A recent article by the “Zuhause sicher” (Secure at Home) network, entitled “Deceptive Security: Myths and Misconceptions about Burglary”, discusses a number of widespread prejudices and misconceptions that often give homeowners a false sense of security. The myths listed – such as “There’s nothing for them to get at my place…”, “I’m insured for it…”, “The dog will keep an eye on things…”, “I’ll buy an alarm system…”, “RC-1-N is perfectly adequate…” and the idea that you can protect yourself adequately by hiding or using untested security technology – are intended to sensitize the reader and warn them of the danger of a break-in. At the same time, the importance of tested, mechanical security technology is emphasized, which is reliably verified by independent DIN tests and professional installation. It is also made clear that sentimental values and the emotional sense of security cannot be replaced by insurance, which is why a comprehensive security strategy is indispensable. The article emphasizes that even the smallest vulnerabilities – for example in the resistance classes of windows and doors – are enough to encourage perpetrators, and refers to the free, neutral security advice provided by the police.
Critical examination of the information strategy
Although the article provides valuable facts and useful information, the question arises as to whether this type of article is actually helpful for end customers. By presenting almost every common notion of security as deceptive, the article creates a picture in which nothing seems reliable anymore. This all-encompassing questioning can lead homeowners to fall into a kind of paralysis – they no longer know which measures are useful and effective and which merely create the appearance of security. When every approach, from simple alarm systems to purely technical solutions, is portrayed as potentially inadequate, readers lose their sense of direction. Critics complain that such sweeping statements obscure the view of practical and proven security concepts and at the same time create the impression that it is never possible to protect yourself completely against a break-in.
In particular, the blanket rejection of supposedly common measures (such as RC-1-N windows or alarm systems alone) falls short, since in practice a combination of different security solutions – such as mechanical protective measures in conjunction with certified electronic systems – often offers the best possible protection. By giving the impression that all security is illusory, the article undermines important investments in proven security concepts. This exaggeration may ultimately be counterproductive, as it could deter potential investors and end users from investing in customized and demonstrably effective security solutions.
Best practice and the role of advice
It is indisputable that burglaries are a serious problem and that the number of burglaries in some regions continues to increase. Nevertheless, it is equally important that end customers recognize that there are proven and sensible security measures that can significantly minimize the risk of a burglary. Instead of casting doubt on all approaches, consumers should be encouraged to seek advice from competent specialist companies, independent testing institutes and the police. The free and neutral security advice provided by the police, as mentioned in the article, is a good example of a pragmatic approach. Equally important is cooperation with networks such as “Zuhause sicher” (Secure at Home), which not only educate but also offer concrete solutions for improving burglary protection.
A balanced information policy must strike a balance between realistically presenting risks and promoting proven security concepts. It makes sense to point out the dangers without undermining trust in proven security measures. Ultimately, the end customer should feel that they can effectively protect their home through a combination of technical security, expert advice and targeted investments. It is essential that the information provided does not descend into scaremongering, but instead focuses on practical, understandable and feasible measures.
Conclusion
The discussion about burglary protection is often dominated by articles that create a climate of insecurity through exaggerated descriptions and the blanket questioning of all security approaches. In my opinion, this is not very helpful for end customers, because on the one hand justified fears are stirred up and on the other hand sensible measures are discredited. While it is important to point out risks, this should always be done in conjunction with specific instructions and a clear recommendation for tested, effective security solutions. An all-out attack on all measures ultimately leads to the end user losing sight of the big picture and possibly making insufficient investments in their own protection or none at all. Only a differentiated approach that takes into account both the risks and the proven solutions can lead to a trustworthy and practical security concept.
In conclusion, I appeal to all information providers to focus even more strongly in the future on practical and realizable security strategies, instead of falling back into a general mistrust of all measures. Only in this way can end customers find the courage and confidence to protect their homes sustainably and to counter burglary with a well-thought-out, multi-layered security strategy.
