| ▲ | halperter 6 hours ago |
| This website---naturally, I think---weirds me out. Many of these cameras are in private spaces, with some places you most certainly don't want people to have live feeds of. It's quite disturbing how you can see personal snapshots of people's lives without them knowing. There's a perverse feeling of dread about being able to see into someone's life and being able to paradoxically watch someone eat dinner alone, seemingly so detatched from human connection even with someone watching like some kind of otherworldly spectator. |
|
| ▲ | ryandrake 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Every consumer tech company I’ve worked for had at least one guy who was a PM or a PM like role, who would say things like “InfoSec UX is confusing! Users don’t want to deal with IP addresses and firewalls and passwords and keys. We need to make the product easier to share by default!” This scenario seems to be what happens when anyone actually listens to That Guy. Sharing on the internet should be one of the hardest things to do in your product. You need to make enough friction that the user can never do it by accident or by default. And the user should be warned at every step. |
| |
| ▲ | tristor 20 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Granted, I only have worked in B2B and never B2C, but as a technical PM, I care VERY much about security and am often the primary SME for several aspects of security (I was an engineer with a background in security for more than a decade before becoming a PM). Saying "Users don't want to deal with that and it should be easy" is not the same thing as "open a gaping security hole", the fact you are conflating them indicates either the people you're referring to or you yourself lack creativity. | |
| ▲ | mmooss 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The answer is to make sharing secure, easy, and with informed consent. The answer is not to impose IP addresses, NAT routing, keys, etc. so that only technical people can give their consent. | | |
| ▲ | dotancohen 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | How _does_ it work then, without imposing IP addresses, NAT routing, keys, etc? | | |
| ▲ | mmooss 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | One method (for many trans-NAT routing issues) is the manufacturer provides a proxy on the Internet, creates a secure connection between camera and proxy (controlling both ends, they should be able to navigate NAT issues, etc.), and then securely publishes the video. The manufacturer could encrypt the video E2E so they can't see it. This also hides the camera's location and IP. All with informed consent of course. Edit: Come to think of it, video chat apps (WhatsApp, Signal, etc.) seem to do this, at least sometimes. | | |
| ▲ | ryandrake 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | But then you’re tethered to the device manufacturer and probably need other Terrible UX like an account/credentials, password resets, and so on. And that tether also opens the door for the company to remote control the product, spy through telemetry, and remotely “alter the deal” at their whim. Some people might be ok with this but a “tether to the company” is a deal breaker to me for most products. | | |
| ▲ | mmooss 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | For me too, but we can manage keys, firewalls, routing, IP addresses, etc. The issue is a solution for the vast public of end users who can't do those things. Anyway, the vendor could offer the proxy as an optional service, and let you and I do what we want in some advanced mode. |
|
| |
| ▲ | ertian 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I mean, realistically: let us run your thing, uploaded all data to our cloud, and then let us handle access control. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | Jordan-117 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I wonder how plausible it would be to deduce where a given webcam is (some combination of IP data, context clues, visible landmarks, maybe face searching) and then contact the owner to let them know. There used to be this fun site called where-is-this.com where people could share images of public places for others to try to track down; it would be nice to harness something like that for good. |
| |
| ▲ | 650REDHAIR 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I feel like I’ve read about three letter agencies using the humming of power lines to geo-locate where a video/audio was recorded. “Electrical Network Frequency (ENF) analysis”. I’m going to dig more and will leave some links when I get back to a computer. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | nik282000 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If the room has an IP camera in it, it is by definition not private. Since cheap cameras have begun to appear everywhere I treat them all as if they were publicly viewable. I'm not going to hide from them, but I save my more thorough ear cleanings and ass scratchings for home. |
| |
| ▲ | AlecSchueler 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > If the room has an IP camera in it, it is by definition not private. While right, there are multiple definitions of "private" and for others OP's point still stands. | |
| ▲ | jubilanti 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > If the room has an IP camera in it, it is by definition not private. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. So if I put an IP camera inside your bedroom without your notice or consent, and hook that up to the Internet, you'd be okay with that? Because it's public! A lot of these are probably from default or misconfigurations. A lot of these people with IP cam feeds visible to the Internet probably do not know they are open. | | |
| ▲ | anakaine 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | You've read the comment the wrong way. The intent was to say "You cannot call a space private if it has a networked camera in it." Not "only a public space can host a camera". | | |
| ▲ | throw310822 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Ok. The original commenter said: > "Many of these cameras are in private spaces" To which the gp answered > It's not private if it has a ip cam in it So what? Either he meant to contradict the op (and then it's correct to push back), or this is an entirely superfluous comment given they both understand what the problem is. | | |
| ▲ | My_Name 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | A space can be considered private by the occupant, but the addition of an IP camera makes it not private. They are not contradictory statements. | |
| ▲ | hammock 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It’s not superfluous. It’s saying “it’s unsafe to assume any space is private.” |
| |
| ▲ | jubilanti 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I know what the comment said, thank you very much. They were conflating two senses of 'public' in two sentences. I was responding to the implication that because these are, in one sense of the word, public, that means that it is OK to treat them as if they are public in a different sense of the term. This: > If the room has an IP camera in it, it is by definition not private. Does not necessarily mean this: > Since cheap cameras have begun to appear everywhere I treat them all as if they were publicly viewable. The implication is that if someone misconfigured or otherwise didn't know their camera was broadcasting to the world, anyone is morally and legally correct in doing whatever they want with it, and it is their fault because it is "public". That is wrong. | | |
| ▲ | mewpmewp2 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > anyone is morally and legally correct I think it's more so similar to that if you leave something shiny and expensive in a visible position in a car in a neighborhood known for high rate of thievery there are good odds of your stuff being stolen. They are not claiming that the thieves are morally or legally correct. | | |
| ▲ | dotancohen 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I agree with you. That said, there are many people for whom "blaming the victim" is forbidden at all costs, and thus don't seem to have the facility to understand not making oneself a target. I suspect that you are replying to somebody possibly like that. |
| |
| ▲ | sandcat_ 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I know what the comment said, thank you very much. I'm not sure you do. Or at least you're replying to a very uncharitable interpretation. From my perspective, this read as: the moment you put one of these IP cameras in a room, you should assume you're now in public, no matter what assurances you might have from the manufacturer or what safeguards you might have put in place. So if you intend for a particular space to remain private, don't put one of these cameras there. > it is their fault because it is "public" From my reading at least it didn't seem to imply that "it's the camera owner's fault", or that they should know better or that they deserve what they get, etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | pedromlsreis 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think this kind of websites show you the humanity true colours, we don't usually think about that. |
|
| ▲ | rolph 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| possibilities exist. a] they may be exhibitionists b] they dont realise they are misconfigured c] someone hacked them to whatever end d] they are doing nothing wrong thus believe they have nothing to hide. |
| |
| ▲ | fhdkweig 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Or they don't even know the camera is there. I've heard of landlords doing that in tenant's private spaces, including bathrooms. When caught, they like to claim they are just keeping an eye on the property, but everyone knows they are just perverts. | |
| ▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
