What Security Measures You Adopt to Protect Yourself/Family/Data

While had many discussions, online readings and other forums to have BASIC security; wanted to know what fellow Mates here do to protect themselves.

Not to mention, there is a lot happening in Home Automation and IoT.

In Today's world, What do you do? Any recommendations?

Cheers!

Comments

  • +3 votes

    Bikies?
    A dog?
    Be in an African gang?

    But seriously, visible physical deterrents are the best you can hope for in my opinion. Have an alarm system but make sure the system is visible.
    Make sure that locks are visible on out buildings.

    For the house, make sure that everyone in the household always lock the doors on entry (if you feel that threatened). Install an intercom.

  • +38 votes

    live in an area with minimal degenerates

  • +8 votes

    AR-15 and bumpstock

  • +4 votes

    I feel openly discussing how we secure our homes would assist burglars.

    • +2 votes

      I actually considered this too before commenting, but unless you have a tonne of cash or something valuable enough to be specifically targeted… it will only help - in the same way that "This Property is Monitored by _____ Security" or "Beware: Dog" stickers and signs do. It'd be more of a deterrent.

      • +1 vote

        Exactly. It's kind of two ways to be looked at. Which one you perceive it dependent on many a factors.
        Example would be xiaomi/huawei. One purchases 'Smart Products' to safeguard something at the same time isn't it fair to assume the data is being shared 'somewhere'. Yeah Google/FB/APPLE and all do this. But I would be more concerned from anyone else than these TBH.

        Also, in more of replies, one thing is missed. That is the Data Part. With more automation, I guess we are opening loopholes to have the data leaked. Anyway, I consider this a journey process. Which would mature over time.

    •  

      You mean adding to the current wealth of information publically available on the internet?

  • +1 vote

    Honestly I don't do that much. I think the most important element is still just to live in a safe neighbourhood. That's obviously much easier said than done though - but it's the most effective form of actual prevention. Everything else is more mitigation, imo.

    What I do have:

    1. Locks on all doors and windows (fairly standard);
    2. Security grills over all ground level windows (honestly not necessary, but good deterrent I'd imagine);
    3. Modem/router configured properly…

    That's it really.

    • +1 vote

      Tell that to the good folks of Toorak where theres been multiple rounds of vandalism to Mercedes cars only. These are gang initiation ceremonies. They've broken in multiple times and taken nothing.

      We're at the mercy of what child gangsters and meth heads do.

      • +1 vote

        Ah well, I said that's the most effective method, not that it's a fool-proof one. I don't think anything short of myusername's idea of an AR-15 w/ bump-stock would deter gang initiations, considering the entire point of that is to do deliberately stupid/crazy things.

        At that point, for real (and sustainable) prevention you'd probably need a group of people with AR-15s going out and physically eliminating those gangs.

        • +1 vote

          I know. I'm just merely pointing out that even in the nicest of suburbs, these things are happening with consistency.

      • +9 votes

        It is just as likely to be bored students from Private schools as gangs when it comes to vandalism. The only time our cars have been targetted were when we lived in Malvern and South Yarra and this was WAY before African gangs came on the scene.

        • +1 vote

          I think the consistent group over time is the drug addicts. In the 90s it was the look-over-there group was the Vietnamese. Now it's the Sudanese. But ffs the meth-heads have been doing this forever. The Sudanese just look big and scary and are visually more terrifying. I get that. But the bloody druggies…

  • +8 votes

    2 Rottweilers, sleeve tats and a beard.

  •  

    unless your alarm has sensors outside and can be triggered before something is broken, an alarm is pretty useless

    •  

      You may get a broken window or door, but they likely won't hang around long with a siren going off

      •  

        Wouldn't it be better if the siren went off and no window or door was broken…

        To get a glazier out Like O'Briens to come out and replace glass on a sliding door to the back patio is going to cost upwards of $500

        No cost is better

        •  

          So you want an alarm that goes off every time a postman, neighbour, or JW comes to your door?

          •  

            @macrocephalic: i don't know how you are setting up your alarm system, or freely you let people walk to your back yard.

            I have my alarm setup with a sensor at the back of the house… so when some one walks up the glass sliding doors on my back porch the alarm goes off…
            my postman delivers the parcels at the front of the house.

            back doors are usually higher risk for break ins

            but you can set your alarm up for the front door if you like…

            •  

              @Archi: Ah ok, so it will just go off when the dog runs around the back, possibly from birds as well (not sure if they have enough thermal mark to set them off).

              • +1 vote

                @macrocephalic: There are sensors designed specifically for pets…

                But if you have specific set of circumstances.. then I guess laser turrets like @airzone suggests will work…

                I have a dog… He doesn't set my alarm off.. birds don't usually come right up to my back door unless my friend sends his homing pigeon.

          • +2 votes

            @macrocephalic: Laser turrets also work fine.

    • +1 vote

      We will follow your trial with interest - the cops aren't too keen on people using weapons.

      •  

        Cops aren't people?

        • +1 vote

          Cops probably aren't too keen on using their weapons either - at least the ones who should remain cops anyway.

          •  

            @try2bhelpful: Neither am I.

            The difference between cops and "people" is that the cop isn't going to be there when the gun would have actually been useful.

            • +7 votes

              @tshow: The stats show that if you have a gun in the house it is more likely to be used on you, or your family, than it is on someone breaking into your house.

              https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6335737/Former-town...

              Farmers are a high risk of suicide group - and the weapon of choice is often the easily available gun. (I think farmers are one of the few groups that do need access to a gun to humanely put down injured animals, but that doesn't mean it isn't a problem).

              This is a comedian, who I think, encapsulates the whole gun defence myth with his routine. Basically if you have the gun, legally, stored then you are very unlikely to be in a position where you can get it out and load it in time to make any difference.
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0

              It is also worth looking at the three part series from the Daily Show on Australia and Gun control.
              https://vimeo.com/97417009

              • -8 votes

                @try2bhelpful:

                The stats show that if you have a gun in the house it is more likely to be used on you, or your family, than it is on someone breaking into your house.

                And in the absence of guns, another object would have filled the role of intimidating or damage delivering instrument.

                Farmers are a high risk of suicide group - and the weapon of choice is often the easily available gun.

                Again, in the absence of guns, something else will be used. I doubt convenience is a major factor for suicide.

                This is a comedian

                Yes it is.

                Basically if you have the gun, legally, stored then you are very unlikely to be in a position where you can get it out and load it in time to make any difference.

                So don't store it legally. I rather be alive and face court than be law abiding and dead.

                It is also worth looking at the three part series from the Daily Show on Australia and Gun control.

                John Oliver is an idiot. He does not respond when his "sources" (usually imaginary) are challenged, and he uses data in the most preposterous way.

                Ps. Gun violence decreased in Australia post buyback. Big woop. NZ did not have the buyback and they also had statistically similar gun violence decreased during that time period. No control group = useless data.

                •  

                  @tshow: With a gun you are able to inflict damage from a distance, with alternatives you have to get in close. The studies do not bear out your assumption there would be an alternative - that is your opinion only.

                  In relation to farmer suicides
                  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5409553/

                  "More than half used firearms, none of the seven men who died by hanging owned nor had access to a firearm previous to death."

                  Just because the guy was a comedian doesn't mean his points were not valid.

                  John Oliver is not an idiot. If you actually bothered to look at the link I included the three part series includes interviews with John Howard, Rob Borbidge, various identifed American politicians and a guy who is pro gun (who hung himself with his own words). However, you have already made up your mind without looking at this, so I'm sure you are correct.

                  • +4 votes

                    @try2bhelpful: I'm sure none of the links would compare their stats to NZ which didn't have the gun buyback and still had the decrease in gun violence.

                    They'll use Australia's data in isolation because that's the only way it is pro their argument.

                    I'm not disregarding the links but from a cursory glance, I've seen all those arguments before referenced in other opinion pieces, both for and against.

                    •  

                      @tshow: https://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/newzealand.php

                      NZ does have strict rules around who is allowed to own a gun and does proper background checks. The NZ Arms Code says that "Self-defence is not a valid reason to possess firearms. The law does not permit the possession of firearms ‘in anticipation’ that a firearm may need to be used in self-defence." By having a gun for self defence you are actually not aligning with the NZ model you are espousing. If you told a NZ police officer that is what you intended to use it for you wouldn't get your licence. Also there are very strict rules on storage with guns - something you are also indicating you won't follow.

                      I have no issue with the NZ model provided the licencing is strictly applied and followed; the risk is where the system has been subverted. Given the, relatively, small NZ population it would only take a couple of incidents and the statistics would blow out.

                      There are very few negatives with restricting the access to firearms in a country. The less people have access to weapons the less likely they are to be used. The self defence argument in America has been shown to be a myth, the number of children shot/or shooting others when they get hold of guns that have been stored poorly is a fact.

                      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/29/ameri...

                      • +2 votes

                        @try2bhelpful: Not talking about present policy. Talking about parralel to Australia at time of buyback. Ie. If one is to use the argument that the reduction of guns via buyback lowered the incidence of gun related violence, one needs to prove that it is indeed the policy that effected change. Seeing as NZ had statistically similar reduction without the buyback, one surely has to question the correlation.

                        •  

                          @tshow: Given you have indicated you don't intend to follow the rules in relation to self defence and storage I don't know why you care about what is the rule in either country - I assume, both would not consider self defence a valid reason for a gun and expect the gun to be properly stored according to the law.

                          An interesting article:
                          https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&object...

                          • +2 votes

                            @try2bhelpful: My guns are always properly stored… except in cases of emergency.

                            I know I'm not going to change your mind and vice versa. I sincerely hope you'll never need one, and if you did, I hope you have a neighbour like me.

                            • +6 votes

                              @tshow: Victorian Laws:
                              "Legislation requires that cartridge ammunition must be stored in a locked container separate from the receptacle in which the firearm is stored.

                              Victoria Police has determined that for the purposes of implementing this part of the legislation, a single, purpose-built storage receptacle comprising of two separate lockable compartments, one for ammunition and one for firearms, is classified as separate storage areas (and therefore suitable) provided that each compartment is locked with a separate lock and key or combination lock."

                              So in an "emergency" you will have time to go to your gunsafe, unlock both the ammunition and the firearm, load the firearm and then shoot at the intruder. I hope they break into your house a long way from where you are and make a lot of noise. I also hope you either keep the key in a safe place or a combination that is not known/guessable by your children.

                              Given the statistics, my household is much safer without a weapon. My answer is to barricade myself in my bedroom and call the cops. Having a mobile phone is a much more effective weapon.

                              Frankly I am more than happy assuming that none of my neighbours have a weapon; we are all much safer without them.

                              My view is that anything that reduces the number of weapons in Australia is great by me. Criminals get guns by breaking into people's places, and gun clubs, as well as getting them illegally imported.

                              I hope you never have to use your gun, I certainly hope it is never used by a member of your own family in tragic circumstances.

                                • +4 votes

                                  @tshow: Frankly you can’t ever know that. Mental illness can strike people at any time. I do, genuinely, hope they are spared that. But I know too many people with issues and at least one person who did shoot themselves, another who hung himself.

                • +5 votes

                  @tshow: "Again, in the absence of guns, something else will be used. I doubt convenience is a major factor for suicide"

                  I studied and analysed Australian suicide stats covering a 14 year period whilst I was in Uni. I also spoke to police, doctors and ambos.

                  Your doubt is misdirected. There's no coming back from a shotgun blast that blows your head off, whereas with an overdose of drugs people can, and frequently do, reconsider.

                  • -1 vote

                    @kale chips suck:

                    There's no coming back from a shotgun blast that blows your head off, whereas with an overdose of drugs people can, and frequently do, reconsider.

                    You're using failed suicides as a counter argument to suicide of convenience.

                    • +2 votes

                      @tshow: You would prefer successful suicides?

                      •  

                        @try2bhelpful: I wouldn't prefer either way. If someone wants to end their life, that's their choice. I honestly don't see why society should be given the right to intervene nor have the liability to treat a failed attempt.

                        •  

                          @tshow: Sometimes an attempt is a cry for help. Impulse is a bad thing in the wrong circumstances.

                          •  

                            @try2bhelpful: I agree. A cry for help doesn't involve a gun to the head. I've seen countless wrist cutters. They cut the wrong way.

                            A cry for help is a fail by design. You don't pull the trigger against your temple if you're looking for a chat.

                            I have been in a team treating a failed shotgun suicide. It cost tax payers hundreds of thousands for the chopper evac, trauma team, rehabilitation and reconstruction. The whole time, I felt indifferent. Do not confuse indeferrence with malice. I did not wish for this guy to die, infact, I did my job. This person, OTOH, genuinely wanted to die. If I were any more compassionate, I'd euthanize but that's against the law.

                            • +1 vote

                              @tshow: The gun tends to be the weapon of choice for guys, they also have the highest suicide rate. At the funeral of the friend who hung himself all I could think of was there was a roomful of people he could’ve come to. There are treatments for depression but you need to get people away from the edge first.

                              I’m a firm believer in euthanasia, but people should chat to a professional first, understand their options and find a method that doesn’t involve blowing your head off.

                              • +1 vote

                                @try2bhelpful: Fair enough. I respect those views though mine differs in the details.

                                Maybe my liberal views on guns has something to do with my people being unarmed and helpless victims of several genocides. Maybe it's because I do not believe law enforcement have some sort of moral superiority.

                                Our views on gun laws will remain largely in opposition and that's fine too.

                                • +5 votes

                                  @tshow: Probably, my views are based on personal experience and looking at what is happening in America. That is truly scary. I really don't see genocide becoming a problem in Australia anytime soon - unless you want to count the wholesale slaughter of Aboriginals in the past.

                                  If law enforcement does not have moral superiority then maybe we don't have the right law enforcement. Again, I think we differ on this as well. There are bad law enforcment people out there, and bad laws, but the overall trend is positive.

                                  I'm happy for our views on gun laws to be opposite - as long as mine prevail in law :)

                                  Frankly, I have no problems with people going to gun clubs and shooting the crap out of targets, fridges whatever floats their boats. I have trouble when the guns come into the homes of people who really have no valid reason for one and the ongoing myth that they are a good idea of self defence.

                                  However, happy trails my friend, we will just have to agree to disagree here.

                    • +2 votes

                      @tshow: I'm saying access to guns kills people who would otherwise try less lethal methods and not succeed in their suicide.

                      "A suicidal act is the result of a temporary state of the mind. Once initiated, it is of uttermost importance to win time in order to allow the condition to improve by itself or through treatment. A low case-fatality rate indicates that there is a low probability that the suicidal act will end as a fatal event; in other words, chances that the person will get help are good. Most often, firearms do not allow for a change of mind or medical attention to arrive in time. It is, thus, alarming that 21,175 (51%) persons who died by suicide in the United States in 2013 used firearms (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm). In the present study, nearly 75% of first-ever fatal attempts among men were by firearm. Not only do many men lose their life to suicide by firearms, they do so without having received any kind of support or medical attention. The Office of the Surgeon General and National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention emphasizes that the restriction of access to firearms is one of the main pathways to reducing the losses caused by suicides in the United States (6, 18).

                      Most people who attempt suicide have a long life ahead of them; ultimately, nine out of 10 will die by other causes of death. Most people who attempt suicide change their mind. However, if a suicidal act is carried out with a firearm, a second chance is seldom given."

                      From "You Seldom Get a Second Chance With a Gunshot: Lethality of Suicidal Acts
                      Merete Nordentoft , Dr.Med.Sc., Trine Madsen , Ph.D., Annette Erlangsen , Ph.D."

                      Published in The American Journal of Psychiatry, October 3, 2016. Online here: https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.2016.1...

                •  

                  @tshow: Actually, no, a large number of suicides seem to be fleeting thoughts which are hastily acted on. Taking away an easily available method of suicide tends to stop a large portion of them. Putting fences on bridges stops people jumping - even though they could walk a short distance to the next high outlook. Putting pain killers into blister packs instead of bottles tends to prevent many overdoses - because by the time people have popped out a lethal dose the urge to swallow them seems to have passed. Similarly, by the time people have walked to the gun safe, unsecured it, and loaded the weapon - the desire to aim it at themselves seems to have passed.

    • +5 votes

      I wont neg you but that thinking is such a rabbit hole because it devolves into who has the right to keep a gun in their home and how do you police that? Say every person without a criminal record gets to have a gun. Suddenly there's a lot more guns available on the ground to be stolen and used and up goes illegal gun crime. Minimal available guns = low stock for the crims. Also, most Australian doctors (and I say this as one), have zero training in gun-related injuries as they're just so rare. Increase guns, increase gun related injuries, increase need for emergency department docs/nurses trained in GSWs, increase need for trauma surgeons trained in the same, increased need for rehab facilities, long term pain medications —> increased costs on public health system, potentially Medicare-ending costs.

      I've got no problems with farmers and sportspeople owning them. John Howard really got this right, as much as I would like to pull a gun on a home intruder and sort that problem right then and there…when you multiply that scenario by millions, it just can't end well. If you look at it in isolation specific to yourself and a single incident it seems great, but at a population level it just doesn't work.

      •  

        It's hard to argue for guns and I am not advocating everybody be armed. I used to be vehemently against guns until I studied my ancestry and world history.

        Statistics, safety, society… these are only useful guides and gauges of policy. In times of war, famine and chaos, policy is a whisper in a storm.

        There are many reasons why I have my reservations about gun laws but there's one moment in history that pioneers my views - the German Weapons Act of 1938. Ban guns from everyone, Jew and German. Rearm the Germans. Slaughter the Jews.

        Only a fool believes that history doesn't repeat itself.

        •  

          It will repeat itself if we arm a section of society. Which is what will happen if you allow the 'well' (at the moment) and no criminal record (yet) holders to be armed. You can't safely arm all groups of society without major impacts on health expenditure. The US has been an amazing test case for this.

          • -1 vote

            @MissG: The US is not the only country with laxed gun control or a call to arms. Switzerland had mandatory gun ownership.

            We are currently exclusively arming a section of society and disallowing another section to be armed. Law enforcement and farmers are now armed, the rest are overwhelmingly not. Sure, there's no obvious racial divide (although law enforcement is majority white), but there is a socio economic concentration here.

            The fact is, in Australia there are a lot of guns presently in circulation, and they're owned almost exclusively by those actively engaged in criminal or opportunistic activity. Of course more guns also mean more end up in circulation but at the moment, law abiding citizens are actually sitting ducks. We're lucky it's a land of plenty but we can't keep paying this ransom forever.

            • +1 vote

              @tshow: You don't add risk and cost increases to a system over something that might happen to most likely a small proportion of society. I'd rather take the risk with cops, farmers, and the mafia than I would huge swathes of society all with hugely different axes to grind in the sitting duck stakes. The overwhelming level of support from both the left and right on this, for a decision made by a pretty right wing prime minister is quite telling. I'd suffer far more daily anxiety knowing everyone was armed (myself included) than feeling scared about a cop, farmer, or a sicilian mob boss getting me.

              And from my experience in a trauma setting in the emergency department, one thing I WILL say about gun crime in this country, is that more often than not, when crims have guns they're not very good at using them. The handful of patients I saw over the years (can count on one hand) got away with non-life threatening injuries, while the one who died was shot at point blank range (gang to gang). And then if your argument is for arming everyone, you set up another divide in which those who can afford to join a club and get shooting practice in will be advantaged over those who can't afford it. Violence isn't the answer to societies problems, it only just causes more violence. You'll never get anyone with any medical experience with GSW's on board for more guns because while the people I saw didn't die, their lives ended in many ways and they would need therapy and medications for their rest of their lives.

              •  

                @MissG: Confirmation bias. Those who received fatal wounds often do not present to hospitals. Many do not present anywhere ever again.

                Again, I'm not advocating for everyone to be armed. Providing controlled access, not unlike what we're already doing, is not the same as distributing weapons, allowing concealed carry, allowing public carry…

            • +2 votes

              @tshow: Even if the Jews had been armed the situation would still have been the same. Law abiding citizens are always sitting ducks if their Government, truly, wants to destroy them. Nowdays you can have all the weapons you like but if the Government decides to send in missiles we will all be crispy together - and if you have an arsenal of weapons then they have an even bigger reaons to send in the missiles. (The whole Hiroshima and Nagasaki defence - Japan was far from lacking weaponry)

              There are 3 million legally registered guns in Australia and the illegal gun tally is estimated between 230,000 to 600,000 by the police. So the vast majority of guns are not in the hands of criminals nor being used in criminal endeavours.

              Given the difficulty in obtaining an illegal weapon, and the cost involved, the vast majority of crimes that involve the use of a gun are not against the "average" person they are against other criminals or crimes such as bank robbery etc. The odds on someone's house being broken into by gun wielding criminals is extremely small in Australia; however, it does make really good headlines.

              We are not in a time of famine, war or chaos - overall we are a country where the population is, overwhelmingly, moderates. We don't have the charismatic politicians like Hitler spouting insane ideology at rallies - in fact most of our politicans would be hard pressed to get people to perform a Mexican wave. We do not need to arm our people what we need is to ensure our education standards allow people to be clear thinking.

              BTW - Switzerland, federally, gave women the right to vote in 1971 and the last Canton in 1991. Not sure I would hold them up as a beacon of correctness.

              •  

                @try2bhelpful: They make good cheese, chocolate and watches. They don't need to be a beacon of correctness.

                Those who surrender their civil liberties do not survive to share their regrets - tshow, 2032

                Government decides to send in missiles we will all be crispy together - and if you have an arsenal of weapons then they have an even bigger reaons to send in the missiles. (The whole Hiroshima and Nagasaki defence - Japan was far from lacking weaponry)

                Nation's don't nuke themselves. You're thinking of a different scenario entirely. Internal strife is not the same as all out warfare.

                •  

                  @tshow: We will see where we are sitting in 2032 - but given global warming those of us who are left will probably be sitting on Mt Kosciuszko going "we shouldn't have burnt all ScoMo's coal".

                  The scenario is the same, just smaller missles.

                  •  

                    @try2bhelpful: I will probably be in Switzerland eating cheese and chocolate.

                    • +1 vote

                      @tshow: Absolutely beautiful country - which will be a very pretty island even without any snow. If the seas do begin to rise and people start fleeing to the higher ground, I suspect that will be the trigger for the next global war.

                      •  

                        @try2bhelpful: Lack of food, which is in part caused by rising sea levels, is where I'm putting my money. Hence why I am a hobby farmer though I have FA know how.

                        Gotta feed the fam, homes.

                        • +1 vote

                          @tshow: A fair amount of Australia is marginal farming. An increase in temperature and we are going to be pretty arid out there.

                          Still, when the world decides to shrug us off, it will start again and maybe, next time, it will be giant insects that take over the world.

                          •  

                            @try2bhelpful: I bought land that has natural waterways and catchments. It may still become arid but the rest of Australia would be dessicated before that.

                            Only problem is the grass needs mowing twice a week in peak, once a week at slowest growth. Also gets mushy occasionally.

                            And for the defence of this farm, apart from legally registered pew pews, there is also the ozbargain security cams.

      •  

        I thought you might find this article quite interesting. America has a built in system for training their military doctors for war zones

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/09/0...

        Personally I think hunting should be banned as well; unless it is by people hired to quickly, and humanely, shoot feral animals. This has to be the most expensive, and inefficient, way there is to put food on the table.

        •  

          I just can't even begin to describe how (profanity) up it is that the Navy are training their doctors in civilian emergency departments, holy shit.

          A lot of my family were into hunting before the amnesty in an innocent way. They didn't mind handing their guns in after Port Arthur. The way the Americans hunt is really disturbing, they have this strange militaristic approach, like a deer is going to (profanity) them up so bad they practically need a tank to hunt it.

          • +3 votes

            @MissG: I've travelled quite a bit in America, in fact we were in Atlanta when 911 happened, and they are incredibly weird people. Individually we have met some of the nicest people over there. Open, generous, polite and some of them are very progressive thinkers - but there is this undertow of regressive selfishness and violence that is just breath taking. The paranoia that the US Government brought down the twin towers, the fact that Trump is President, the whole gun issue, the lack of health care, the distrust of the government in general is unbelievable, but it all makes sense when you look at the undertow.

            •  

              @try2bhelpful: The mistrust in their government while at the same time espousing their great democracy is something I find particularly amazing. Every American I know is a lovely person but holy hell as a society I'm amazed they haven't sunk back into civil war again.

  • Top