Visual survey.

I'm willing to bet that casinos would spend more to have the seccams be concealed.

~J

Casinos conceal the vast majority of their cameras because everyone already knows they're there, and Big Brother isn't really condusive to their (ostensible) aim of entertainment. Wal-Mart, on the other hand, isn't simple cheap: big, visible cameras aren't even necessarily functional. I'm willing to bet that more often than not, I could steal something, be reasonably discreet about it, get caught on camera, and never have anything happen anyway. Cameras aren't watched all the time; when they're visual, they exist primarily as a deterrent (because if you don't know they aren't necessarily being watched, they're damn effective, and if you do, who the hell wants to take a chance on being arrested over five bucks anyway?). Casinos, still, will have way more eyes on you all the time, and those cameras are being watched (though chances are they won't do anything even if they do notice you stealing a pack of gum, or something).

Yes, thank you for a lesson in security from the University of Duuuuuh.

Layered security is good, but the problem with layering is that it absorbs an "attack" but if an attack is discovered within the secured area, it would be hell to pay. Designing something to keep something out is not the same as designing from keeping something in.

One of the things I've been learning over the years, is that to really deter criminals you have to eat up the one resource they can't afford to lose. Time. You can't stop all the crooks out there, it's impossible, however if you make it take forever for them to accomplish their goal, 9 of 10 will flee before finishing the job, cause they don't want to get caught.

At a basic level what you're doing is making it difficult enough to stop a casual "opportunity" theft (such as locking your car door) and make someone go through extra steps or do something to increase the chance of detection.

If I see a mobile phone on a car seat and decide to steal it then, if it's locked, I have to either smash the window (which increases the chances of getting caught because of the noise), get the keys somehow or pick the lock (which takes time).

Basic, sensible security measures are the most effective and it becomes a game of risk assessment on both parts. Implement security to counter the risks you can see and increase the risk on the part of the thief to provide a deterrant.

and nothing screams risk like armed guards, paracritters and monowire

Monowire? Opportunity! I've got my cutters!

That's what the claymores embedded in the wall and triggered to the loss of an electrical signal through the monowire are for

~J

Is it actually possible to send an electric signal through a monwire?
My crude grasp of physics says no, but that also says that monowire doesn't exist.
A pressure-sensing device that noticed wether or not the monowire is hanging "tightly" might be more plausible.

Cutting monowire would take more than your ordinary wireclippers wouldn't it?

Monowire not only exists (if not exactly as Shadowrun has it), but it would also be about as electrically conductive as graphite AFAIK, so it'd do it just fine.

~J

It also happens to be under tension and is a very thin wire, it'll whip when you cut it. Not quite the retirement I'd like to have. Also, supports won't stop it because there likely wouldn't be supports. After all, they don't get their money's worth by warning you, now do they?

Experts have trouble with razorwire, do you think an amateur (albeit a well-above average one) will fare better with a material that is way more harmful?

If razorwire was worth thousands per meter, I think even amateurs would make it work. Honestly, there is a vast difference between someone trying to steal the razorwire instead of just cross it quickly. I have cut wires under high tension. If you stand in the right spot, even a whipping strand will go nowhere near you. What's the elasticity of monowire? I tend to think it would be relatively low. High elasticity=low strength. I don't think monowire would whip around. I do think that armored gloves would help greatly, but monowire's danger comes from a force applied behind it. If you can get a strand loose, it would be safe enough to wrap it around a spool. It isn't invisible. TN 8 to see it is tough, but not impossible.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that I think a lot of GMs overuse monowire. Who would use gold razorwire no matter how effective it is? Monowire works great in places that are hard to get to, but in my opinion, its a bit like mil-spec armor or APDS. If the NPCs have it, the PCs will (and should) end up liberating it from them.

I agree with Da9iel. If the GM puts in something in his game and his players are smart enough to use that, allow them their victory.

I would, but likewise, if I have a countermeasure implemented and the players don't bypass it, I will also allow them their defeat. It's really not that hard if you don't think of monowire as a magic cure-all.

~J

Your absolutely right Kagetenshi, but most of the time I've seen monowire security, there was no hidden claymore. I was merely arguing that once you spot it, monowire (by itself) isn't that hard to deal with. As you put it, I have seen a lot of magic cure-all attitudes.

A good point, but a natural shortcoming of any game like this run by mere mortals. It reminds me of the debate about rolls vs roles in the negotiation thread.

And getting back to the original topic, with the exception of the NV camo, there are day and night version of the various camo patterns.

And getting back to the original topic, with the exception of the NV camo, there are day and night version of the various camo patterns.

Well, in the book it was described as camoflage for electronic night vision (low light) whought this is a bit of a misnomer because today's milspec NV technology includes some infra-spectrum in addition to the green phosphor concept, giving a huge boost in depth perception and image clarity. That's today's tech, 4th gen. I'd imagine they'd be at 8th or 9th gen by the 2060's even with the tech setbacks and I'd be amazed if they didn't have full color separation by 2064. But that's me. The anti-sensor camo as described would work on the gen 2 and 3 stuff that gets sold to civilians today, not on mil-spec.