Bought and returned set of WiFi home security cameras; can now watch new owner

Re:Bought and returned set of WiFi home security cameras; ca... by matt_wulfeck on Sunday June 19, 2016 @12:39PM (#11933538)

That's like saying "until people start demanding safety on cars and become willing to pay for it there will always be fatalities". Sure part of the blame is on the consumer, but maybe the company shouldn't be selling cameras that are inherently insecure.

These types of things typically play out with lawsuits which increase liability for the producers. The problem is that it's (currently) difficult to prove damages when it's only privacy.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bought and returned set of WiFi home security cameras; ca... by dexterdog on Sunday June 19, 2016 @01:32PM (#11933764)

For most consumers security is a barrier to usability and we all know which one is more important to the product team.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bought and returned set of WiFi home security cameras; ca... by Aelinsaar on Sunday June 19, 2016 @01:06PM (#11933660)

That's exactly what happened with safety in automobiles; remember Ralph Nader?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bought and returned set of WiFi home security cameras; ca... by tacos on Sunday June 19, 2016 @12:55PM (#11933607)

> That's like saying "until people start demanding safety on cars and become willing to pay for it there will always be fatalities"

Uh, that's how it sorta works -- for better and for worse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed

"On March 22, 1966, GM President James Roche was forced to appear before a United States Senate subcommittee, and to apologize to Nader for the company's campaign of harassment and intimidation. Nader later successfully sued GM for excessive invasion of privacy. It was the money from this case that allowed him to lobby for consumer rights, leading to the creation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Clean Air Act, among other things."

[ Parent | on HN ]