3 ms·
This sounds like a valuable practice. I'd like to see limits on the retention of public surveillance video, and AFAICT the only way to enforce it would be somet
by euroderf 3y ago
This sounds like a valuable practice. I'd like to see limits on the retention of public surveillance video, and AFAICT the only way to enforce it would be something like this.
- bluGill 3y agoLike many things there are unexpected downsides. If a bug is discovered in these machines you cannot fix it without expensive work to get the next version audited. Often that isn't done which means if an otherwise good machine has a problem it is scrapped (or sometimes still used in hopes that nobody discovers how to exploit it - see the story linked elsewhere in this thread) The above could include cases where someone intentionally slipped an exploit into code and it escaped audit. I'm not aware of this happening (and one of the points of audits is to prevent it), but I'm well aware of ways I can create an exploit that I wouldn't catch if I was an auditor.
- euroderf 3y agoI would not think that surveillance camera firmware would need revising much. Or that if it does, it's a rush job.