An open door is not an invitation to trespass, especially when it has obviously been left open in error.
I can't think of a better analogy, but what if I had a Polaroid camera and go around taking pictures in my property and then throwing those pictures away on the street. If a stranger picks up one (or several) of those pictures, would you consider that trespassing as well?
I'm not saying I am for or against this, but it's definitely a tricky subject. Obviously part of that trickiness is because complex tools (for the general populace) are being sold as simple tools, and so people who buy them have no idea what they are capable of or what is the proper way of using them (securing them with a password, etc).
That's a lot of uncertainty to shoulder just for the joy of looking at someone's incidentally public camera feed.
It genuinely feels like these devices are unintentionally intentionally left open.
The distinction is important, because an implication of secure-by-default means that the manufacturer has dropped the ball. If there's nothing to imply that the device is secure (as opposed to just providing 'security' via CCTV), then this is more a case of the installer of the device willingly, and knowingly, providing a live-stream of their property to the world.
I think part of the problem is that more and more technology products are being sold as "simple to use", although they might actually be really complex tools with far reaching implications not necessarily understood by the end users.
Compare this to, say, driving a vehicle. In most (all?) countries you need a driving permit which implies you have some training to operate said tool. In part because not knowing how to drive could cause damage and/or injury to third parties. And you also have some sort of liability if things go awry.
However consumer technology products are not considered as tools capable of damage (in most cases at least, e.g. computers, routers, phones, etc) and so the implication is that anyone can use them without proper training, since there's no way you can affect a third party.
Obviously those of us who have some sort of training realize that this is not the case, and so I would guess most HNers would secure their routers or Internet connected cameras (I hope...).
So in this context, can you actually blame those that have no training at all, to be doing "unsafe" things, especially since no one will tell them otherwise, including the manufacturer?
It's definitely a non-trivial subject.
Insecam has been around for over two years...
- Only filtered cameras are available now. This way none of the cameras on Insecam invade anybody's private life.