61–70 of 194 posts
Really freaky seeing how many of these are bedrooms.
Without realizing that the entire world can see what the owners are doing when they are at home. Without using any special app at all.
Hehe, this one has a feeding tray with a novelty sign on it: > Baiting deer is illegal! > This corn pile is intended for squirrels, chipmunks, and other such critters. > Any deer found eating this corn will be shot! https://ipcrawl.com/fun/c/373ef0178c5281a5
Off topic: Is there anyone doing any research on how to use Claude/Agents to design websites that don't look so, "Claude"?
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.
If you roll your eyes at the thought of having to manage credentials or refuse to learn how the internet works on a basic level, you're not fit to set up devices connected to the internet.
Secure your shit or don't play with technology you can't handle.
Then everyone could get what they want: voyeurs can watch exhibitionists like God intended.
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'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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How _does_ it work then, without imposing IP addresses, NAT routing, keys, etc?
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. Ed…
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.
There's also a difference between your neighbor not closing her blinds and you using a telescope to look inside her apartment, which is what sites like this are.