Quokk.auSouth Korea police say 120,000 home cameras hacked for 'sexploitation' footage
Blaze (he/him)www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj01q6p7ndlo
0 Comments
Comments from other communities
Why would you expose such a camera to the web?
The ability to monitor those spaces remotely is pretty valuable, and to back your security footage up onto an off-site device so it can’t simply be stolen during a break in or similar.
This may be true for industry and rich assholes, but I doubt it is necessary for the average home camera? I mean why expose a camera to the web, that covers a scene where you would get naked?
The opposite is true - the average person cannot afford to have a person onsite watching the cameras, so unless they can view them remotely, there’s pretty much no point to having them. If they’re not exposed to the web, what reason would someone have to install them in the first place?
I’d think that they’d have them as a) a deterrent and b) to catch footage of a crime being committed.
Both of which can only really happen if the person they’re capturing is a fucking idiot, honestly. These things tend not to be difficult to disable / hack
It’s a nice feature to have but risky. I know a few people with security cameras accessible through internet, I’m sure any of them not only don’t have the knowledge to detect if someone else have access to their cameras but the possibility haven’t crossed their minds.
I definitely lack those abilities so I would air gap the hell out of the entire system.
What about an indicator that shows when someone is using the camera?(but in Hardware so it can’t be hacked). And maybe add a controll panel somewhere so you can disable them as soon as you come home.
I think most people who have security cameras want them recording, because you don’t know when you’ll need it. Having a camera that records when you know it needs to be means you already know there’s something going on, which is often the opposite case for a security camera which is to notify you when something you don’t know it’s happening happens, or at least something you don’t expect.
That having been said, I don’t have one because I’m not nuts, and if I did I’d at least cover it before changing in front of it, but whatever I guess!
With a upnp router, you don’t have to manually open any ports; it can be done automatically by the camera or app. Meaning that just by adding certain cameras to your internal network, they’re automatically open to the Internet.
What kind of idiot would network them on a web connected router?!
titanicxThe kind that want an app to see what’s going on in their home?
If I want to feel good my first thought isn’t ‘dilotted!’.
That’s not what a healthy sane or responsible adult thinks.
If that us your first thought, you do in fact have a problem that may need to be addressed.
It doesn’t always need to be automatically set.
Back when the very first chinese IP cameras started arriving in the west in the noughties, after we’d only had the first gen very expensive professional ones from the like of Axis, they nearly all shared the same firmware. This had factory set credentials of admin / admin and a common port (8080, iirc)
Back then, uPnP was commonly also enabled by default on routers, so the camera would ask for the port to be opened automatically and the router would just do it, allowing the internet into the camera. A simple scan of IPs on port 8080 would yield a lot of prompts with the distinctive login page for this firmware and around 90% of the time, the default credentials would still let you in, and you could see the camera.
Fortunately, routers have improved and uPnP was recognised as being incredibly stupid and isn’t seen much now and is disabled by default if it is. Some IP cameras have improved also, but there’s still a lot at the lower end that have almost no security, or prioritise convenience or cloud solutions first.
(I researched the above when I found one of my company’s cameras broadcasting and tried to educate people about it back in the day, but I doubt it did much good)
Because people want to watch from some other location?
People with little or no technical knowledge just want to buy a cheap camera, turn it on, scan a QR code or something and then be able to watch their dog being bored at home from the comfort of their office in the city or some such.
Life is so much easier when you just assume that the cheap junk you buy has your best interests in mind.
sp3ctr4l
Lime Buzz (fae/she)gynaecologist’s clinic
who in their right mind puts a camera in medical exam room and who in their right mind goes there to receive any kind of treatment, thinking “yeah, this camera does not bother me at all”?
sometimes people really do get what they deserve 🤷♂️
karaoke rooms
this must have been the worst swingers party ever
sometimes people really do get what they deserve 🤷♂️
Nah. The patients of the clinic do not deserve this nor they did they put the cameras there.
patients of the clinic could have said “are you fucking kidding me?” and go elsewhere and they did not.
They may not have noticed the cameras or not have a choice to go elsewhere in a reasonable time.
They may not have noticed the cameras
we are talking about cameras being hacked, not about cameras being purposely hidden by some creeping tom.
not have a choice to go elsewhere in a reasonable time
oh really? how many patients do you think come to gynecologist’s office with such urgent condition they can’t go elsewhere?
https://vocabdictionary.com/explained/what-is-the-what-if-fallacy/
flora_exploraWhat the actual fuck? This is victim blaming! Instead of focusing on the responsibility of the perpetrators you keep focusing on the victims. It obviously is a bad idea to have cameras in places like a gynecologist clinic. But that doesn’t give anyone the right to abuse the footage. And even if you want to focus on why there were cameras in a gynecologist clinic, how can you blame the victims instead of actually talking about the people who put the cameras there??
What the actual fuck? This is victim blaming!
what the actual fuck, no, it is not. the victim status does not absolve you of a responsibility. if you get mugged going through a sketchy neighborhood, that does not make it ok for a robber, but it is a valid question whether it was really good idea for you to go there.
It obviously is a bad idea to have cameras in places like a gynecologist clinic.
it obviously is, but no one seemed to mind, otherwise someone would go to complain about it.
instead of actually talking about the people who put the cameras there??
there is one person who got stupid idea to put the camera there, and there is hundreds or maybe thousands of patients who could have stopped them by telling them they lost their mind and/or going to complain to authorities, and instead they shrugged their shoulders and did nothing.
we are responsible for the world around us. if we just shrug our shoulders when it is not going the way we like it, we can’t be surprised when it is going the other way. sometimes it is not easy, sometimes it is relatively easy and this is the later.
and go elsewhere
elsewhere, you would have this guy’s friends.
Your choice.
so you will let your gynecology treatment record on some security camera, because some other gynecologist might be rapist? you weren’t able to find more absurd nonsense to defend your position?
1) what is the likelihood that random other gynecologist is a rapist?
2) what are you smoking? i want to try some of that.
A lot of pretty reasonable ways it could happen.
1. It says nothing about it being in an exam room, could have been in the lobby
2. Could have been hidden as others have said
3. Could have simply gone unnoticed since people would not expect a camera in exam rooms
There are a lot of people to potentially blame here, none of which are the victims
It says nothing about it being in an exam room, could have been in the lobby
i’ll go out on a limb here and say that records from the lobby don’t make very good “sexploitation” material
Could have been hidden as others have said
the article is about camera hacks, not cameras hidden by some peeping tom
Could have simply gone unnoticed since people would not expect a camera in exam rooms
“some” might not, but again, there is no indication these were purposely hidden cameras, so lot of them should.
There are a lot of people to potentially blame here, none of which are the victims
being a victim does not absolve you of responsibility. it does not make any assault that may have happened to you allright, but if you contributed to a situation with a bad decision, the fact you were attacked suddenly does not change that decision into smart one.
i’ll go out on a limb here and say that records from the lobby don’t make very good “sexploitation” material
The article only states that a gynecologist’s office camera was hacked, not that the footage was used. It sucks, but I can guarantee they put that in there for shock value.
Later it states 1193 videos were made from 133,000 cameras that were hacked, so while nobody but the people with the data can say for sure, it is quite possible it was just a lobby camera.
the article is about camera hacks, not cameras hidden by some peeping tom
Yes, but your argument is that people should have gone elsewhere. People are just giving you pretty reasonable explanations as to why they might not have simply gone to another doctor. Nobody is saying “This is exactly what happened.”
“some” might not, but again, there is no indication these were purposely hidden cameras, so lot of them should.
There is no indication that it was a visible camera in the exam room either. You just made that assumption.
The article says nothing about the circumstances, so everything said is speculation. Assuming the camera was visible and in the exam room is just that, an assumption. Just as you made that assumption, others gave reasons why that may not be true.
You can justify victim blaming all you want, but the fact of the matter is the blame lies solely on the perpetrator. If they did not do the bad deed, then the victim would not be a victim.
You can, and should, have situational awareness, but that is something that comes with experience and practice. Not everyone can prepare for every situation.
Later it states 1193 videos were made from 133,000 cameras that were hacked, so while nobody but the people with the data can say for sure, it is quite possible it was just a lobby camera.
ok, that’s fair point. i will admit i have originally reacted just to copied lede without reading the details, i did not really expect that remark to turn into such discussion.
Yes, but your argument is that people should have gone elsewhere. People are just giving you pretty reasonable explanations as to why they might not have simply gone to another doctor.
and that argument stays. if the camera was in fact visible in the exam room (speculation indeed), then walking away would be the only reasonable reaction. i assume that some first line gynecologist don’t perform some critical emergency procedures (and even if so, they would be just fraction of their services) that would really not allow you to wait and go elsewhere. sooner or later, someone should notice and raise an alarm.
Assuming the camera was visible and in the exam room is just that, an assumption
of course it is an assumption. i am reacting within some parameters outside of which this discussion does not make sense.
You can justify victim blaming all you want, but the fact of the matter is the blame lies solely on the perpetrator.
advocating common sense is not victim blaming. playing a victim card is not going to help you when something bad happens to you.
https://lemmy.zip/post/54116147/23096002
You can, and should, have situational awareness, but that is something that comes with experience and practice. Not everyone can prepare for every situation.
and one should assume that at least some of the women who were patients there had one. it only takes one person to raise an alarm in situation like that.
advocating common sense is not victim blaming.
You say that, but you also said this in your original statement, which is classic victim blaming:
sometimes people really do get what they deserve 🤷♂️
They did not deserve this. You can say you are advocating for common sense, but the first thing you said was that they deserved to be harmed.
I’ve seen this comment, and I do not find it persuasive.
For the first part, how do you know it is a sketchy neighborhood? You could easily walk into a situation you have no way to know is a bad situation through no fault of your own. What if you are there to take pictures in the neighborhood? There are a ton of reasons someone could find themselves in that situation. If you get robbed, the blame still falls on the perpetrator. The person did not deserve to be robbed.
The car analogy does not have anything to do with this situation. You would be walking into a space where you knew you were likely to get hurt, vs this situation where you expect to NOT be hurt.
and one should assume that at least some of the women who were patients there had one. it only takes one person to raise an alarm in situation like that.
And if that were the case, I would assume that detail would at least be mentioned in the article since that could be it’s own story. Honestly it would be a better way to frame this article. All of the little details point to this not being the case and they just mentioned the gynecologist for engagement bait.
they deserved to be harmed.
most people do not deserve to be harmed.
it is a hyperbole - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole
and it is commonly used phrase in a situation where you face consequences of your own bad decision. so if you are discussing in good faith, stop deflecting.
For the first part, how do you know it is a sketchy neighborhood?
it is generally known information. this is a sketchy neighborhood and everyone in the city, including me, knows that.
You could easily walk into a situation you have no way to know is a bad situation through no fault of your own.
yes, i could have, but that is not what happened in the case i am describing, so lets not deflect and talk about the case i am presenting.
If you get robbed, the blame still falls on the perpetrator. The person did not deserve to be robbed.
the blame is on both of us. the robber should not rob me, but i KNOWINGLY committed risky act and faced the consequences.
- “why did you do it?”
- “well, they shouldn’t have robbed me”
- “but why the fuck would you do it, everyone knows this couldn’t end well”
- “but they shouldn’t have robbed me”
- “NOT THE FUCKING POINT. WHY DID YOU DO SOMETHING SO RISKY, when you could have just walked around?”
The car analogy does not have anything to do with this situation. You would be walking into a space where you knew you were likely to get hurt
the car analogy has everything to do with the situation. you commit risky act, because you so focus on your perceived “rights” that you forget to use your brain. sometime you have to act to protect your rights, and if you don’t, naively believing that everyone will just respect them, that you will sometimes end up facing consequences.
All of the little details point to this not being the case and they just mentioned the gynecologist for engagement bait.
all the little details point to exactly nothing. the gynecologist might very well be just engagement bait, in which case this discussion is indeed pointless.