3 ms·

> They contacted Clearview and made sure that the issue was fixed before sharing the information they found with the press. What problem do you see with this? T

by JadeNB 7y ago

> They contacted Clearview and made sure that the issue was fixed before sharing the information they found with the press. What problem do you see with this? The researchers have no responsibility to keep Cleaeview's failures secret. No problem with disclosing the vulnerability, but it's definitely problematic making the video footage publicly available—sure, anonymised, but we know how reliable that is, even if done with the best of intentions. At least, that's how I read your parent: > But it's disquieting that this story appears to include sensitive private information obtained through security research and released directly to a media outlet, including camera footage apparently taken from a compromised cloud storage bucket. That's not how security research works.

boomboomsubban 7y ago
>but it's definitely problematic making the video footage publicly available Which is why they informed the press that Clearview kept that footage and made it publicly available. I understand the point you're trying to make, but a small amount of proof is necessary to verify such claims. A few seconds showing that some people were at an apartment building is unlikely to be sensitive, and it's entirely possible they contacted the people before publishing.
- JadeNB 7y ago
  > I understand the point you're trying to make, but a small amount of proof is necessary to verify such claims. I wasn't trying to make the point, only to emphasise my grandparent's point. But, for what it's worth, I agree with that point: the journalists probably needed to see the video footage as proof, but there was no need for the journalists to publish the video footage. If I don't trust reporters when they tell me that they've seen the footage themselves, then why would I trust them when they show me footage that could have come from anywhere but that they say came from a data leak?

by JadeNB 7y ago

boomboomsubban 7y ago

>but it's definitely problematic making the video footage publicly available Which is why they informed the press that Clearview kept that footage and made it publicly available. I understand the point you're trying to make, but a small amount of proof is necessary to verify such claims. A few seconds showing that some people were at an apartment building is unlikely to be sensitive, and it's entirely possible they contacted the people before publishing.

JadeNB 7y ago
> I understand the point you're trying to make, but a small amount of proof is necessary to verify such claims. I wasn't trying to make the point, only to emphasise my grandparent's point. But, for what it's worth, I agree with that point: the journalists probably needed to see the video footage as proof, but there was no need for the journalists to publish the video footage. If I don't trust reporters when they tell me that they've seen the footage themselves, then why would I trust them when they show me footage that could have come from anywhere but that they say came from a data leak?