Subscriber Discussion

Flawed False Alarm Study By Deep Sentinel

LJ
Lee Jones
•Aug 12, 2018
Support Services Group

For your reference…. See link to a false alarm study that is floating …. https://thecrimereport.org/2018/08/08/339214/

We believe most of the document is well researched and presented.  However, be aware that page #5 of the study document is so seriously flawed that it could discredit the theme of the entire document.  And it could produce justifiable defensive backfire from each of the 10 or more cities.

Hopefully, their editing was flawed, not the content, because as written, it also discredits current generation verification technologies that provide remote witness to 911 type events.  We understand that even the most strict VR-Verified Response, or B&F- Broadcast& File will provide high priority police response to remote witnessed threats to people and property, even when called by private monitoring firms, like those represented by PPVAR and TMA. 

That page #5 is also an insult to law enforcement all across the country, and could discredit the theme of the entire report.

What do you think ?  

U
Undisclosed #1
•Aug 12, 2018
IPVMU Certified

Lee, you say that

We believe most of the document is well researched and presented.

yet, rightly or wrongly, page #5 seems inline with the rest of the document, instead of showing maps it just lists the top cities.

Also, it seems clear enough that the document is referring to “audible alarms”, not necessarily those with VR/video/eye witness etc...

or am I misunderstanding your outrage?

The infamous page #5:

Direct link to the study.

LJ
Lee Jones
•Aug 13, 2018
Support Services Group
In reply to Undisclosed #1

My dispute with Page 5 of the Deep Sentinel Report is the language…. “.. the 26 cities (over 7 million population) …categorically will NOT respond to alarm calls…”.   That entire section of the report does not have any qualifications or footnotes. Whereas most law enforcement follow the historical 911 rules and protocol, and categorically WILL respond to witnessed 911 type threats, including remote witnessed threats (audio, video, private responder, etc) called by private monitoring firms. (See the PPVAR Association website).

If you read the policy or ordinance for the cities, and understand the 911 rules and protocol, you will know they DO NOT deny police response to calls from private alarm companies when reporting witnessed threats. And cities like Seattle respond to most calls from monitoring firms, but the monitoring firm pays the fees. More homework for Deep Sentinel.

Page #5, if presented out of context, could also create unnecessary & nasty political confrontation between citizens and their city council and local police. Plus it could cause legal disputes between customer contracts and alarm suppliers. More homework for Deep Sentinel.

U
Undisclosed #1
•Aug 13, 2018
IPVMU Certified
In reply to Lee Jones

That entire section of the report does not have any qualifications or footnotes...

But is it really that different than the page before it?  Might not Colorado Wyoming as easily object to its dark hue?

And cities like Seattle respond to most calls from monitoring firms, but the monitoring firm pays the fees...

That may be true in practice, but their website would have you believe that unverified alarms are a non-starter:

Whereas most law enforcement follow the historical 911 rules and protocol, and categorically WILL respond to witnessed 911 type threats...

IMHO, as an alarm service consumer, I would think they are talking about your typical sensor trip / dial out when the occupants are not home scenario, and would not mistakenly think the towns do not respond to 911 type threats.

One shallow flaw I noticed: all the pages say #5 :)

JH
John Honovich
•Aug 12, 2018
IPVM

We covered this startup here - Jeff Bezos-Funded Deep Sentinel Security Startup.

And it could produce justifiable defensive backfire from each of the 10 or more cities.

They issued a press release on this 4 day ago, and since then, maybe 3 small sites have picked it up, so not going to have much of an impact. They also have 44 Twitter followers as of now. As such, I doubt many will care.

U
Undisclosed #2
•Aug 13, 2018

I love the statistic below that Deep Sentinel uses on their website - as a scare tactic to get people to subscribe to pay them money every month for the illusion of security:

One American home is burglarized every 9 seconds

Except this claim is, in fact, a really dumb reason to worry about your US home getting burglarized.  Simple math sheds some light on what this claim actually means.

There are (as of 2017) 126.22M homes in the US.

There are 86400 seconds in a day (24hrs x 60mins x 60secs) - which means there are 9600 US home burglaries each day (86400 / 9).

If 9600 US homes get burglarized each day, that makes 3,504,000 US homes burglarized each year (9600 x 365). 

If there are 126.22M US homes, that means the average US home has a 2.78% chance of being burglarized in any given year (3.504M x 100 / 126.22M).

so, on average, you should expect to have your US home burglarized every 35.97 years. (100 / 2.78)

Added to that - if you are in the statistically improbable 2.78% of those in the US that get your home burglarized in a given year, you then have a less than 14% chance of getting your stuff back (In 2014, only 13.6% of burglaries resulted in arrest.)

So monitored alarms make sense why?

(1)
(1)
U
Undisclosed #1
•Aug 13, 2018
IPVMU Certified
In reply to Undisclosed #2

Except this claim is, in fact, a really dumb reason to worry about your US home getting burglarized.

But if we do nothing about, and population levels continues to increase as scientists are predicting, we could be looking at a rise in Burglaries per Second of 8 or more.

I dunno about you but I can’t imagine what life would be like at 20+ BPS.  And I hope my kids never have to find out ;)

(1)
LJ
Lee Jones
•Aug 17, 2018
Support Services Group

The Deep Sentinel website is now taking reservations for their new product, including interactive monitoring service. Delivery later this Fall 2018.

Introductory pricing… $200 for three camera system with one year monitoring subscription @ $50 monthly.

Cameras recommended to be used for outside perimeter surveillance.

I asked about neighbor privacy of their private property… no answer.

I asked about local state licensing issues… no answer.

Yes, $50 monthly. Focusing on the residential market.  Maybe their several years of deep research found a new market?

U
Undisclosed #2
•Aug 17, 2018
In reply to Lee Jones

reservation page here

U
Undisclosed #1
•Aug 17, 2018
IPVMU Certified
In reply to Lee Jones

Yes, $50 monthly.

For $50 a month, I better see “Ponch and Jon” at my front door minutes after a grasshopper farts.

(1)
JH
John Honovich
•Aug 17, 2018
IPVM

Here is their marketing video, not only are they claiming to be the 'fastest', it is also evidently wire free:

Picture of their device mounted to a house's exterior:

U
Undisclosed #2
•Aug 18, 2018
In reply to John Honovich

and 9 month battery power on a single charge

U
Undisclosed #1
•Aug 18, 2018
IPVMU Certified
In reply to John Honovich

With an EIFS penetration that would make B. Rhodes blush.

JH
John Honovich
•Aug 31, 2018
IPVM

New Deep Sentinel video of retired law enforcement criticizing alarm systems:

LJ
Lee Jones
•Aug 31, 2018
Support Services Group
In reply to John Honovich

They got it right… no exaggeration... even a bit conservative. See below excerpts from recent news article. Same all across the country. The reason calls for help from the traditional alarm industry, like ADT, are now low or no priority.

Unfortunately, Deep Sentinel has not yet demonstrated a workable solution.

Excerpt:

“… According to city statistics, the Memphis Police Department responded to nearly 62,500 alarm calls in 2016. Among those, only 458 alarms were said to be valid. The remainder — or 99.2% — were deemed to be false. That amounted to more than $1.7 million spent and 63,952 hours in response time…”

 Excerpt:

“… In 2008, The San Jose Police Department conducted a study of false alarms in the City and found that over 98% of all alarm calls were indeed false alarms. The cost of these false alarms to the Department was $662,000. In 2010, the Department responded to 12,450 alarm calls throughout the City…”

(1)
(1)
U
Undisclosed #2
•Sep 04, 2018

from an email sent to me after registering an email address to 'get notified'.

Predicting crime is, of course, bullshit - but it is the wording in the red box that is particularly insidious imo.

Notice how the first sentence in the red box paragraph insinuates that it is a comparison to the last sentence - which justifies the paragraph header.... except it really isn't a comparison at all - but instead, two simple statements that are unrelated to each other.

"Every other security system contacts law enforcement within 8 minutes"

"Surveillance Agents will engage law enforcement within 20 seconds"

This wording is seemingly designed to fool people.

This is flim-flam.

 

CH
Corbin Hambrick
•Sep 04, 2018

You can't blame the guy for making a business out of improving things.

This is a nice reminder to me that I don't need to rest on my laurels with my security customers (97% residential).

Instead I'd prefer to push the limits of current technology to offer more/better security for our customers.  Also, this would also help justify going with good quality cameras rather then fight with the bottom-of-the-barrel vendors.

So now I need to ask myself (and I ask you this community) what can I do to offer a better product when it comes to IP cameras...more then just recording and push notifications.

--for example, are analytics reliable enough to implement and rely on

--can I offer some sort of live monitoring and what would it take to do that (and what are any legal implications)

--what else can I do to make a solution that truly creates a security solution that is reliable for my customers?

(1)
New discussion

Ask questions and get answers to your physical security questions from IPVM team members and fellow subscribers.

Newest discussions