51–60 of 194 posts
Nothing changed compared to 2012 https://web.archive.org/web/20151013010243/http://internetce... > As a rule of thumb, if you believe that "nobody would connect that to the Internet, really nobody", there are at least 1000 people who did.
Connect it but make sure authorization is actually secure
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 c…
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.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Adults too, if you had a pool like this wouldn't everybody want to share their "sex pool party cam"?
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…
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 c…
> 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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
How _does_ it work then, without imposing IP addresses, NAT routing, keys, etc?
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.