible. Manually locking windows and making sure they are locked is effective. In some places they put security bars on the windows. Tall fences can also create obstacles as well.

      You won’t stop everyone that wants to break in, but you can create enough trouble to keep out most people. Making it convenient for yourself by connecting everything to the internet just makes it convenient for everyone else too.

    • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      Bear theory.

      My house doesn’t need to be impenetrable, it just needs to be more of a hassle to get into than yours.

      • FireTower@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not even that. It just needs to look like more of a hassle.

        They really just let anyone buy those signs that say you have security cameras or an angry dog.

        • variants_of_concern@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Someone mentioned to me that those angry dog signs are a liability because if someone gets bit they can say you knew you had angry dog, so it’s best just to have a sign that says dog and doesn’t mention it’s mood

          • FireTower@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Might dependsl on your jurisdiction. But I wouldn’t be worried they’d probably need to prove you had a duty of care to them which you acted outside of which resulted in injuries that could have been avoided by you acting with a reasonable level of care.

            Also if you did have a duty of care to them and knowingly had a dangerous dog not warning someone of known dangers (the dog) might constitute a break of your duty of care.

            Tldr: It depends, you get what you pay for get your advice from actual local lawyers not random people on the street or the internet (like me).