Why no anti theft feature?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by peter, Apr 25, 2008.

  1. peter

    peter Guest

    Cameras are one of thieves favorite targets. Yet no camera has anti-theft
    feature. Why is that?

    I'm going on a trip and can't decide what camera is less attractive to a
    thief. A 5 year old canon rebel 300D (DSLR) with kit lense or a brand new
    SD870?
     
    peter, Apr 25, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. peter

    Matt Ion Guest

    peter wrote:
    > Cameras are one of thieves favorite targets. Yet no camera has anti-theft
    > feature. Why is that?


    Maybe nobody's thought it of. You might be the first, but you'd be
    better off suggesting it to Canon rather than here.

    Or maybe nobody's thought of a way to implement it. What would you
    suggest? Retrofit a car alarm with a key fob to arm/disarm? Leash it
    to a big dog? You could always use one of those laptop anchoring
    cables, although it will limit your mobility.

    Unfortunately there's not much you can do that won't either add bulk and
    weight, or otherwise restrict its usefulness in some way.

    > I'm going on a trip and can't decide what camera is less attractive to a
    > thief. A 5 year old canon rebel 300D (DSLR) with kit lense or a brand new
    > SD870?


    If you're that worried about it, I'd say go with which ever is cheaper
    to replace. Or take both so if one walks you'll still have the other.
     
    Matt Ion, Apr 25, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. pltrgyst wrote:

    > On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:44:29 -0400, pltrgyst <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>So treat your camera like you do your underwear -- keep 'em on your
    >>peron...

    >
    > Sorry for the typo; the above only works in Argentina.


    And only juance.


    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
    Blinky: http://blinkynet.net
     
    Blinky the Shark, Apr 25, 2008
    #3
  4. peter

    Guest

    On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:30:49 GMT, "peter" <> wrote:

    > Cameras are one of thieves favorite targets. Yet no camera has anti-theft
    > feature. Why is that?
    >
    > I'm going on a trip and can't decide what camera is less attractive to a
    > thief. A 5 year old canon rebel 300D (DSLR) with kit lense or a brand new
    > SD870?
    >


    Ever heard of travel insurance?
     
    , Apr 25, 2008
    #4
  5. peter

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:01:03 -0500, John O'Flaherty
    <> wrote:

    >On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:30:49 GMT, "peter" <> wrote:
    >
    >>Cameras are one of thieves favorite targets. Yet no camera has anti-theft
    >>feature. Why is that?
    >>
    >>I'm going on a trip and can't decide what camera is less attractive to a
    >>thief. A 5 year old canon rebel 300D (DSLR) with kit lense or a brand new
    >>SD870?

    >
    > That really seems like a great idea. One would have to sign on to the
    >camera with a password, at some minimally inconvenient interval, or it
    >wouldn't respond. This could be done at the camera through a (probably
    >cumbersome) key system, or easily through a computer connecting to the
    >camera. If it became generally known that a camera couldn't be
    >operated more than one week after being stolen, its attractiveness
    >would be reduced.


    I think you over-rate the intelligence of a thief. The thief sees a
    pawnable camera, not a device that won't work without a password.

    I have a vehicle that doesn't have a trunk, so anything in my car is
    in view. Last weekend I took a short trip, and put an empty sack that
    originally contained 17 pounds of dry dog food in the back. When I
    left the car unattended, I stuck my camera bag in the sack figuring
    that no one would break into my car to steal a crumpled bag of dry dog
    food.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Apr 25, 2008
    #5
  6. peter

    Nervous Nick Guest

    On Apr 25, 5:34 pm, John O'Flaherty <> wrote:
    > On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:18:11 -0400, tony cooper
    >
    >
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > >On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:01:03 -0500, John O'Flaherty
    > ><> wrote:

    >
    > >>On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:30:49 GMT, "peter" <> wrote:

    >
    > >>>Cameras are one of thieves favorite targets. Yet no camera has anti-theft
    > >>>feature. Why is that?

    >
    > >>>I'm going on a trip and can't decide what camera is less attractive to a
    > >>>thief. A 5 year old canon rebel 300D (DSLR) with kit lense or a brand new
    > >>>SD870?

    >
    > >> That really seems like a great idea. One would have to sign on to the
    > >>camera with a password, at some minimally inconvenient interval, or it
    > >>wouldn't respond. This could be done at the camera through a (probably
    > >>cumbersome) key system, or easily through a computer connecting to the
    > >>camera. If it became generally known that a camera couldn't be
    > >>operated more than one week after being stolen, its attractiveness
    > >>would be reduced.

    >
    > >I think you over-rate the intelligence of a thief. The thief sees a
    > >pawnable camera, not a device that won't work without a password.

    >
    > I would think that a pawnshop operator would think twice before
    > lending money on a device that is likely to become valueless, and
    > might require the possessor to demonstrate ownership. But, it's hard
    > to tell.
    >
    > >I have a vehicle that doesn't have a trunk, so anything in my car is
    > >in view. Last weekend I took a short trip, and put an empty sack that
    > >originally contained 17 pounds of dry dog food in the back. When I
    > >left the car unattended, I stuck my camera bag in the sack figuring
    > >that no one would break into my car to steal a crumpled bag of dry dog
    > >food.

    >
    > That sounds like a pretty good idea.


    I would not be the least surprised if he went on to say that someone
    stole the dog food sack anyway.

    At least, not with the idiots around here.

    But yeah, barring alternatives, that was a good idea.

    --
    YOP...
     
    Nervous Nick, Apr 25, 2008
    #6
  7. peter

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:34:19 -0500, John O'Flaherty
    <> wrote:

    >On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:18:11 -0400, tony cooper
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:01:03 -0500, John O'Flaherty
    >><> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:30:49 GMT, "peter" <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Cameras are one of thieves favorite targets. Yet no camera has anti-theft
    >>>>feature. Why is that?
    >>>>
    >>>>I'm going on a trip and can't decide what camera is less attractive to a
    >>>>thief. A 5 year old canon rebel 300D (DSLR) with kit lense or a brand new
    >>>>SD870?
    >>>
    >>> That really seems like a great idea. One would have to sign on to the
    >>>camera with a password, at some minimally inconvenient interval, or it
    >>>wouldn't respond. This could be done at the camera through a (probably
    >>>cumbersome) key system, or easily through a computer connecting to the
    >>>camera. If it became generally known that a camera couldn't be
    >>>operated more than one week after being stolen, its attractiveness
    >>>would be reduced.

    >>
    >>I think you over-rate the intelligence of a thief. The thief sees a
    >>pawnable camera, not a device that won't work without a password.

    >
    >I would think that a pawnshop operator would think twice before
    >lending money on a device that is likely to become valueless, and
    >might require the possessor to demonstrate ownership. But, it's hard
    >to tell.


    You are still over-rating the intelligence of the smash-and-grab
    thief. He's not thinking "Will the pawnshop owner take this?". The
    thief sees something that might have value. He steals it.

    You, on the other hand, think that the item might not have pawnable
    value. That ability to logically evaluate the risk vs reward factor
    is one of the reasons you are able to make a living doing something
    other than stealing cameras. Maybe some other reasons are at play,
    too.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Apr 26, 2008
    #7
  8. peter

    Chris W Guest

    John O'Flaherty wrote:
    > That really seems like a great idea. One would have to sign on to the
    > camera with a password, at some minimally inconvenient interval, or it
    > wouldn't respond. This could be done at the camera through a (probably
    > cumbersome) key system, or easily through a computer connecting to the
    > camera. If it became generally known that a camera couldn't be
    > operated more than one week after being stolen, its attractiveness
    > would be reduced.


    The only way this would work is if it were implemented on wide scale, so
    everyone knew that cameras had this anti theft feature. The problem
    then is if it is that wide spread, someone will put in the effort figure
    out how to bypass it, making it useless.

    Keep the camera in a hard case with remote control zapper with
    electrodes in the handle. Soon as some one takes off with it, hit the
    remote and zap them. Now that would be a good anti theft device and
    lots of fun too :)



    --
    Chris W
    KE5GIX

    "Protect your digital freedom and privacy, eliminate DRM,
    learn more at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm"

    Ham Radio Repeater Database.
    http://hrrdb.com
     
    Chris W, Apr 26, 2008
    #8
  9. peter

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:10:03 -0500, Chris W <> wrote:

    >John O'Flaherty wrote:
    >> That really seems like a great idea. One would have to sign on to the
    >> camera with a password, at some minimally inconvenient interval, or it
    >> wouldn't respond. This could be done at the camera through a (probably
    >> cumbersome) key system, or easily through a computer connecting to the
    >> camera. If it became generally known that a camera couldn't be
    >> operated more than one week after being stolen, its attractiveness
    >> would be reduced.

    >
    >The only way this would work is if it were implemented on wide scale, so
    >everyone knew that cameras had this anti theft feature. The problem
    >then is if it is that wide spread, someone will put in the effort figure
    >out how to bypass it, making it useless.
    >
    >Keep the camera in a hard case with remote control zapper with
    >electrodes in the handle. Soon as some one takes off with it, hit the
    >remote and zap them. Now that would be a good anti theft device and
    >lots of fun too :)


    Or, hang it by the strap around the neck of your pit bull.
    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Apr 26, 2008
    #9
  10. peter

    Nervous Nick Guest

    On Apr 25, 4:18 pm, wrote:
    > On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:30:49 GMT, "peter" <> wrote:
    > > Cameras are one of thieves favorite targets. Yet no camera has anti-theft
    > > feature. Why is that?

    >
    > > I'm going on a trip and can't decide what camera is less attractive to a
    > > thief. A 5 year old canon rebel 300D (DSLR) with kit lense or a brand new
    > > SD870?

    >
    > Ever heard of travel insurance.


    Is there a travel insurance policy that will immediately pay for lost
    gear and only ask questions later?

    Is there a travel insurance policy that will somehow try to compensate
    you for photo opportunities that are potentially lost forever while
    you are waiting to replace your equipment?

    Is there a travel insurance policy that can send you back into time
    and let you start your triip planning anew?

    --
    YOP...
     
    Nervous Nick, Apr 26, 2008
    #10
  11. timeOday wrote:

    > bugbear wrote:
    >> peter wrote:
    >>> Cameras are one of thieves favorite targets. Yet no camera has
    >>> anti-theft feature. Why is that?

    >>
    >> What (potential) feature were you thinking of?
    >>
    >> BugBear

    >
    > How about a RFID bracelet or keyfob that must be within 6 feet of the
    > camera to operate it?


    So you steal a camera. So it doesn't work. So you pitch it and go steal
    another one. Not a lot of deterrent there, IMO.


    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
    Blinky: http://blinkynet.net
     
    Blinky the Shark, Apr 26, 2008
    #11
  12. peter

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:30:49 GMT, "peter" <> wrote:
    : Cameras are one of thieves favorite targets. Yet no camera has anti-theft
    : feature. Why is that?
    :
    : I'm going on a trip and can't decide what camera is less attractive to a
    : thief. A 5 year old canon rebel 300D (DSLR) with kit lense or a brand new
    : SD870?

    The camera less that's attractive to a thief is the one you don't leave on the
    table in the food court while you go for another slice of pizza.
     
    Robert Coe, Apr 26, 2008
    #12
  13. peter

    John Guest

    "Robert Coe" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:30:49 GMT, "peter" <> wrote:
    > : Cameras are one of thieves favorite targets. Yet no camera has
    > anti-theft
    > : feature. Why is that?
    > :
    > : I'm going on a trip and can't decide what camera is less attractive to a
    > : thief. A 5 year old canon rebel 300D (DSLR) with kit lense or a brand
    > new
    > : SD870?
    >
    > The camera less that's attractive to a thief is the one you don't leave on
    > the
    > table in the food court while you go for another slice of pizza.


    It does not matter what camera it is. The thief probably does not know the
    difference between any of them.

    John.
     
    John, Apr 26, 2008
    #13
  14. John <> wrote:

    > "Robert Coe" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:30:49 GMT, "peter" <> wrote:
    >> : Cameras are one of thieves favorite targets. Yet no camera has
    >> anti-theft
    >> : feature. Why is that?
    >> :
    >> : I'm going on a trip and can't decide what camera is less attractive to a
    >> : thief. A 5 year old canon rebel 300D (DSLR) with kit lense or a brand
    >> new
    >> : SD870?
    >>
    >> The camera less that's attractive to a thief is the one you don't leave on
    >> the
    >> table in the food court while you go for another slice of pizza.


    > It does not matter what camera it is. The thief probably does not know the
    > difference between any of them.


    But opportunistic thieves are usually quite good at "looks
    expensive!", which is all they need to know.

    --
    Chris Malcolm DoD #205
    IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
    [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
     
    Chris Malcolm, Apr 26, 2008
    #14
  15. peter

    Dave Cohen Guest

    tony cooper wrote:
    > On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:01:03 -0500, John O'Flaherty
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:30:49 GMT, "peter" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Cameras are one of thieves favorite targets. Yet no camera has anti-theft
    >>> feature. Why is that?
    >>>
    >>> I'm going on a trip and can't decide what camera is less attractive to a
    >>> thief. A 5 year old canon rebel 300D (DSLR) with kit lense or a brand new
    >>> SD870?

    >> That really seems like a great idea. One would have to sign on to the
    >> camera with a password, at some minimally inconvenient interval, or it
    >> wouldn't respond. This could be done at the camera through a (probably
    >> cumbersome) key system, or easily through a computer connecting to the
    >> camera. If it became generally known that a camera couldn't be
    >> operated more than one week after being stolen, its attractiveness
    >> would be reduced.

    >
    > I think you over-rate the intelligence of a thief. The thief sees a
    > pawnable camera, not a device that won't work without a password.
    >
    > I have a vehicle that doesn't have a trunk, so anything in my car is
    > in view. Last weekend I took a short trip, and put an empty sack that
    > originally contained 17 pounds of dry dog food in the back. When I
    > left the car unattended, I stuck my camera bag in the sack figuring
    > that no one would break into my car to steal a crumpled bag of dry dog
    > food.
    >
    >

    No, but the dog might eat it.
    Dave Cohen
     
    Dave Cohen, Apr 26, 2008
    #15
  16. peter

    peter Guest

    > How about a RFID bracelet or keyfob that must be within 6 feet of the
    > camera to operate it?


    That's another good idea. Then if the theft is detected, the camera stops
    working and displays "to unlock camera, visit this web site and enter serial
    number using your home computer"

    > Protecting SLR lenses seems harder though.


    The lense can require a password (entered via the camera body). If wrong
    password, the lense would randomly focus back and forth, even if you put it
    in manual mode :)
     
    peter, Apr 26, 2008
    #16
  17. peter

    Steve Guest

    On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:23:15 -0700, Blinky the Shark
    <> wrote:

    >timeOday wrote:
    >
    >> bugbear wrote:
    >>> peter wrote:
    >>>> Cameras are one of thieves favorite targets. Yet no camera has
    >>>> anti-theft feature. Why is that?
    >>>
    >>> What (potential) feature were you thinking of?
    >>>
    >>> BugBear

    >>
    >> How about a RFID bracelet or keyfob that must be within 6 feet of the
    >> camera to operate it?

    >
    >So you steal a camera. So it doesn't work. So you pitch it and go steal
    >another one. Not a lot of deterrent there, IMO.


    And after they do that 3 or 4 times and realize there's no value to a
    stolen camera anymore, they won't take the chance to steal another one
    for nothing. So that thief, who otherwise might be supplementing
    their lifestyle with lots of stolen cameras, is out of business.

    Steve
     
    Steve, Apr 26, 2008
    #17
  18. peter

    John Guest

    "peter" <> wrote in message
    news:JPHQj.100$uS1.24@trndny05...
    >> How about a RFID bracelet or keyfob that must be within 6 feet of the
    >> camera to operate it?

    >
    > That's another good idea. Then if the theft is detected, the camera stops
    > working and displays "to unlock camera, visit this web site and enter
    > serial number using your home computer"
    >
    >> Protecting SLR lenses seems harder though.

    >
    > The lense can require a password (entered via the camera body). If wrong
    > password, the lense would randomly focus back and forth, even if you put
    > it in manual mode :)


    By the time I had operated the key fob for the camera and then entered the
    password for the lens, turned the key to remove the lens cap, unlock the
    viewfinder and remove the padlock from the shutter release the object I was
    going to take would have moved out of shot.

    John.
     
    John, Apr 26, 2008
    #18
  19. Steve wrote:


    > On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:23:15 -0700, Blinky the Shark
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>timeOday wrote:
    >>
    >>> bugbear wrote:
    >>>> peter wrote:
    >>>>> Cameras are one of thieves favorite targets. Yet no camera has
    >>>>> anti-theft feature. Why is that?
    >>>>
    >>>> What (potential) feature were you thinking of?
    >>>>
    >>>> BugBear
    >>>
    >>> How about a RFID bracelet or keyfob that must be within 6 feet of the
    >>> camera to operate it?

    >>
    >>So you steal a camera. So it doesn't work. So you pitch it and go
    >>steal another one. Not a lot of deterrent there, IMO.

    >
    > And after they do that 3 or 4 times and realize there's no value to a
    > stolen camera anymore, they won't take the chance to steal another one
    > for nothing. So that thief, who otherwise might be supplementing their
    > lifestyle with lots of stolen cameras, is out of business.


    I think that's only possible - if possible at all on a large scale - when
    most cameras are so equipped.

    Seems like bad guys still steal cars despite measures to prevent same; I
    don't know if car theft has gone down significantly. But carjackings seem
    to have gone up; I, for one, am not convinced that I wish to be camjacked.
    :)



    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
    Blinky: http://blinkynet.net
     
    Blinky the Shark, Apr 26, 2008
    #19
  20. John wrote:

    >
    > "peter" <> wrote in message
    > news:JPHQj.100$uS1.24@trndny05...
    >>> How about a RFID bracelet or keyfob that must be within 6 feet of the
    >>> camera to operate it?

    >>
    >> That's another good idea. Then if the theft is detected, the camera
    >> stops working and displays "to unlock camera, visit this web site and
    >> enter serial number using your home computer"
    >>
    >>> Protecting SLR lenses seems harder though.

    >>
    >> The lense can require a password (entered via the camera body). If wrong
    >> password, the lense would randomly focus back and forth, even if you put
    >> it in manual mode :)

    >
    > By the time I had operated the key fob for the camera and then entered the
    > password for the lens, turned the key to remove the lens cap, unlock the
    > viewfinder and remove the padlock from the shutter release the object I
    > was going to take would have moved out of shot.


    Fine for doing tabletop shooting, though... :)

    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
    Blinky: http://blinkynet.net
     
    Blinky the Shark, Apr 26, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Craven Birds

    Anti-theft precautions!

    Craven Birds, Feb 1, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,062
  2. WB Randolph
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    476
    Jim Watt
    Nov 19, 2006
  3. Do anti-shake feature work?

    , Jun 19, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    619
    Paul J Gans
    Jun 21, 2006
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    796
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Theft Is Theft?

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 7, 2009, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    533
    Mary Hanna
    Nov 8, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page