[nik282000]

If the room has an IP camera in it, it is by definition not private. Since cheap cameras have begun to appear everywhere I treat them all as if they were publicly viewable. I'm not going to hide from them, but I save my more thorough ear cleanings and ass scratchings for home.

[AlecSchueler]

> If the room has an IP camera in it, it is by definition not private.

While right, there are multiple definitions of "private" and for others OP's point still stands.

[jubilanti]

> If the room has an IP camera in it, it is by definition not private.

No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

So if I put an IP camera inside your bedroom without your notice or consent, and hook that up to the Internet, you'd be okay with that? Because it's public!

A lot of these are probably from default or misconfigurations. A lot of these people with IP cam feeds visible to the Internet probably do not know they are open.

[anakaine]

You've read the comment the wrong way.

The intent was to say "You cannot call a space private if it has a networked camera in it." Not "only a public space can host a camera".

[throw310822]

Ok. The original commenter said:

> "Many of these cameras are in private spaces"

To which the gp answered

> It's not private if it has a ip cam in it

So what? Either he meant to contradict the op (and then it's correct to push back), or this is an entirely superfluous comment given they both understand what the problem is.

[My_Name]

A space can be considered private by the occupant, but the addition of an IP camera makes it not private.

They are not contradictory statements.

[hammock]

It’s not superfluous. It’s saying “it’s unsafe to assume any space is private.”

[jubilanti]

I know what the comment said, thank you very much. They were conflating two senses of 'public' in two sentences. I was responding to the implication that because these are, in one sense of the word, public, that means that it is OK to treat them as if they are public in a different sense of the term.

This:

> If the room has an IP camera in it, it is by definition not private.

Does not necessarily mean this:

> Since cheap cameras have begun to appear everywhere I treat them all as if they were publicly viewable.

The implication is that if someone misconfigured or otherwise didn't know their camera was broadcasting to the world, anyone is morally and legally correct in doing whatever they want with it, and it is their fault because it is "public". That is wrong.

[mewpmewp2]

> anyone is morally and legally correct

I think it's more so similar to that if you leave something shiny and expensive in a visible position in a car in a neighborhood known for high rate of thievery there are good odds of your stuff being stolen. They are not claiming that the thieves are morally or legally correct.

[dotancohen]

I agree with you.

That said, there are many people for whom "blaming the victim" is forbidden at all costs, and thus don't seem to have the facility to understand not making oneself a target. I suspect that you are replying to somebody possibly like that.

[sandcat_]

> I know what the comment said, thank you very much.

I'm not sure you do. Or at least you're replying to a very uncharitable interpretation.

From my perspective, this read as: the moment you put one of these IP cameras in a room, you should assume you're now in public, no matter what assurances you might have from the manufacturer or what safeguards you might have put in place. So if you intend for a particular space to remain private, don't put one of these cameras there.

> it is their fault because it is "public"

From my reading at least it didn't seem to imply that "it's the camera owner's fault", or that they should know better or that they deserve what they get, etc.