Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

So thieves broke into your storage unit again

oldvcr.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 317 posts

Re: So thieves broke into your storage unit again

#151

Post by dataflow »

rocqua wrote: post #148
dataflow wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't follow the logic? How does above-market-value insurance discourage people from having insurance? I don't get the comparison to gambling either, that reads more like an appeal to emotion than actual reasoning.

Because premiums will rise across the board, so people with an insurable interest pay premiums set for people who intend to gamble or manipulate their insurance. By demanding an insurable interest, insurance companies keep out gamblers and frauds. It also helps strengthen the idea that insurance shouldn't be abused or manipulated for a payout.

> Because premiums will rise across the board

I don't see why this is true. The insurer still knows the item and its market value. So if the insured amount is higher than the market value then it only needs to increase the premium in those cases, not for everyone else.

Re: So thieves broke into your storage unit again

#152

Post by jwagenet »

bodyfour wrote: post #38

What is annoying to me is that in this internet-connected age, the storage units I see still don't have better per-unit security. Just a phone alert to say "door to unit #xyz has been opened" would be a huge improvement. Wire up a cheap webcam for extra credit.

I’m pretty sure most large storage operations (U-Haul, extra space, etc) have per unit door sensors which work in concert with customer check in/out to verify authorized openings.

Re: So thieves broke into your storage unit again

#153

Post by AndrewKemendo »

The key takeaway I think people are overlooking is that there’s a level of intelligence and persistence in thieves that make physical security an intractable problem with exponential cost scaling as you patch “holes.”

So from a systems approach, the better solution likely is something like:

Employ and provide safety for the people stealing from the units so they do not feel compelled to steal.

Imagine if the money spent securing these things, which is a multiple of this persons efforts, were spent on solving the root cause? Sounds like a better return on investment

Re: So thieves broke into your storage unit again

#154

Post by meowster »

jwagenet wrote: post #152
bodyfour wrote: post #38

What is annoying to me is that in this internet-connected age, the storage units I see still don't have better per-unit security. Just a phone alert to say "door to unit #xyz has been opened" would be a huge improvement. Wire up a cheap webcam for extra credit.

I’m pretty sure most large storage operations (U-Haul, extra space, etc) have per unit door sensors which work in concert with customer check in/out to verify authorized openings.

I'm pretty sure they don't: source I've helped move people's stuff in and out of a couple of different places. My experience is very limited, so if you have more data points where you have seen such things, please share.

Re: So thieves broke into your storage unit again

#155

Post by accrual »

treflop wrote: post #93
tim333 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tend to avoid the insurance and just pile up the money I would have paid to cover the losses. Depending on the type of insurance. But theft insurance tends to be problematic. The fraudulent buy expensive stuff, keep all the receipts, sell the stuff for cash to a friend and then claim on insurance with the proper paperwork. Normal people tend not to keep and file away all paperwork and lose out.

Although it’s a little more complicated, generally if you can cover a loss out of pocket, then you don’t need insurance. Insurance is for losses that will have a major impact on you. It’s putting a price on risk.

Right. If I accidentally crash my vehicle into someone's property (or worse, someone) I don't want to be out of pocket for potentially 100s of thousands when I could just pay my sub-$100 premium and not worry about it.

Re: So thieves broke into your storage unit again

#156

Post by mschuster91 »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #153

The key takeaway I think people are overlooking is that there’s a level of intelligence and persistence in thieves that make physical security an intractable problem with exponential cost scaling as you patch “holes.” So from a systems approach, the better solution likely is something like: Employ and provide safety for the people stealing from the units so they do not feel compelled to steal. Imagine if the money sp…

> Imagine if the money spent securing these things, which is a multiple of this persons efforts, were spent on solving the root cause? Sounds like a better return on investment

The root cause is social inequality of various kinds (including drug dependency). That should be something for society to resolve, not a burden for storage unit or home owners on their own - short of automated guns, there's not much any individual can do to keep out thieves.

Re: So thieves broke into your storage unit again

#157

Post by rondini »

smeeger wrote: post #121
crazygringo wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My nearby park has tons of space with grass. And why would I want space for a vehicle when I have public transportation that is much faster?

[flagged]

Having a preference for large suburban homes is fine, but your view of vulnerable people in your community is gross. It sounds like you'd rather insulate yourself from the failures of your local gov't, which is a privilege many people don't have.

Re: So thieves broke into your storage unit again

#158

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

peppermint_gum wrote: post #143
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What laws do you believe would be more effective a catching and punishing criminals? AFAIK, there is reasonably clear evidence that deterrence has a very low impact on this sort of crime, so laws based on deterring through fear-of-sentence would not seem to be likely to have much effect. What is it that you're proposing/desiring?

> AFAIK, there is reasonably clear evidence that deterrence has a very low impact on this sort of crime, Could you share some of this evidence?

first result from google come for "effect of deterrence on property crime"

https://www.house.mn.gov/hrd/pubs/deterrence.pdf

second result, summarizes and links to several review papers:

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterr...

Re: So thieves broke into your storage unit again

#159

Post by istjohn »

The storage unit industry is one of the most awful, customer hostile industries I've encountered. It's impossible to get the local facility on the phone, publicly listed phone numbers are all redirected to a national call center where reps are unable to even accurately quote prices. TFA covers the insurance kickback scam. Then after I moved into my unit, I discovered 75% of the units in my facility could be broken into with zero tools because the padlocks provided by the facility had enough slack in the shackle that if you rotated the lock 90 degrees there was room for the bolt to slide the half inch needed to clear the bolt hole in the strike plate. Then there was the rodent infestation.

The paradox is that the monthly cost of a unit will quickly exceed the value of whatever is stored there unless the items have sentimental value or are very expensive. In TFA, their losses from theft was $500 and their insurance limit was $2,000. Within two years they would exceed that in rent payments on the unit. A Google search suggests the average storage unit tenancy is only 10 months. That's reasonable. Long-term storage only makes sense when the value exceeds what can reasonably be entrusted with the lax security of a storage facility.

Re: So thieves broke into your storage unit again

#160

Post by hansvm »

smallnamespace wrote: post #58
dataflow wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The incentive would be for you to have a "happy pillow accident" in which you get $1M. Of course, you might think that's good for you but the rules have to apply for everybody, by definition. This doesn't pass the smell test, though. The premium would take care of that. You've told them you have a pillow, and that you want it insured for $1M. They could easily look at it and go "hm, this is worth $10", and give you…

> What's wrong with just letting the premium take care of it? Offering a deal that nobody honest would take is a waste of time for everyone involved.

Walking back from the pillow analogy a bit, I'd happily pay for homeowner's insurance that also covered lost wages, a temporary rental place, legal fees, and the other incidentals likely to arise in a fire or flood (as opposed to paying whatever high deductible I'm comfortable with on top of those other large, unknown costs). Adding those to the policy would necessarily go beyond the home value. Is that level of excess allowed?
Post reply on HN