• PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    I don’t see how. The premise of these cameras is that anybody is allowed to film in public. All you’re doing is showing something in public which is perfectly legal. It doesn’t damage the camera. If they decide to use the image from their camera to enter text into a database, then that’s on them if something bad happens. You have no control over what happens inside of their computer. It’s no different than someone blindly copy pasting commands into their Linux terminal and deleting system 32.

    • Solemarc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      As far as I’m aware cybercrime is generally: “anything done maliciously involving a computer” intentionally sticking a drop table command over your plates because you’re expecting something to read your plate and input it into a db might count.

    • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      All you’re doing is showing something in public which is perfectly legal.

      no, it is not, showing something in public is often not legal, it - as is often the case - depend on the context.

      It doesn’t damage the camera.

      it damages the database.

      then that’s on them if something bad happens. You have no control over what happens inside of their computer.

      no, that is on you, because you made that clearly intentionally malicious input. it is the same as if you had used the keyboard, the input method is really not important.

      do you think that if you successfully hack a bank and steal some money you will get away with the defense of “all i did was send your computer some input, sending input to computers is perfectly legal and i really don’t have any control over what is going inside it”?

      that is 5 year’s old idea of how law works.

      • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        So what you’re saying is that anytime sometime is filming or photographing someone else in public the person being filmed or photographed is

        Responsible for what the camera sees

        Is a direct user of any database or computer used to process the images

        The person filming is allowed to impose restrictions because they are filming other people in public

        That doesn’t sound quite right to me

        • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          So what you’re saying is (…)

          no, that is not what i am saying.

          That doesn’t sound quite right to me

          it would help if you stopped putting fabricated nonsense into other people’s mouths. then you wouldn’t have to wonder whether that nonsense “sounds quite right.”