4 ms·

> we are seeing an increased reliance on technologies of surveillance. For example, front-door cameras now protect homes from burglars, and internet-connected v

> we are seeing an increased reliance on technologies of surveillance. For example, front-door cameras now protect homes from burglars, and internet-connected videos inform absent residents when packages are delivered I'd like to re-frame this positively. Putting minor surveillance powers in the hands of everyday folk is a net win. I don't know about you, but I like to see who is poking around my premises. Oldskool neighborhood watch initiatives don't cut it anymore. I can see there would be a problem if your IP camera got accidentally broadcasted to the public facing Internet and criminals could see your house was empty, but the onus is on the user to lock down their equipment. Not the manufacturers.

feanaro 5y ago
> but the onus is on the user to lock down their equipment. Not the manufacturers. Huh? Why? I mean the user needs to have responsibility for the equipment they use, but it is absolutely also the manufacturers responsibility to produce reasonably locked down equipment.
- sysadm1n 5y ago
  I meant that these devices come with security features that the users don't even research beforehand, and blindly stick them on the Internet without even changing the default password. Google for 'public IP camera directories'. There's people monitoring the growth of their cannabis plants in their 'secret' attic, all public for everyone to see (including law enforcement).
  - neon_electro 5y ago
    The design of the device shouldn't allow the user to place it in an operational state without doing obvious security checkup items like changing the default password; this is an onus on the manufacturer.
mindslight 5y ago
You've got a point (individually-run surveillance is much less concerning that societal-level surveillance), but you're completely ignoring that the most popular brands of cameras rely on sending video to centralized conglomerates.

feanaro 5y ago

> but the onus is on the user to lock down their equipment. Not the manufacturers. Huh? Why? I mean the user needs to have responsibility for the equipment they use, but it is absolutely also the manufacturers responsibility to produce reasonably locked down equipment.

sysadm1n 5y ago
I meant that these devices come with security features that the users don't even research beforehand, and blindly stick them on the Internet without even changing the default password. Google for 'public IP camera directories'. There's people monitoring the growth of their cannabis plants in their 'secret' attic, all public for everyone to see (including law enforcement).
- neon_electro 5y ago
  The design of the device shouldn't allow the user to place it in an operational state without doing obvious security checkup items like changing the default password; this is an onus on the manufacturer.

mindslight 5y ago

You've got a point (individually-run surveillance is much less concerning that societal-level surveillance), but you're completely ignoring that the most popular brands of cameras rely on sending video to centralized conglomerates.