Re: Wireless system thoughts, please read and reply

[mister accavanno <mraccavanno357@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Jan 2, 8:42=A0am, "Bill" <billnomailnosp...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "mister accavanno" =A0wrote in message
>
> > ...Jamming frequencies is where I am headed...
>
> As to jamming wireless security devices or defeating security systems
> for that matter...
>
> You will find that where defeating a security system is easy, there is
> not much financial gain for a thief and the typical thief would not be
> very smart (google dumb criminals). Like a drug addict or homeless
> person. They might break into a typical home and be looking for
> something they could sell at a pawn shop for $20 or $50.
>
> So your typical crook breaking into a home is not going to know how to
> defeat an alarm or even care. If they did know how to do this, then
> they would instead have a well paying job!
>
> For smart crooks who might know how to defeat an alarm, they are going
> to go for a greater financial gain (something other than a home). BUT,
> where items of greater value are stored, the level of security
> increases. There may be "duplication" of detection devices. Perhaps
> wireless along with wired. Or multiple frequency devices.
>
> Then if it is something *really important*, there is no way anyone is
> going to defeat the alarm. There are some systems which are so
> complex, many of the employees at the alarm company don't understand
> how they work!
>
> This Hollywood "bypass the alarm with a couple of jumper wires" is a
> lot of nonsense! The people working at the alarm company would not
> know how to do this, let alone a crook.
>
> And for *really important* stuff, they also add physical layer
> security. You start seeing bars on windows or no windows. Solid
> concrete walls. Vaults, etc.
>
> And beyond that they add 24 hour armed guards/dogs.
>
> Beyond that, "specially trained" 24 hour armed guards (don't piss
> these people off! They are scary just to look at! Make me nervous just
> to be in the same room with one...)
>
> As to the private sector (non-government) systems, this all goes by
> insurance companies and historical losses. If there are a lot of
> losses (thefts), then the insurance companies will begin requiring
> higher levels of security. The required level of security will
> increase more and more until the losses are reduced or stopped.
>
> And since insurance companies do not want to pay out money, they make
> darn sure the levels of security are appropriate for the specific
> situation.
>
> So if someone could defeat an alarm and this begins happening, then
> the insurance companies would react and require a higher level of
> security. They would not allow the losses to continue.
>
> Simple as that!

Bill is the man. The only one on this newsgroup who knows how to reply
to a serious and sensitive subject without flaming the poster and
without disclosing industry secrets. The only man that deserves my
respect. Thank you Bill.