FakeTV emulates human watching the tube, supposedly discourages thieves

What else can we say? The concept here is pure genius, and it totally makes those pricey security systems seem way pointless (okay, slightly less critical). The FakeTV is a strobe that sets up in an occupied room at night and flashes up beams of light. From the inside, we can imagine it looks fairly curious, but from the outside, it gives prospective burglars the idea that someone is actually awake and watching a television program. It promises to produce the effects of "scene changes, fades, swells, flicks, on-screen motion and color changes," just like they were generated by a bona fide set. We can't speak for how well (or not) this thing actually works, but at just $49, we'd say it's a solid buy if you're the paranoid type.

[Via BoingBoing]

[Anthony @ May 21st 2008 11:46AM]

Why not just turn your TV on?

I mean the "going green" notion is lost once you consider the electricity this uses plus the manufacturing costs (electricity, materials, shipping, etc)

[happy_penguin @ May 21st 2008 12:07PM]

Wear and tear on your TV... more energy usage...

[Flashpoint @ May 21st 2008 12:47PM]

what if the perp busts in with rap3 on his mind and then realizes there is no one there - so he steals everything?

[Samboini @ May 21st 2008 3:48PM]

Flashpoint, an excellent point there. Although it must take a criminal to think like that.

[AJ @ May 21st 2008 2:21PM]

lol @ Flashpoint... once in a blue moon, you do entertain.

[fanthem @ May 21st 2008 5:33PM]

Damn. When Flashpoint said rap3, I thought he was talking about the unit model or something for this thing. I finally got it after more searching in the article then I would like to admit.

[jonyb @ May 22nd 2008 3:40AM]

its something they call electricity i believe.. yea thats the reason. this obviously... would use far less electricity than turning on your tv whenver u leave the house, not to mention the tv's wear n tear.

[Blaine Oliver @ May 21st 2008 11:47AM]

Yes the answer to burglars is to make them think every room in your house has tvs, then the day you forget to turn them on, a whole set of burglars come and steal all your goodies.. At that price you could buy some wireless CCTV camera webcam things, yes?

[Drew Scott @ May 21st 2008 11:59AM]

I don't think the idea is to put one in every room. The whole idea is just to convince a potential burglar that SOMEONE is home

[Blaine Oliver @ May 21st 2008 12:01PM]

Wouldnt a room that was filled with nothing but a sofa, but you left the curtains open all the time, stick the 360, big telly and all that upstairs and your laughing, everyone thinks your poor, while your rolling in it.
:D

[Seth @ May 21st 2008 12:06PM]

So you catch them on camera but then they steal your cameras and whatever HD you have the video going to...

I don't think the idea was to put one in every room.

[ninad pandit @ May 21st 2008 12:40PM]

what if the burglar uses the wall climbing robot (posted on Engadget earlier today) to check if anyone is *actually* inside?

[Juaquin @ May 21st 2008 2:21PM]

It's like leaving your lights on - unless they've been watching your house for awhile and know everyone is gone, they'll just avoid your house and move onto the next where the lights are off or it looks like no one is home. Sure, there probably isn't anyone home either way, but why take the risk with so many other unlit targets?

[BigD145 @ May 21st 2008 4:36PM]

I know how much American's are into their TV's, so I'd be more likely to break in if I was a burglar.

"Don't mind me. Don't let me interrupt your show. You just sit there and be lazy and eat you midnight Big Mac."

[Ramifications @ May 22nd 2008 3:16PM]

The real question is...which house will they rob when all the houses in the neighborhood have these?

It boggles the mind!

[Rafer @ May 21st 2008 11:47AM]

Cool i like it. I'm still one to set light timers.

[Vault @ May 21st 2008 9:53PM]

Or, you could, y'know, just leave your TV on? Identical and more convincing effect.

[Ryan @ May 21st 2008 11:47AM]

Interesting concept, reminds me of what my family used to to when we'd go on vacation-- Lamp by the window, plugged into a timer that would turn the light on and off on a cycle.

[shervin2 @ May 21st 2008 11:48AM]

Too much pink will make it look like a porno

[IT-Accountant @ May 21st 2008 11:49AM]

That might actually attract the burglar inside...

[spass @ May 21st 2008 12:07PM]

I would turn it on and go to sleep, and pretend my girlfirend is watching porn behind my back.

[Technex @ May 21st 2008 3:17PM]

@ Spass

There is always someone that kills the fun here on Engadget...

[spass @ May 21st 2008 7:38PM]

@Technex:
I know. Just stop replying and everything will be fine.

[Geqxon @ May 21st 2008 11:47AM]

Or you could just leave your TV on.

[Brendan Sheehan @ May 21st 2008 3:43PM]

And accidentally burn your house down?

[Raptor007 @ May 21st 2008 4:04PM]

Brendan, you need a new TV.

[kiyoshi @ May 21st 2008 11:20PM]

or...

buy a real tv from a pawn shop for LESS money and have a more realistic, cheaper effect.

oh, and it'd be somewhat useful outside of thwarting criminal.

what a dumb product!

[LarryLarryLarry @ May 21st 2008 6:40PM]

I don't ,know why all the common sense objections are getting Low-Ranked. But they are right. You'd have to run your TV for 10 years to make this idiotic product cost-effective.

Leaving a radio on is also incredibly cheap and effective.

As is a light timer.

This is just a really, really stupid product.

[sepirioth @ May 21st 2008 11:51AM]

Lights on schedule only work once, if your away for a while (week or so) and your home is staked out, well your screwed. I think the concept is briliant, only thing they need to add is a feature that would make a shadow of a 7 foot dude walk across the screen :p

[Raptor007 @ May 21st 2008 4:38PM]

Like in Home Alone!! Does that shit really happen?

[Cal @ May 21st 2008 4:53PM]

Nah you just need some party music and cardboard cut-outs

[TC @ May 21st 2008 11:51AM]

Two dogs at about 200 lbs. for when we are not home and a Glock .45 and .40 for when we are home have served us well so far...

[hrt @ May 21st 2008 11:53AM]

We're all living in amerika, amerika, amerika.......

Oh, I'm Canadian. ;)

[Killa Gorillaz @ May 21st 2008 11:55AM]

+1 Thats the way to do it.

[ddub @ May 21st 2008 12:43PM]

Sorry, we're not all drug dealers.

[Dylan @ May 21st 2008 12:50PM]

hrt: +1 for the Rammstein allusion.

[iEye @ May 21st 2008 11:54AM]

Active Denial System would be nice to protect my house... Even better is forced tracking implants in criminals... if they are not at their designated area, send in the swat team... Anyone who breaks into my house is free game... nice and legal...

[psxp @ May 21st 2008 11:55AM]

@TC Shame you have to live in Fear where you are.. such a shame..

BTW - The picture of the burglar is hilarious!!

[TC @ May 21st 2008 11:57AM]

@psxp
It isn't fear, it is called reality. When you have experienced someone trying to harm your family talk to me.

and I like dogs and the reality is that homes in my city are broken into all the time. I would own handguns either way but they work much better than my 9-iron.

[abram @ May 21st 2008 12:02PM]

So if somebody were to break into your house, do you think TC would be more afraid than you? Doesnt sound like fear, sounds like he's prepared "in case"

[andy @ May 21st 2008 12:06PM]

Don't sweat it TC. The "you're a scared little baby" argument is all these liberals have on self defense topics. He'll change his mind once the government gives him something worth stealing and it gets stolen or when one of his loved ones is hurt by a criminal.

This guy probably thinks that the cops and/or government are obligated to protect him despite the court decisions that hold the cops have no duty to you even when they have expressly promised to protect you from a particular situation.

[andy @ May 21st 2008 12:08PM]

PSXP,

Do you wear a seat belt when driving?
Do you wear a helmet when riding?

What a shame it is that you live in such fear.


Helmets, seat belts, firearms.... you never need them until you NEEEED them.

[psxp @ May 21st 2008 12:28PM]

wow, I didnt realise I would cause such a storm with my comment.

In NZ, where I am from we dont get a lot of violent home breakins.. hell, the cops dont even carry guns!! I never heard of "home invasion" until I travelled to Nth America.

Not saying we dont have crime, or shootings, but gun violence is very little.

[drakkor @ May 21st 2008 12:34PM]

its the guy from invisible man

[ddub @ May 21st 2008 12:48PM]

@andy


Do seat belts kill people when used?
Do helmets kill people when used?
Do guns kill people when used?

[StrangeBum @ May 21st 2008 1:10PM]

@ddub

You're doing it wrong?

Do seatbelts save lives?
Do helmets save lives?
Do firearms save lives?

/fixed

[ddub @ May 21st 2008 1:33PM]

@StrangeBum

Your missing the point. You can't compare seatbelts and helmets to guns. There's no risk involved in wearing a helmet (although maybe some street cred).

[Eric @ May 21st 2008 2:02PM]

@ddub:

Yes, both seat belts and helmets take lives when used improperly, same as firearms. Good job shooting yourself in the foot (pun intended).

On a side note, my father worked for the fire department for over 30 years, and saw seat belts take more lives than he saw them save. The same cannot be said of firearms. Take that for what it's worth.

[Jared @ May 21st 2008 2:02PM]

You don't *have* to shoot someone to protect yourself with a gun. The point is that these three things can all protect you from harm. Disecting for the differences is a non-issue..

[JD @ May 21st 2008 2:08PM]

@ddub

Helmets, when used properly, can cause fatigue, and can cause visibility issues, while providing very little protection at high-speed.

Seatbelts, when used properly, trap people in vehicles causing further injury upon accident.

Guns, when used properly, prevent crime and protect people from harm ;)