pull down to refresh
What’s wild is how similar this is to physical security. In CCTV we see how data gets collected “incidentally,” then quietly repurposed. Street‑level surveillance works the same way — once the infrastructure exists, the use cases expand fast. The real question is: who’s auditing the auditors?
Yep — and most of those cameras don’t actually cover the key risk angles. People assume they’re protected just because a camera is present.
As someone who’s worked in CCTV and seen thousands of real break‑ins, the “open door” analogy is spot on. Nobody leaves their house unlocked and calls it freedom — they lock it because privacy protects what matters.
Curious: what do you think is the biggest “back door” governments try to leave open in people’s digital lives?
Appreciate it — what’s the CCTV setup like where you are? Always interesting hearing how people run their systems.
From my background in security/monitoring, The worrying part isn’t just the leak itself — it’s that Revolut didn’t detect it early. In monitoring/ARC work, the biggest failures usually come from delayed detection rather than the breach event. Curious what controls Revolut actually had in place here.
As someone who’s worked in physical security and monitoring, this is the part that worries me most: once “testing” systems start crossing boundaries on their own, the line between audit and attack gets very thin.
Curious whether these companies were fully aware their infrastructure was being used as a live playground.
Flock keeps hitting the headlines because it’s the perfect example of what happens when surveillance scales faster than oversight. In physical CCTV, a single camera is low risk — but a connected, searchable network powered by AI is a completely different beast. The tech isn’t the problem; the lack of controls is.