• Zoot@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 hours ago

    A camera is a camera, and there are no lightpole cameras that are SD Card read only with no access to the internet.

    You know what that means right? That anybody can access them if they’re smart enough? You keep reiterating the same thing while fundamentally not understanding, or choosing not to care that a camera is a camera. Don’t give up your privacy just because it’s the cheaper option.

    You clearly are fine being surveiled though so this conversation is pointless.

    • AmbitiousProcess (they/them)@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      That anybody can access them if they’re smart enough?

      Not all cameras have security vulnerabilities. Assuming it’s a matter of “smarts” is ridiculous. Plain old traffic cameras that solely detect speeding, especially those installed without additional “smart” features like Flock’s, rarely have breaches, because they are by their very nature quite simple systems.

      I’m not saying it’s impossible, or that cases don’t exist, but I’ve seen far more harm come from actual, preventable traffic deaths than I’ve seen from hacked speeding cameras. I’ve seen zero instances of that being used to cause harm, thus far.

      You clearly are fine being surveiled though

      I am not. That is why I am clearly advocating solely for systems with a design that reduces the chances of remote access, can’t engage in mass surveillance, and only send data on those actively speeding, while never transmitting anything about literally everybody else. Have you even read my comments?

      You clearly don’t get my points, I’m sorry if I’m somehow not explaining them clearly enough, but fine, I’m done. You win, or whatever. Good job.