daveza
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2004
- Messages
- 46,296
Don't need to sell to criminals, inside job will do.
-
Question of the day ~ Do you have a dashcam?
How Vumacam’s CCTV system works
- Thread starter Bradley Prior
- Start date
Don't need to sell to criminals, inside job will do.
AlphaJohn
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2012
- Messages
- 11,443
With great power comes great responsibility, and SA history tells me no one in RSA can handle either.
eg2505
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2008
- Messages
- 28,292
most probably how it will be compromised, I mean vehicle tracking companies get compromised all the time internally,
wonder what will happen here?
... because the attackers were able to predict their movements as a result of the cameras tracking them.
rorz0r
Executive Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2006
- Messages
- 7,971
I clearly do. The need for footage of someone slashing your tyres vs the need for privacy has to be a balanced one. Private commercial entities can't be trusted as their primary motivation will forever be at odds with ethical behaviour, and the same goes for anyone employed by or even working with such entities. The current legislative framework is lacking, ill-equipped to deal with modern issues and enforcement is non existent and that isn't expected to change for the foreseeable future.
Pros and Cons and opinions to support both sides.
In our area they are Mainly being installed at intersections and should affect the houses around it. In this case will not be possible to object to the placement of the camera's, although thinking about again whichever way it will be focused it will affect somebody direction of the camera.
Also in saying so, there are many households these days that have camera's on their boundary to look "outside" their immediate property (Driverway, Etc). I am not sure but i don't think these require any approval before being installed and for sure many of them compromise the neighbors privacy (in the name of security for them as well).
Frankly though, with the recent security issues in our area, i'm also seriously thinking of putting up cameras int he yard and Boundary.
In our area they are Mainly being installed at intersections and should affect the houses around it. In this case will not be possible to object to the placement of the camera's, although thinking about again whichever way it will be focused it will affect somebody direction of the camera.
Also in saying so, there are many households these days that have camera's on their boundary to look "outside" their immediate property (Driverway, Etc). I am not sure but i don't think these require any approval before being installed and for sure many of them compromise the neighbors privacy (in the name of security for them as well).
Frankly though, with the recent security issues in our area, i'm also seriously thinking of putting up cameras int he yard and Boundary.
AlphaJohn
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2012
- Messages
- 11,443
Privacy is not about limiting camera's its about controlling the information said cameras can produce.
I have 2 Camera's in my house connected to the net. If they compromised I have only myself to blame and I control whom I give access to. Camera's as per Vumacam's set-up, I have zero access, control and/or say, that is where the problem with privacy comes in.
Or as in your example: I have no issue with my neighbour's camera. Even if insecure, its mainly him + his wife that access it and on extreme cases some hacker somewhere in Ukrane. Vumacam on the other hand is something completely different. Its a lucrative target for a local hack/inside job to get bulk information on houses and people's habits, even worse cause its a group of camera's controlled from a central center you can slap AI on them and actually track patterns.
Simply put single camera paints a picture for a single spot with limited access.
A group of camera's paint an entire lifestyle for a group of people with untold access.
The European data protection regulators have found a number of distinctions between the "home user" scenario and commercial ones such as Vumacam. One of the more important ones is that the home user is primarily installing the camera for their personal benefit, and primarily concerned with a property they own (even if they inadvertently capture a public space in the process). The scope and motivation are different, and therefore the expectations of the levels of compliance with privacy law are different too.
Likewise, there is a distinction between a commercial company putting cameras up looking at private property that they own and the same company putting cameras up with a view of the public road. My earlier post about the inability to consent only applies in the case of the public road; my consent is freely (but perhaps tacitly) given when I walk onto private property past the sign informing me of the cameras.
For me, the specific problem here is a private company gathering video footage of public spaces - and this is compounded by the fact that are doing so on a wide scale (889 cameras) and that they are monetising it.