[Loudergood]

Security by obscurity is an illusion. Bad actors, especially state actors, will have no problem getting this data. We should make this data public so it's expected to be public, and then planners will take the risks more seriously.

[otabdeveloper4]

Do you think James Bond-style special agents are doing the state actor operations, like in the movies?

It doesn't work like that. The vast majority of the time it's regular stupid people that are doing the heavy lifting (often unwittingly) for state actor operations.

So yes, security by obscurity works. It makes the state actor's job that much harder.

[threatofrain]

Bad actors, especially state actors, will have no problem getting this data.

Everything that costs will cost to the degree that it costs. Putting the chocolate milk on the top shelf is enough to encourage children to buy less chocolate milk. The data you're talking about? The place I work at is the one doing the hard boots on the ground labor for aerial data, and from that perspective nothing is easy or free.

One can make great arguments about why people should have access to data notwithstanding all risks, but surely not that security by obscurity is mere illusion.

[throwawayqqq11]

Easier access does lower the bar for amateurs and increase the risk of damage but these are two separate things.

GP said architects should anticipate bad actors and i'd add a "no matter their size". Putting the chokolate milk high up the shelf helps as long as children are small and dumb. Security by too-high-cost only effects poor, lone and unimaginative actors.

[threatofrain]

So it's time to release our internal aerial photography, because cost only affects poor actors? Like no, cost is cost to the degree it costs.