CNET65%

These Studies Show Even One Home Security Camera Is a Deal-Breaker for Burglars 66%

By Tyler Lacoma82%

8/6/2026, 5:43:54 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Overconfidence Bias, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 33.3% saturation with 207 hits. Analysis detected 1,590 faulty-reasoning hits from 621 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 52.1% and a BS Rank of 66% (10,024 of 29,351 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 65.90% of the article peer group.

If you’re going to pay $50 to over $200 for a home security camera or video doorbell, you may be wondering if it’s worth it. 
I found the research that provides the statistics you’re looking for, and the difference is clear: Adding a security camera really does cut down on attempted break-ins and theft. 
The best study on the subject, called “Understanding Decisions to Burglarize from the Offender’s Perspective,” was conducted by the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, along with other colleges and organizations, like the Electronic Security Association, offering support. 
This project interviewed over 400 burglars to learn more about their habits and motives. 
One result caught my eye. 
The majority of burglars said they considered warning signs when selecting a target and specifically called out not only alarm signs but also outdoor cameras, surveillance equipment and increased security in general. 
Overall, 83% of interviewees said they tried to find out if the home had a security alarm, and 60% said they would choose another target if they noticed the alarm (down to 50% if they noticed an alarm halfway through breaking-in). 
While the questions specified a security alarm, I think today’s outdoor security cameras and video doorbells with their lights, sirens, audio and alerts qualify. 
Most burglars are aware of how only a single device can give them away. 
However, note that it is important that the doorbell or camera is visible. 
Research confirms that burglars need to notice the security device for it to prevent crime, so think twice before hiding cameras. 
Read more: We Asked a Criminologist About the Habits of Burglars 
Other statistics back up these findings 
It’s difficult to find high-quality studies on the effects of home security devices because accounting for variables and measuring residential property crime can be very challenging. 
Most studies in this area focus on commercial camera systems, like city CCTVs, which is less useful for people buying security equipment. 
One additional standout study, called “Public Area CCTV and Crime Prevention: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis,” showed noticeable reductions in general areas but a large 51% drop in crime when cameras were added to car parks and lots. 
I like this particular research because searching out parked vehicles to look for easy, lucrative break-ins is similar to burglars scouring a residential neighborhood, so related effects are likely. 
And if you want to go back further in time, a study examined England and Wales crime rates in the 1990s when household security devices were growing more common. 
The study found even basic security upgrades, like proper lighting, decreased the chance of burglary, while seemingly increasing the chance of burglary for homes that didn’t have any precautions. 
Remember, today’s cams are better than ever 
Here’s a big caveat: Most of these studies are a decade old or more. 
But that could work in your favor because today’s security cameras have grown far more advanced, including human recognition, better accuracy, two-way audio and faster alerts right to your phone so you can take immediate action. 
I’d like to see newer studies about the impact of advanced cameras on burglar decisions, but in general, the data still shows the trend. 
One security device capable of alerting owners or responders has a highly significant impact on reducing the chance of crime and stopping break-ins before they begin. 
Keep in mind, as security devices have become more high-tech, so have burglars’ responses, including spying with cameras of their own and even attempting to use Wi-Fi jammers to cut off cameras. 
Those methods don’t really work against high-quality security from the best brands, but it’s always helpful to be aware of current risks. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 31.7%Tyler Lacoma: 3.5%CNET: 1.9%Confirmation Bias31.7%This article: 0.0%Tyler Lacoma: 1.4%CNET: 1.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.1%Tyler Lacoma: 2.7%CNET: 2.4%Availability Heuristic6.1%This article: 10.8%Tyler Lacoma: 1.4%CNET: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic10.8%This article: 0.0%Tyler Lacoma: 0.2%CNET: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 19.6%Tyler Lacoma: 2.3%CNET: 2.1%Overconfidence Bias19.6%This article: 2.1%Tyler Lacoma: 3.3%CNET: 3.8%Framing Effect2.1%This article: 0.0%Tyler Lacoma: 2.4%CNET: 1.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Lacoma: 0.5%CNET: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Lacoma: 0.1%CNET: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.9%Tyler Lacoma: 3.5%CNET: 3.3%Optimism Bias6.9%This article: 3.5%Tyler Lacoma: 0.8%CNET: 1.2%Pessimism Bias3.5%This article: 5.2%Tyler Lacoma: 3.7%CNET: 3.7%Negativity Bias5.2%This article: 0.0%Tyler Lacoma: 0.8%CNET: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Lacoma: 0.2%CNET: 0.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Lacoma: 0.2%CNET: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Lacoma: 0.2%CNET: 0.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 2.3%Tyler Lacoma: 0.1%CNET: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias2.3%This article: 8.7%Tyler Lacoma: 6.6%CNET: 3.6%Halo Effect8.7%This article: 0.0%Tyler Lacoma: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Lacoma: 0.0%CNET: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 12.1%Tyler Lacoma: 1.4%CNET: 1.2%Recency Bias12.1%This article: 4.7%Tyler Lacoma: 0.3%CNET: 0.3%Primacy Effect4.7%This article: 4.2%Tyler Lacoma: 0.1%CNET: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias4.2%This article: 0.0%Tyler Lacoma: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Lacoma: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 17.7%Tyler Lacoma: 3.3%CNET: 3.4%Appeal to Authority17.7%This article: 6.3%Tyler Lacoma: 1.0%CNET: 1.1%False Dilemma6.3%This article: 0.0%Tyler Lacoma: 0.4%CNET: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Lacoma: 0.2%CNET: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 33.3%Tyler Lacoma: 4.4%CNET: 4.3%Hasty Generalization33.3%This article: 4.3%Tyler Lacoma: 0.1%CNET: 0.1%Red Herring4.3%This article: 0.0%Tyler Lacoma: 0.3%CNET: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Lacoma: 1.2%CNET: 1.9%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 3.9%Tyler Lacoma: 0.5%CNET: 0.4%Begging the Question3.9%This article: 21.9%Tyler Lacoma: 1.0%CNET: 1.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)21.9%This article: 0.0%Tyler Lacoma: 0.0%CNET: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.0%Tyler Lacoma: 0.6%CNET: 0.3%Burden of Proof1.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Lacoma: 0.0%CNET: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 6.3%Tyler Lacoma: 0.3%CNET: 0.2%Composition/Division6.3%This article: 5.2%Tyler Lacoma: 3.9%CNET: 4.7%Anecdotal5.2%This article: 0.0%Tyler Lacoma: 0.2%CNET: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 18.5%Tyler Lacoma: 2.2%CNET: 2.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)18.5%This article: 0.0%Tyler Lacoma: 0.0%CNET: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Lacoma: 0.1%CNET: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Lacoma: 0.0%CNET: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Lacoma: 0.2%CNET: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Lacoma: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Lacoma: 0.4%CNET: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Lacoma: 0.1%CNET: 0.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 6.8%Tyler Lacoma: 6.5%CNET: 5.4%Biased Writer Voice6.8%This article: 5.5%Tyler Lacoma: 2.3%CNET: 1.9%Indoctrination5.5%This article: 0.0%Tyler Lacoma: 0.0%CNET: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Lacoma: 0.0%CNET: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 7.6%Tyler Lacoma: 19.0%CNET: 10.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…7.6%

621 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.