Floatablecat

I think a big problem here is that people are discussing points like manufacturers should be blamed / fined, or that the owners of the devices should be responsible etc, but no one is addressing what seems to be the real issue that most owners of these devices don't understand them enough to actually know these issues potentially exist.

In your analogy I would say its not that people are leaving these weapons cabinets on the street unlocked, but don't know that its possible to lock or hide them.

Another good example would be cars, if you went to the showroom and someone showed you a two cars, one with no locks on the door that was easy to start without the keys, and one that had proper security the choice would be easy and you could understand what you're seeing.

If you go to a shop and someone shows you two IOT devices that do the same thing, and look identical, you cant really see anything that helps you learn about the security features, and as an average person if you're told one has certain "tech speak" security words you don't understand are you really going to make the choice to spend more money to protect against something you don't fully understand, that you don't see any effect from?

Yes manufacturers should be made to release products that are secure and respond to security issues in a timely manner, but we also need to educate people that computers aren't some magical box beyond their understanding, blaming owners in these cases would I think make the issue worse.

If you consider that the majority of people who have the internet get their ISP to set up their router, and only have a basic understanding of what that device does, how can we expect people to understand what the potential issues of open ports or vulnerable firmware are? And then could these people even be educated to the level we would need for them to be responsible for securing their own devices?

I think its strange that there isn't more discussion about the impact on the photographer and the consequences this lawsuit has had on his life, he is pretty much broke and it seems to have destroyed his career not to mention put him and his family through what I would imagine to be pretty harsh emotional distress over the last couple of years.

This article: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/monkey-s... basically says a couple of months ago he was broke, couldn't afford to replace his equipment or pay his attorney. I hope this result will change his situation but even so this is a huge impact on someone over an issue that realistically is fairly niche.

Questions like this are important to be answered, but surely there should also be discussion about was there a better way to do this than ruining someones life over a picture that could never have existed without his direct intervention and creation of the circumstances needed for the monkey to come into contact with the camera.