Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IP Crawl: Living atlas of open webcams discovered on the public internet

ipcrawl.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 194 posts

Re: IP Crawl: Living atlas of open webcams discovered on the public internet

#31

Post by qotgalaxy »

Mistletoe wrote: post #23
elliotbnvl wrote: post #5

Definitely an invasion of privacy. I can’t visit this website in good faith. It should be taken down. The point is valuable, and the mission is important, but the ends do not justify the means. If this must be shared, at least use static pictures and don’t stream the content for viewers.

I think the website is kind of awesome. If you put a window in your home and opened it to the world is it wrong to look through the window? If someone installed the camera and didn’t understand what they are doing that is on them.

[dead]

Re: IP Crawl: Living atlas of open webcams discovered on the public internet

#32

Post by jubilanti »

nik282000 wrote: post #12
halperter wrote: post #8

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, seemin…

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.

> 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.

Re: IP Crawl: Living atlas of open webcams discovered on the public internet

#33

Post by fhdkweig »

rolph wrote: post #19
halperter wrote: post #8

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, seemin…

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.

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.

Re: IP Crawl: Living atlas of open webcams discovered on the public internet

#34

Post by cwillu »

nik282000 wrote: post #22
nemothekid wrote: post #20

Off topic: Is there anyone doing any research on how to use Claude/Agents to design websites that don't look so, "Claude"?

You should ask Claude and see how many kWh and gallons it can use up to hallucinate an answer.

Assuming a stack of H100's is required for the size of the model, about 66 kilojoules. It's okay, I'll offset it by eating a cold sandwich tonight instead of boiling water for spaghetti, and then I'll be good for a dozen such conversations.

Re: IP Crawl: Living atlas of open webcams discovered on the public internet

#35

Post by IanCal »

nik282000 wrote: post #14
elliotbnvl wrote: post #5

Definitely an invasion of privacy. I can’t visit this website in good faith. It should be taken down. The point is valuable, and the mission is important, but the ends do not justify the means. If this must be shared, at least use static pictures and don’t stream the content for viewers.

Yes and no? The owners of these devices made them publicly available by design or through ignorance. While they should be notified of their (maybe) mistake, it's no different from a person who doesn't understand that their neighbours can see into an open window at night. Should Shodan be taken down because it can search for these devices? What about Google because it can find admin consoles?

> it's no different from a person who doesn't understand that their neighbours can see into an open window at night.

And standing out in the street staring through with binoculars is still wrong and creepy.

> Should Shodan be taken down because it can search for these devices? What about Google because it can find admin consoles?

It’s not a new idea, nor that controversial, that we restrict things specifically aimed at doing something rather than ones just capable of it.

Re: IP Crawl: Living atlas of open webcams discovered on the public internet

#36

Post by IanCal »

Mistletoe wrote: post #23
elliotbnvl wrote: post #5

Definitely an invasion of privacy. I can’t visit this website in good faith. It should be taken down. The point is valuable, and the mission is important, but the ends do not justify the means. If this must be shared, at least use static pictures and don’t stream the content for viewers.

I think the website is kind of awesome. If you put a window in your home and opened it to the world is it wrong to look through the window? If someone installed the camera and didn’t understand what they are doing that is on them.

If you’re aware the person wouldn’t want you to do that, yes it’s wrong. Being able to do something is not the same as it being right to do something.

Re: IP Crawl: Living atlas of open webcams discovered on the public internet

#37

Post by anakaine »

jubilanti wrote: post #32
nik282000 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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…

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".

Re: IP Crawl: Living atlas of open webcams discovered on the public internet

#38

Post by jubilanti »

anakaine wrote: post #37
jubilanti wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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".

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.

Re: IP Crawl: Living atlas of open webcams discovered on the public internet

#39

Post by eszed »

mannanj wrote: post #17
elliotbnvl wrote: post #5

Definitely an invasion of privacy. I can’t visit this website in good faith. It should be taken down. The point is valuable, and the mission is important, but the ends do not justify the means. If this must be shared, at least use static pictures and don’t stream the content for viewers.

Do you feel this is true for government agencies too?

Hell, yes. (Not GP.)

Re: IP Crawl: Living atlas of open webcams discovered on the public internet

#40

Post by andrewstuart »

nemothekid wrote: post #20

Off topic: Is there anyone doing any research on how to use Claude/Agents to design websites that don't look so, "Claude"?

“Give 20 different designs all must be distinct unique and not look averaged like a typical LLM site”
Post reply on HN