If you lived in your own house, and you had family and or friends living with you, there are a few strategies you can use to ensure the continued quality of living all of you would likely want.
One might be, to have really good locks on the doors and general security so you can make sure only people who are vetted and approved could be in your house, but once being in you can relax about them and let them come and go as they want, doing pretty much as they want, as you already have a pretty good idea what their values are, and they will likely treat you, your family and property as you would want them too, as you vetted, or perhaps even raised them, yourself.
Another strategy might be to take the locks off the doors, advertise to all the people of the city that you have really nice stuff and lots of it that you and yours have worked for, and place virtually no obstacles or checks to who comes in and out.
When the problems which are guaranteed to happen from such a strategy begin to threaten the peace, stability, wealth and security of all the people who should have been your first concern, electronic measures which can be placed on all people equally, causing disruption, inconvenience, expense, destruction of individual liberties such as being filmed at all times in all locations, (England CCTV) as well as removal of natural rights such as the right to arm oneself to protect our property and families from those who would do us harm and forcing us to rely on the state, the same state that abandoned our interests, to protect us albeit post hoc as a general rule, from those we let in willy nilly.
Now I can’t quite decide which this measure is. Placing heavy surveillance at the airport, is that a good lock at the door, or is it more loss of basic liberties for all of us, friend and foe.