Luxury and expensive dwellings surveillance may not be a burning priority for most of our readers.
Nevertheless itmay be quite instructive to observe the common trends in the development of security in such residences.
The main provisions consist now in fencing off the area behind a high wall, employing a small army of security guards and installing a lot of surveillance cameras and alarm devices to protect the residents.
While all this be necessary for a public place like a residential hotel, for private homes it looks quite inconvenient despite the security it may offer to those who like it, because of its many limitations, besides the expensive price needed to maintain the security services.
The most annoying aspect of it may be the restrictions on freedom in that all, including residents, visitors, service suppliers and delivery boys must submit to inquisitive inspections at every exit and entrance, to ascertain the legitimacy of their visit.
Less exclusive people may be quite satisfied with lighter security provisions.
It is interesting to follow an open discussion among suppliers and security service providers relative to their business as to the trends they perceive in their customers' acceptance or concerns.
It is reassuring to learn that there is an increasing number of homeowners who install for their home surveillance the traditional multi-channel Digital Video Recorder (DVR) connected to a number of video cameras.
Moreover it was reported that these customers are quite satisfied with their equipment so that, when they move, they want similar coverage also in their new place.
Concerning monitored services some people are annoyed by privacy issues, as they perceive that the employees of the companies engaged in providing the service may be looking in their home without their knowledge.
A way out of this worry might be endowing each camera with its motion sensor, or integrating the two devices, so that the views observed by the monitoring system would be transmitted only in case of an event, and only if the system is armed.
That is why a home surveillance system operated by motion sensors is much more effective in providing only useful information.
Not only memory is spared but also time to review all that footage of useless information is not needed.
It seems therefore that solutions involving the operation of cameras only when triggered by motion detectors have the potential of being preferred both for unmonitored and for monitored services.
A monitored service providing to the subscribers the records of each alarm and of the ten seconds video it triggered may be accepted as quite satisfactory.
In this case customers would not need a DVR at home, and they may enjoy the increased security of having somebody looking after their property during their absence, if the monthly fees can be justified by the perceived advantages.
Whatever the system preferred it seems advisable that everyone study the issues, compare equipment and services and then decide on the most acceptable solution.
Nevertheless itmay be quite instructive to observe the common trends in the development of security in such residences.
The main provisions consist now in fencing off the area behind a high wall, employing a small army of security guards and installing a lot of surveillance cameras and alarm devices to protect the residents.
While all this be necessary for a public place like a residential hotel, for private homes it looks quite inconvenient despite the security it may offer to those who like it, because of its many limitations, besides the expensive price needed to maintain the security services.
The most annoying aspect of it may be the restrictions on freedom in that all, including residents, visitors, service suppliers and delivery boys must submit to inquisitive inspections at every exit and entrance, to ascertain the legitimacy of their visit.
Less exclusive people may be quite satisfied with lighter security provisions.
It is interesting to follow an open discussion among suppliers and security service providers relative to their business as to the trends they perceive in their customers' acceptance or concerns.
It is reassuring to learn that there is an increasing number of homeowners who install for their home surveillance the traditional multi-channel Digital Video Recorder (DVR) connected to a number of video cameras.
Moreover it was reported that these customers are quite satisfied with their equipment so that, when they move, they want similar coverage also in their new place.
Concerning monitored services some people are annoyed by privacy issues, as they perceive that the employees of the companies engaged in providing the service may be looking in their home without their knowledge.
A way out of this worry might be endowing each camera with its motion sensor, or integrating the two devices, so that the views observed by the monitoring system would be transmitted only in case of an event, and only if the system is armed.
That is why a home surveillance system operated by motion sensors is much more effective in providing only useful information.
Not only memory is spared but also time to review all that footage of useless information is not needed.
It seems therefore that solutions involving the operation of cameras only when triggered by motion detectors have the potential of being preferred both for unmonitored and for monitored services.
A monitored service providing to the subscribers the records of each alarm and of the ten seconds video it triggered may be accepted as quite satisfactory.
In this case customers would not need a DVR at home, and they may enjoy the increased security of having somebody looking after their property during their absence, if the monthly fees can be justified by the perceived advantages.
Whatever the system preferred it seems advisable that everyone study the issues, compare equipment and services and then decide on the most acceptable solution.
SHARE
