Security while Boondocking

[avanti]

Originally Posted by gregmchugh

Time for the moderators to do something about these personal attacks, there are rules here to keep the discussion civil and this is getting way out of hand...

Sadly, yes.
I just deleted 35 or so messages for various reasons. It was an imprecise process, and I apologize if any useful content was lost, which it probably was.

I would rather not lock this thread, but I will keep it open only so long as future messages stay strictly on-topic.

[DUTCH in Atlanta]

Originally Posted by avanti

I would rather not lock this thread, but I will keep it open only so long as future messages stay strictly on-topic.

You may not have physically locked this thread, but you did so in spirit by your actions.

[MsNomer]

Considering that the spirit of the thread had fallen into the black tank…. It is unfortunate that grown-ups need moderators, but we are fortunate to have avanti.

[booster]

Originally Posted by DUTCH in Atlanta

You may not have physically locked this thread, but you did so in spirit by your actions.

Avanti did what he is expected to do by job description, and IMO showed amazing patience in letting the very poor behavior shown in this thread continue as long as he did.



His job is volunteer and thankless, it appears, but very valuable to the survival of the forum, again IMO. I think he is doing just fine.

[skagitstan]

I apologize for my part in the thread going off course.

[InterBlog]

I'm currently testing a relatively new security device called the OwlCam, which wasn't mentioned on this thread (in fact, I can't find any mention of it on Class B Forums).

It's like a dash cam on steroids, with integrated LTE, continuous recording, GPS, and an iPhone interface that shares some features with the Canary, particularly the live alerts.

The main limitations of the device that have been reported by others are:

(1) No cloud storage. In technical terms, I don't know how this could be achieved - it would represent such a vast amount of data that I don't know how cellular systems could ever support that kind of data stream if it were generated by a universe of users.

(2) It takes about 30 seconds for the device to process and connect such that it becomes enabled for sending you break-in images. The lag could mean that a thief snatches the device before it has a chance to communicate.

(3) While it does not rely exclusively on LTE, the video quality obtainable by wireless is not as good as that which is offered over LTE. Naturally, beyond a monthly allotted threshold, it is necessary to pay for additional cellular data - you can see where the manufacturer wants this to go ($$$ ca-ching!).

(4) Some users are annoyed by the noise of the device's cooling fan. Personally I don't have a problem with it. My T1N Sprinter is loud.

(5) After the first year of ownership, there's a $99/year cellular subscription charge. The device can still be operated for free via wireless (for instance if you are involved in a crash and need to download that video footage), but lack of cell connection would remove the ability to receive remote alerts when you are away from your vehicle.

Those things ^^ being the case, it does offer potential to serve as a general crime deterrent and a vehicle monitoring device, both while moving and while you are stopped and away from your vehicle. I have not found as capable a competing device on the market at this point.

I've posted some video and stills on another forum thread, and if you are interested, you can pick up that discussion here.

[paddy]

Wow. It took a long time to read through all these posts.
Very interesting.

Seems the overall theme is what kind of security to have while Boondocking.
Should I have nothing for self defense against bad guys.
Or escalating methods of self defense, lights, sirens, baseball bats, pointy sticks, wasp spray, pepper spray, knives and guns.

Some think the possibility of being harmed while boondocking are infinitesimally so small that no precautions ever need be taken for security.

Some think the possibility though small, exists but cans of bug spray is more then enough to thwart any bad guy no matter how he is armed.

Some think that you never know how the bad guy could be armed and a gun is needed to apply equal force for defense.

I would like to pose several thoughts.

How much of our time is actually spent boondocking?
How often are we driving in unknown parts of the country where there could be high crime?
When we travel do we stop at restaurants, gas stations, convenience stores, shopping centers, rest stops?
How often do we find ourselves driving at night in areas unknown?

Is there a 100% chance you will never be a victim of violent crime in a boondocking spot, campground, restaurant, gas stations, convenience store, shopping center, rest stop?

I agree that boondocking and campgrounds are very safe but all the other areas are not as safe.

I like to boondock and camp but I also have to travel between each site where the possibility of crime is much higher.

Until there is a 100% certainly that no one, anywhere will be a victim of violent crime, I suggest that everyone take whatever precautions they feel comfortable with.

I personally want to have at least the same amount of force that the bad guy has.
I watch the news and hear about violent crime every day and I have never heard of a carjacking, robbery or assault by a bad guy with bug spray as a weapon.

[rowiebowie]

Paddy. Good, logical summation.

[paddy]

Originally Posted by rowiebowie

Paddy. Good, logical summation.

Thank you.

[RossWilliams]

"I watch the news and hear about violent crime every day"

Which is the problem.

"I have never heard of a carjacking, robbery or assault by a bad guy with bug spray as a weapon. "

A hand in the pocket has worked, as has a fist in the face or a trip to the pavement. A gun may defend you from the first if you have it in your hand and are prepared to shoot someone, for the other two its unlikely you will ever have a chance against a real "bad guy". And if you start waving a gun around every time you feel threatened, someone is likely to mistake you for a bad guy.

But a gun makes you feel safer, go for it. Just make sure it doesn't fall into the wrong hands.

[moosey]

Originally Posted by RossWilliams

"I watch the news and hear about violent crime every day"

Which is the problem.

"I have never heard of a carjacking, robbery or assault by a bad guy with bug spray as a weapon. "

A hand in the pocket has worked (JUST ASK MAE WEST), as has a fist in the face or a trip to the pavement. A gun may defend you from the first if you have it in your hand and are prepared to shoot someone, for the other two its unlikely you will ever have a chance against a real "bad guy". And if you start waving a gun around every time you feel threatened, someone is likely to mistake you for a bad guy.

But a gun makes you feel safer, go for it. Just make sure it doesn't fall into the wrong hands.

Here in Maine where CC is ok (Need to see what the new Gov says about that), we've camped locally for a couple of years and I have to say that MOST
Maine camp-goers have a firearm on-board. I own a couple of .22 plinkers for squirrels and I always have them stored in one of our RT's compartments. Never ever think about using them, but they're there just in the event.

[hbn7hj]

We have been through this before, I think. Mace is totally adequate protection in my opinion.

You need to have your wits about you in its use, but it works.

[Deano]

Except when it doesn't, nothing is 100% reliable.

[<<B-Guy>>]

I've never used any of these products - in fact in Canada, technically they are not legal from what I know (Although you can buy bear spray in local stores here.) Maybe they are just not legal for use against humans!

ButI have read warnings that pepper spray if used in the confined space of a van can affect the good guy as much as the good guy! True? If so, is Mace any different? Not sure if Mace is just another name for pepper spray.

We have picked up a couple of the small pepper spray units at flea markets in the US - thankfully never had any cause to test one! I di sometimes carry one when out walking - mainly in case of encountering less than friendly dogs or other animals.

We did leave one lying around the house at one time when our daughter and son in law were in the house and we were not.

Seems son in law found it and was messing with it not knowing what it was and managed to inadvertently give our daughter a shot in the face with it! (Well, he says inadvertently!)

I don't recall him saying it affected him at all as the operator, but our daughter was certainly
impressed with its effectiveness and was not best pleased with him!

It has become family joke now that we all look back upon at times and the story has been told to many friends over the years!

Brian.

[avanti]

Moderator's Note:
I just deleted several messages that were exclusively about guns. The moderators do not permit gun-related discussions unless they have some clear tie-in with RVing.

More generally, this thread has been repeatedly problematic. It has come close to being locked more than once. Please stay on topic, folks.
Thanks,
--The Moderation Team

[hbn7hj]

For those that don't know. Mace is 10 times more powerful as a pepper spray than bear spray. It is not approved/recommended for bears because it is much more difficult for them to recover.

It also contains a touch of tear gas. That info came from the packaging for "police strength" Mace. "Don't use it on bears."

[InterBlog]

Originally Posted by paddy

Wow. It took a long time to read through all these posts. Very interesting.

....

Thank you Paddy for your detailed response - you approach the topic with all the freshness of a forum newbie who has not yet had to deal with push-back from civilians who are not as experienced in these matters as you are.

My purpose in appending this thread was to present information on a relatively new-on-the-market security device which is unlike any other I've seen for sale. It's not my purpose to debate whether security is needed - that's up to the individual, and any such debate falls into the "unwinnable war" category anyway. The thread topic is van security, after all. For those who decide they want security measures, this device is one possible additional choice.

Some posters do not like appended threads - I get that. I like them because what happens if I do NOT append is that someone comes along a short time later and starts emailing me with questions that begin, "Do you remember that thread about X where you said Y? Well, since that time, have you seen Z? And have you also tried A, B, and C?"

People do actually research this stuff, and it's just more efficient if I deposit new information back on the same topic thread. Many people do not like to post or ask questions publicly, especially if the topic is seen by some as "controversial". But they do watch for updates.

Anyway, with that in mind, I am still road testing the OwlCam. It is ready for prime time, but just barely. I'm cautiously optimistic about the company's capacity to improve this product to become something that is more of a force to be reckoned with (or a "security layer" to be reckoned with, if you prefer).

For instance, after I had this online chat sequence (below) with them, they emailed me to confirm that they are looking at the functionality of the Canary (a semi-competing product), and seeing how it could relate to their product.

At least they are SAYING it. They sound sincere. That's better than my feedback being totally ignored, I think.

I was disappointed to find that my husband and I could not open a hands-free 2-way communication over the device. It has the hardware capacity, I think - it just does not allow it.

When I'm driving and he is at home, I cannot read texts. I'm wearing polarized sunglasses and I cannot glance at the screen and see anything meaningful. I cannot dial the phone. I do not answer the phone when I am behind the wheel. When I'm behind the wheel 10 hours per day, this is inconvenient.

What I would like is for him to be able to do is shout over the open cellular line things like "Call me when you stop for diesel" or "Your father wants to talk to you" or "Why is the dog throwing up again?" or whatever. Short messages I can respond to later. That would represent a really nice value-add so that I'm not left guessing every time a ping comes through on my phone. Like, is it urgent or not urgent?

That plus the ability for the third party to view an accident scene, or a crime scene. That IMO is essential.

[hbn7hj]

When Interblog posts, I listen!

Yep, I have put a dash cam or two in the trash can. The Owlcam does look promising, even with the bad reviews, which is more than I can say for the $40 dash cams that just don't consistently function properly.

[mangomike]

I am curious in what context or definition you are using "civilians".
It looks like that would be anyone that you perceive as "who are not as experienced in these matters as you are."
If I understood Paddy's post he basically said .....do what you would normal do in what ever you/me/I determine the situation calls for Boondocking or anything else. Did I get that wrong?
I thought he organized he thought well and interestingly.
I do get confused about the term Boondocking ,,,, to some,,, it seems to be the national forest without plumbing...... to me it is a little farther out in the boondocks then that. Maybe it's is both. Maybe it means any place where you are total on your own systems ?
Anyway liked Paddy's post.
m

[Davydd]

Boondocking to me, not withstanding the term derived from "boondocks" a remote and undeveloped area, back country, backwoods, hinterland; is camping in areas other than a dedicated set aside campground and without hookups. So boondocking can be a Walmart parking lot, rest stop, urban street, a Harvest Host vinyard, as well as the hinterlands. Loosely you can say campgrounds without facilities and hookups and BLM land set aside for camping can be boondocking. I don't get hung up on the terms derivation.