Everyone: For a moment forget everything you know about computers and wonder if perhaps 99% of normies are just following the directions on the package of their $19 Chinese IP camera. They have no idea what a firewall is, or what the "public internet" even means.
There's also a difference between your neighbor not closing her blinds and you using a telescope to look inside her apartment, which is what sites like this are.
> and wonder if perhaps 99% of normies are just following the directions on the package of their $19 Chinese IP camera.
I doubt that the instructions for a cheap camera have enough information to walk a non-technical user through the process of setting up port forwarding on their specific router.
I could believe that it’s automatic port forwarding via UPnP for some of these cameras.
However a lot of them are from contractors who install the cameras for people as a service and this is the only way they know how to get them remote access. It’s the same reason different industrial controls and other machines keep getting exposed to the internet. Some installer with a git-er-done attitude knows their customer wants a solution to something (remote access) and they use the first technique they can find to accomplish that without any concern about what it means. They accomplish the thing the customer wants, collect payment, and disappear.
If the customer calls back with a complaint about it, the contractor will happily come visit the site and try to “fix” it for another fee.
If you’re thinking that this is a liability issue you’re not wrong, but in much of the world there is no realistic recourse. Most things like this are pure caveat emptor.
Most CCTV contractors are not network security experts.
Most network security experts would quit before ever entering a hot attic.
So Cletus the CCTV guy who just spent 8 hours crawling through drop ceilings with a mask on, does a super-clean install, and sets it up as well as he knows how. Which is "good enough" — it works and he's off to the next job. The customer's happy and he gets paid.
Now which one of you network security guys is going to give up his cushy WFH job to go make house calls for CCTV wages?
Sir. This is capitalism. What you do is start a company selling secure webcams and hire Cletus to install camera you buy in bulk with your firmware on it, sell the customer a cloud service, and also hire black hat Kevin with cash to expose Cletus's sloppy business practices to bring in customers who are scared into using your service. Also, get money from the government to provide footage to them for "public safety". Just be sure to underpay your techs who actually do the work, err I mean crawl around customer houses.
Cletus is free to get a bank loan and mortgage his house to give it a try as well, though he doesn't have a decade of FAANG employment money to lean on, what he does have is experience with customers and crawling around houses.
It ought to be that reputable retailers in western countries refuse to sell this junk, instead only selling ones they consider secure. Just like they won't sell dangerous toys.
But probably most of these cameras are bought through Amazon, AliExpress or Temu.
This junk controls like 90% of the market though. A lot of it gets rebranded via the OEM/ODM route so good luck finding out who designed the original software.
I'd also ask us tech savvy people to practice some humility.
Yes, the people setting up these cameras are not following security best practices. But are you sure that you will not make the same mistakes? Are you sure you have never exposed anything you should not have on the Internet, and never will, even as you age?
Let anyone among you who is without fumbling security be the first to throw a stone.
Personally, I'm not a security expert. I've worked in web for near 20 years, on some reasonably large network projects so I've picked up things here and there, but I still defer to our actual security experts when we roll things out
That said, I'm not 100% convinced I could set up a webcam streaming online without accidentally exposing it to the wider internet. Maybe 95% sure? But if even I couldn't guarantee it, what chance does your average joe who mostly only uses his computer for netflix have?
I worked for a small, local ISP in the mid 2000s. I don't think I made any stupid mistakes on my part, but I had plenty of coworkers who did. To be fair, people were often actively hostile to security concerns back then. It's not much better now, but at least not everything gets a public IP by default.
I still don’t understand how someone can end up accidentally exposing things to the public internet. With every ISP I have ever had in my country, it’s all NAT by default. Whatever I connect to my network, wired or wireless, would not be publicly accessible just like that unless I really really went out of my way to make it publicly accessible.
How do so many people end up exposing these cameras to the public internet? Are their ISPs not using NAT by default? Are the users jumping through hoops in order to open it up?
Is your ISP doing CGNAT? At least in the US that's not the norm. Most people have publicly routable IPv4 addresses (even if they rotate somewhat frequently) and most routers are configured to support UPnP out of the box.
This is an example of everything working as intended. The cameras are supposed to be accessable when you're not at home. Of course the cameras ought to ship with randomized default auth on a sticker attached to the unit the same way any half decent router does these days but they don't.
Many consumer routers allow any connected device to configure port forwarding using UPnP. If you want, you can play around with this using a client such as miniupnpc's example client.
UPnP exists, it's a really weird bit of technology that goes against all ideas of "security".
"Hey, so I can just do a HTTP request to the router and open a port? Neat"
Used to use it back in the day when my ISP didn't allow for port forwarding, but did allow UPnP, so had a cron job that re-opened it every x hours when it reset.
The professional installers know how to get real public IPs from their ISPs (for a price). They're using a different instruction book than the consumer with the cheap Chinese home camera.
I see it more like that there are things you can do to make sure nobody else gets into your home, like locking the door.
If your door is unlocked, either through ignorance or negligence, it's still not right for someone else to just walk into your home and look through stuff you thought was private.
Sure, they can do it, but just being able to easily do something doesn't make it right.
You'll be surprised by the number of people who thinks if you leave your internet door unlocked then your internet belongings are free to take. There is someone in this very thread arguing that having an internet enable camera in your home turns your home into a public place.
It is also funny, and depressing that many of the same people who think might makes right on the internet ends up lamenting how fucked up life is in their low trust societies, when their mindset is exactly what makes a high trust society — you know, the ones where people don't lock doors — impossible.
Yeah, you might think everyone would realize that there is no technical means to leave your unsupervised door unlocked on the internet. Unlike a physical door, if nobody comes to answer the internet door, it doesn't exist. However, it is impossible for everyone to understand everything.
With that said, the specific someone you refer I am sure has a valid point. When you knock on someone's door and nicely ask for a cup of sugar and whomever is answering the door happily gives it to you, it is reasonable to assume that is something you can take. They would say "no" otherwise.
I get it might be a friend that doesn't fully understand the boundaries of the homeowner answering the door, but it is unrealistic to place the onus on the neighbour looking for a cup of sugar to decide whether or not the occupant is acting in the interests of the homeowner. The fact that the person is already in the home to be able to answer the door implies that there is trust in that person to do right by the home.
By the same token, if the homeowner found out about the cup of sugar that they didn't want given away, most people would address it with the friend to see that it doesn't happen again, not go on a rampage with the neighbour. It is well understood that anyone within the home saying "yes" is to be considered authoritative. It is the only reasonable way.
Telescope is a bad analogy. This is more like the neighbor is inadvertently projecting a feed from inside their house onto a display outside by the sidewalk for any passers-by to see.
This isn’t a passive “walked by the window” thing that you might have unwittingly viewed. To actively search for open cameras by crawling every IP then creating a tool to see them, then choosing to watch the footage is a very active, deliberate choice. No one is viewing this footage without making a multi-step choice to view it.
Don't confuse the creators and maintainers with people who click on a link out of curiosity. I also briefly "walked by the window" glancing at cats using automated feeders in china when someone posted that page to HN recently.
I'm surprised this is still a thing though. I remember being shocked when I came across an extensive feed of these inadvertently pubic CCTV feeds ~15 years ago. I had assumed it was no longer a problem.
Everything is a bad analogy, because the internet has something like 6 billion of us on it these days.
We evolved for small tribes, e.g. Dunbar's number is ~150. Roughly 1/129 of the people on the internet are software developers, so in the days of everyone living in villages your in-group would include roughly one person who thinks like we think.
"Inadvertently live-streaming to the 1/129 of the world who consider searches like this to be trivial, with zero feedback unless you found your home accidentally went viral" is not like anything we otherwise experience.
If anything, projecting onto a nearby sidewalk as you describe is more like "I was bathing after my day's work scribing for the king and wouldn't you know it, that 𒈗𒍠𒄀𒋛 living by the temple decided to walk right in and say hi! Doesn't even think to knock, just opened my front door and walked right in.", while the closest thing you can find to accidental live webcams in old writing is gods spying on mortals for fun, making us the Anansi, the Loki, the Eshu. And for the furries, the Coyote.
Not closing the blinds on the window you can't see that looks out onto an invisible street that only exists from your perspective as some sort of abstract concept. Also your "window" isn't readily visible from a distance someone has to go stumbling around in the dark and find it by physically running into it.
In other news I'm considering developing a new app and was wondering about VC funding. It's for mapping out ladders adjacent to windows down back alleys. I think it would dovetail well with nipalert.
Which doesn’t matter about the password. If you have a faulty router which allows unauthorised inbound connections then you have a bigger problem than weak credentials
huh? The camera pokes the hole in the "firewall" (NAT in 99% of cases, which isn't a firewall, hence why it's so easy for bits of software to poke holes in it.
You don't even need to do UPnP, if you're okay with a random port, you can just do STUN.
Some cameras do also open ports with UPnP but it's rare in my experience. I think these cams are more users who are a bit technical but not too much to realise the implications.
Well this very site is why it's bad. And things like Shodan.
It's the swiss cheese model. I'm sure most of these people didn't mean to make their cam accessible to the internet. If there had been a unique username/pw they wouldn't have got exposed.
> There's also a difference between your neighbor not closing her blinds and you using a telescope to look inside her apartment, which is what sites like this are.
How else are things supposed to change. Hopefully this will embarrass some oligarch enough to force companies to close their loopholes.
This website---naturally, I think---weirds me out. Many of these cameras are in private spaces, with some places you most certainly don't want people to have live feeds of. It's quite disturbing how you can see personal snapshots of people's lives without them knowing. There's a perverse feeling of dread about being able to see into someone's life and being able to paradoxically watch someone eat dinner alone, seemingly so detatched from human connection even with someone watching like some kind of otherworldly spectator.
Every consumer tech company I’ve worked for had at least one guy who was a PM or a PM like role, who would say things like “InfoSec UX is confusing! Users don’t want to deal with IP addresses and firewalls and passwords and keys. We need to make the product easier to share by default!” This scenario seems to be what happens when anyone actually listens to That Guy.
Sharing on the internet should be one of the hardest things to do in your product. You need to make enough friction that the user can never do it by accident or by default. And the user should be warned at every step.
The answer is to make sharing secure, easy, and with informed consent. The answer is not to impose IP addresses, NAT routing, keys, etc. so that only technical people can give their consent.
One method (for many trans-NAT routing issues) is the manufacturer provides a proxy on the Internet, creates a secure connection between camera and proxy (controlling both ends, they should be able to navigate NAT issues, etc.), and then securely publishes the video. The manufacturer could encrypt the video E2E so they can't see it. This also hides the camera's location and IP.
All with informed consent of course.
Edit: Come to think of it, video chat apps (WhatsApp, Signal, etc.) seem to do this, at least sometimes.
But then you’re tethered to the device manufacturer and probably need other Terrible UX like an account/credentials, password resets, and so on. And that tether also opens the door for the company to remote control the product, spy through telemetry, and remotely “alter the deal” at their whim. Some people might be ok with this but a “tether to the company” is a deal breaker to me for most products.
For most, “these cameras might livestream your bedroom to the open internet if you aren’t tech savvy” is a bigger dealbreaker. And “the product from XYC corp is controlled by XYZ corp” is not concerning, but what they expected.
The idea of tech sovereignty for the sake of it is not an idea that resonates with many people outside of the tech community. Many people buy a product or service based solely on their immediate need.
While I agree about the current state of things ...
> The idea of tech sovereignty for the sake of it is not an idea that resonates with many people outside of the tech community.
That's a failure of the tech community to educate the public, and accepting the idea that it 'just doesn't resonate' is a failure of responsibility and a condescending arrogance. The people in the public are intelligent and learn many things, such as literacy and sanitation.
> for the sake of it is
It's not for the sake of it, it's necessary for security and freedom, and it's a practical, simple solution to the problem of technically analyzing every product and every update to every product.
Self hosting is not necessary for security. If it were, B2B and B2G services wouldn’t exist.
It could be necessary for “freedom” depending on your definition, which is a political argument and not a technical one.
I don’t know if you’ve ever tried to explain RMS’s opinions to anyone outside of tech before, but the primary disconnect is not an issue of education or literacy, but priority.
The primary reason people are not dissuaded by a services model is because they want a service.
Imagine you are reading a lawnmower enthusiast forum and everyone unanimously agrees that lawn services are immoral because they don’t let the homeowner own the mower or make adjustments to it. This is what this argument sounds like to many people. Many people just want their lawn cut, they don’t give a shit about the tool that accomplishes it.
That moves the goalposts from 'tech sovereignty' to self-hosting.
The rest describes the tech community's failure to communicate its importance. Sanitation is also inconvenient, as is quitting smoking, wearing seatbelts, and forgoing lead where it might be eaten or breathed, but people are persuaded. We've failed so far, and it's even more embarassing to blame the circumstances.
For me too, but we can manage keys, firewalls, routing, IP addresses, etc. The issue is a solution for the vast public of end users who can't do those things. Anyway, the vendor could offer the proxy as an optional service, and let you and I do what we want in some advanced mode.
We technical people use IPv6 so that anything can access anything, and the camera people put a password on their camera so you can only see the video feed if you know the password.
Granted, I only have worked in B2B and never B2C, but as a technical PM, I care VERY much about security and am often the primary SME for several aspects of security (I was an engineer with a background in security for more than a decade before becoming a PM). Saying "Users don't want to deal with that and it should be easy" is not the same thing as "open a gaping security hole", the fact you are conflating them indicates either the people you're referring to or you yourself lack creativity.
What weirds me out is how empty it is of humans. These are some, but mostly empty rooms, empty roads, parked cars, empty gardens, empty warehouses, empty shops, empty chairs... page after page even of places like Mexico City or Berlin Germany where there are many millions of people.
You'd be forgiven for thinking this was the 'after' footage of an end-of-the-orld movie where all the humans have been disappeared, Mary Celeste style.
I wonder how plausible it would be to deduce where a given webcam is (some combination of IP data, context clues, visible landmarks, maybe face searching) and then contact the owner to let them know. There used to be this fun site called where-is-this.com where people could share images of public places for others to try to track down; it would be nice to harness something like that for good.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
This is both completely wrong from a concrete standpoint (if I put an ip camera in your home broadcasting without your knowledge, your home doesn't become magically "a public space"- you still have a full right to privacy); and completely trivial from a literal standpoint (if everyone can see you then you are in public, hey no shit Sherlock).
Which makes me think that people proposing such view are not, in fact, trying to communicate its (obviously wrong or entirely trivial, depending on the interpretation) content; they're trying to say "hey look at me, how tech savvy I am, I'm so in it that for me an open port is, like, a window open on the village square yeah".
OK, I won't bother trying to talk further with someone who thinks in false dichotomies and cannot understand that two things can be true at the same time.
When I'm in my home, I can consider that private and have a right to privacy, and at the same time there can be a camera in there broadcasting to a million people so in no stretch of the word do I have privacy, and my home is not private, and those two truths are not dependent on whether the camera being there, or people watching the feed, is right or wrong.
> When I'm in my home, I can consider that private and have a right to privacy
Agreed
> at the same time there can be a camera in there broadcasting to a million people so in no stretch of the word do I have privacy and my home is not private
Agreed.
And this is the situation we're discussing now: people who are in a private space, whose privacy is violated by an ip camera that makes their private things accessible to the public. This is the description of the website this entire thread is about. What did you add to the conversation?
Or they don't even know the camera is there. I've heard of landlords doing that in tenant's private spaces, including bathrooms. When caught, they like to claim they are just keeping an eye on the property, but everyone knows they are just perverts.
Droitwich is famous for its 213m Long Wave radio transmission towers. Once the tallest structures in the country and now set to be decommissioned as the BBC shuts down its Long Wave service after 90+ years:
We had a whole town dedicated to this called Radio Kootwijk, in the Netherlands.
It's also long been decommissioned.
In one way I think it's a bad idea because long wave works even when satellites and cables no longer work. It's great for emergencies. On the other hand, the number of people with equipment to receive it is shrinking (even though you can build it with a few components). That of course really hampers its value for emergencies.
For several decades relatives of mine always swept out their trucks after transporting cattle salt blocks or alfalfa bales on the same quiet narrow S shaped section of roadway in the bush about a mile from the house at the back of the property. Amazing how almost every year someone managed to shoot a deer there in the fall.
Definitely an invasion of privacy. I can’t visit this website in good faith. It should be taken down.
The point is valuable, and the mission is important, but the ends do not justify the means. If this must be shared, at least use static pictures and don’t stream the content for viewers.
Yes and no? The owners of these devices made them publicly available by design or through ignorance. While they should be notified of their (maybe) mistake, it's no different from a person who doesn't understand that their neighbours can see into an open window at night.
Should Shodan be taken down because it can search for these devices? What about Google because it can find admin consoles?
There is a difference between you taking a look through your neighbor's window, and compiling a list of houses known to have curtains open in your city and publishing the list to the public.
> What about Google because it can find admin consoles?
Intention and proportion matters. Google is overwhelmingly not used for discovering unsecured endpoints and that is what makes it OK. If you build a search engine that only serves admin consoles and markets itself as the search engine for admin consoles then you have a problem. There is a reason why DDOS for hire services market themselves as selling "stress testing for your own servers," because they are smart enough to know the consequences of knowingly breaking the law.
I know that my cameras are behind an auth layer but, as it is painfully obvious here, many people do not. A 'check my cameras' feature is a nice way to find out if you messed up.
"Your honour I just scanned a list of all devices in the planet and filtered those that looked like cameras and made a website such that even more people can access it even more easily."
I get it if you think this is a legal gray area (it's not), but it's surprising to see how many people seem to think this is plain justified. Makes me think that there's some users that gravitate towards this site because the hacker in hackernews refers to hacking as in accessing systems without permission.
If you think hosting a website like this is ok, I encourage you to talk to a criminal lawyer and consider if you are a criminal. At least do it knowingly, do not pretend shit like this is fine.
I think the website is kind of awesome. If you put a window in your home and opened it to the world is it wrong to look through the window? If someone installed the camera and didn’t understand what they are doing that is on them.
These things are open server ports on the wild internet. Anyone with a "for" loop can find them easily. If they care about privacy they shouldn't have them public.
No, the world's job is not to make itself safe for you if you don't give a crap.
If you roll your eyes at the thought of having to manage credentials or refuse to learn how the internet works on a basic level, you're not fit to set up devices connected to the internet.
Secure your shit or don't play with technology you can't handle.
If I set up a camera in my money laundering room and put it online, I would not fault a government from using it against me. If they bruteforced a password or used some undisclosed zeroday then I might take issue.
I think the author of the website should next work on some kind of alerting system for the owners of these webcams to let them know they're exposed and how to make them private.
Then everyone could get what they want: voyeurs can watch exhibitionists like God intended.
How do you manage that? I tried setting up a specialized directory of type-related websites and pages back around 1999–2001 and trying to find contact info for websites was difficult then when people still had public WHOIS info most of the time. I can’t imagine any scalable way to be able to connect to the owners of cams where you have little more than an IP address to work from.
(Not sure how much metadata there is on the site since it’s currently suffering the hug of death so I can’t see anything at the moment.)
Site won't load for me, but I remember in the late 2000s when I was a kid, I found online some string you could type into Google and it would give you unsecured webcams in the results. (Not sure why Google was indexing random people's home IPs, how does the crawler even end up there?)
I recall most of them were in Asia.. street cameras, supermarkets.. then I suddenly found myself looking into someone's bedroom.
Fortunately it was empty, but I promptly shat myself and turned off my computer.
All these “is this ethical” comments remind of similar discussions happening in the IMG_0416 articles, about YouTube video that were most likely not meant to be scene publicly: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42102506
Hah, someone from UK seems to have a camera pointing to his cannabis plants... Hopefully the guy has a "loicense" for that, otherwise it would be a hilarious way to get busted
I might be wrong, but I have a very very big suspicion that this website is fake and probably a scam of some way.
If you look at it, all "feeds" that are without any moving part or human are "live", and when there is anything that could have movements, then it is a "snapshot" that doesn't move.
Yes, as someone else pointed out the snapshot cameras are just results from Shodan.
The "live" aspect is also questionable, as I can see broad daylight on a camera where in reality it's currently after sunset and pitch black.
If I had to guess I'd say that the project is obviously AI generated and the creator has probably not caught all the "workarounds" and "clever tricks" the vibe coding has produced...
If a subsequent probe fails, the system cross-references threat intelligence platforms like Shodan to match the host and falls back to their specific indexing methods.
Why don't any of them have sound?
Any way to sort on resolution and frame rate?
Multiple cameras at any one location?
Plot-twist: large bunch of people here are willing to have their life made public.
Would be interesting if people could claim their camera and use the site to keep a long-term archive of footage. AI could detect various activities too and notify owners of thieves, intruders or infidelity. Could also charge outsiders to view. Best if streams were made private first to stop mirror sites. What happens if certain householders or visitors aren't told about the camera while being recorded?
I thought it all had to be fake but, thinking it would be innocent, did watch what seems to have been the priests’s concluding procession for 430 Saturday vigil at St Martin of Tours in Louisville which I had to labor a bit to identify At first I thought ‘who goes to church Saturday afternoon’ - and not a bad crowd for Louisville on a Saturday afternoon. God knows how such a thing turns up.
Meanwhile I have thingino firmware on the camera with 64+ long pass running on local nvr on a separate lan reachable through vpn only, and I still physically cover the lens when I sit in the living room, crazy stuff.
I feel like a small group of Geo Guesser pros could organize a nice competition for them selves and at the same time make a big service to lots of people.
regardless of which side the author personally finds themselves on the privacy debate here; there's cameras directed baby's changing tables. the snapshots are hosted from the ipcrawl itself. it doesn't take a genius to put one and one together. this is potentially generating imagery you absolutely don't want to host from/on your domain.
Lazy manufacturers and ignorant users are responsible for the existence of those unsecured devices. Assholes and criminals are responsible for accessing, recording, and distributing the output of those unsecured devices.
There a plenty of hosting providers who do not care about port scanning. And as long as you don't DOS or brute force credentials, why should anyone? It's the public internet. You're just sending traffic over a public network people chose to connect to.
@dang Shouldn't there be a warning in the title? Atlas makes it sound like pins on a map. I, for one, would be highly uncomfortable to open this and see something private that someone has unwittingly shared with the internet.
I also question whether this site really fits with HN's values. By being so highly ranked here, a great number of eyeballs are being directed at cameras that are clearly not supposed to be publicly accessible. At a minimum that doesn't seem especially kind.
People always say that LLMs design websites/write text/produce code that is the same.
I don't really understand this b/c it's trivial to say "write me a letter in the style of <famous letter writer A> mixed with the style of "<famous letter writer B>"
Or
"Here are some examples websites, make a new website that is a remix of all of the example sites".
I don't think it needs research the person developing just has to care what the website looks like. A lot of people just want functionality. But there are also pre-made front-end skills that do a lot of that front-end "taste" legwork for you (still obviously pre-made, but not in the default Claude look)
Assuming a stack of H100's is required for the size of the model, about 66 kilojoules. It's okay, I'll offset it by eating a cold sandwich tonight instead of boiling water for spaghetti, and then I'll be good for a dozen such conversations.
Everyone: For a moment forget everything you know about computers and wonder if perhaps 99% of normies are just following the directions on the package of their $19 Chinese IP camera. They have no idea what a firewall is, or what the "public internet" even means.
There's also a difference between your neighbor not closing her blinds and you using a telescope to look inside her apartment, which is what sites like this are.
> and wonder if perhaps 99% of normies are just following the directions on the package of their $19 Chinese IP camera.
I doubt that the instructions for a cheap camera have enough information to walk a non-technical user through the process of setting up port forwarding on their specific router.
I could believe that it’s automatic port forwarding via UPnP for some of these cameras.
However a lot of them are from contractors who install the cameras for people as a service and this is the only way they know how to get them remote access. It’s the same reason different industrial controls and other machines keep getting exposed to the internet. Some installer with a git-er-done attitude knows their customer wants a solution to something (remote access) and they use the first technique they can find to accomplish that without any concern about what it means. They accomplish the thing the customer wants, collect payment, and disappear.
If the customer calls back with a complaint about it, the contractor will happily come visit the site and try to “fix” it for another fee.
If you’re thinking that this is a liability issue you’re not wrong, but in much of the world there is no realistic recourse. Most things like this are pure caveat emptor.
Most CCTV contractors are not network security experts.
Most network security experts would quit before ever entering a hot attic.
So Cletus the CCTV guy who just spent 8 hours crawling through drop ceilings with a mask on, does a super-clean install, and sets it up as well as he knows how. Which is "good enough" — it works and he's off to the next job. The customer's happy and he gets paid.
Now which one of you network security guys is going to give up his cushy WFH job to go make house calls for CCTV wages?
Sir. This is capitalism. What you do is start a company selling secure webcams and hire Cletus to install camera you buy in bulk with your firmware on it, sell the customer a cloud service, and also hire black hat Kevin with cash to expose Cletus's sloppy business practices to bring in customers who are scared into using your service. Also, get money from the government to provide footage to them for "public safety". Just be sure to underpay your techs who actually do the work, err I mean crawl around customer houses.
Cletus is free to get a bank loan and mortgage his house to give it a try as well, though he doesn't have a decade of FAANG employment money to lean on, what he does have is experience with customers and crawling around houses.
Setting port forwarding is the wrong ux for this.
It should be something simple like:
-everything is encrypted
- at install I tap my phone on the camera, now my Google account(or something similar) is linked to it as admin.
- on that some simple key management architecture should be built
Cool.
The Chinese DVR the CCTV installer used doesn't work that way.
In fact it probably has a telnet server with a known, hardcoded root password.
It ought to be that reputable retailers in western countries refuse to sell this junk, instead only selling ones they consider secure. Just like they won't sell dangerous toys.
But probably most of these cameras are bought through Amazon, AliExpress or Temu.
This junk controls like 90% of the market though. A lot of it gets rebranded via the OEM/ODM route so good luck finding out who designed the original software.
I'd also ask us tech savvy people to practice some humility.
Yes, the people setting up these cameras are not following security best practices. But are you sure that you will not make the same mistakes? Are you sure you have never exposed anything you should not have on the Internet, and never will, even as you age?
Let anyone among you who is without fumbling security be the first to throw a stone.
Personally, I'm not a security expert. I've worked in web for near 20 years, on some reasonably large network projects so I've picked up things here and there, but I still defer to our actual security experts when we roll things out
That said, I'm not 100% convinced I could set up a webcam streaming online without accidentally exposing it to the wider internet. Maybe 95% sure? But if even I couldn't guarantee it, what chance does your average joe who mostly only uses his computer for netflix have?
I worked for a small, local ISP in the mid 2000s. I don't think I made any stupid mistakes on my part, but I had plenty of coworkers who did. To be fair, people were often actively hostile to security concerns back then. It's not much better now, but at least not everything gets a public IP by default.
pfffa haha, i don't drink instant coffee and am not religious, therefore am intellectually god like compared to <insert group i'm objectifying today>
[dead]
I still don’t understand how someone can end up accidentally exposing things to the public internet. With every ISP I have ever had in my country, it’s all NAT by default. Whatever I connect to my network, wired or wireless, would not be publicly accessible just like that unless I really really went out of my way to make it publicly accessible.
How do so many people end up exposing these cameras to the public internet? Are their ISPs not using NAT by default? Are the users jumping through hoops in order to open it up?
Is your ISP doing CGNAT? At least in the US that's not the norm. Most people have publicly routable IPv4 addresses (even if they rotate somewhat frequently) and most routers are configured to support UPnP out of the box.
This is an example of everything working as intended. The cameras are supposed to be accessable when you're not at home. Of course the cameras ought to ship with randomized default auth on a sticker attached to the unit the same way any half decent router does these days but they don't.
Many consumer routers allow any connected device to configure port forwarding using UPnP. If you want, you can play around with this using a client such as miniupnpc's example client.
UPnP is not disabled by default on all routers, especially older ones. So devices may just try to port-forward certain control or media ports.
UPnP exists, it's a really weird bit of technology that goes against all ideas of "security".
"Hey, so I can just do a HTTP request to the router and open a port? Neat"
Used to use it back in the day when my ISP didn't allow for port forwarding, but did allow UPnP, so had a cron job that re-opened it every x hours when it reset.
The professional installers know how to get real public IPs from their ISPs (for a price). They're using a different instruction book than the consumer with the cheap Chinese home camera.
These are cameras sold specifically to be available over the open internet, I guess.
I see it more like that there are things you can do to make sure nobody else gets into your home, like locking the door.
If your door is unlocked, either through ignorance or negligence, it's still not right for someone else to just walk into your home and look through stuff you thought was private.
Sure, they can do it, but just being able to easily do something doesn't make it right.
You'll be surprised by the number of people who thinks if you leave your internet door unlocked then your internet belongings are free to take. There is someone in this very thread arguing that having an internet enable camera in your home turns your home into a public place.
It is also funny, and depressing that many of the same people who think might makes right on the internet ends up lamenting how fucked up life is in their low trust societies, when their mindset is exactly what makes a high trust society — you know, the ones where people don't lock doors — impossible.
The internet really has changed peoples perspectives of what is "allowed".
Yeah, you might think everyone would realize that there is no technical means to leave your unsupervised door unlocked on the internet. Unlike a physical door, if nobody comes to answer the internet door, it doesn't exist. However, it is impossible for everyone to understand everything.
With that said, the specific someone you refer I am sure has a valid point. When you knock on someone's door and nicely ask for a cup of sugar and whomever is answering the door happily gives it to you, it is reasonable to assume that is something you can take. They would say "no" otherwise.
I get it might be a friend that doesn't fully understand the boundaries of the homeowner answering the door, but it is unrealistic to place the onus on the neighbour looking for a cup of sugar to decide whether or not the occupant is acting in the interests of the homeowner. The fact that the person is already in the home to be able to answer the door implies that there is trust in that person to do right by the home.
By the same token, if the homeowner found out about the cup of sugar that they didn't want given away, most people would address it with the friend to see that it doesn't happen again, not go on a rampage with the neighbour. It is well understood that anyone within the home saying "yes" is to be considered authoritative. It is the only reasonable way.
Telescope is a bad analogy. This is more like the neighbor is inadvertently projecting a feed from inside their house onto a display outside by the sidewalk for any passers-by to see.
No.
This isn’t a passive “walked by the window” thing that you might have unwittingly viewed. To actively search for open cameras by crawling every IP then creating a tool to see them, then choosing to watch the footage is a very active, deliberate choice. No one is viewing this footage without making a multi-step choice to view it.
Don't confuse the creators and maintainers with people who click on a link out of curiosity. I also briefly "walked by the window" glancing at cats using automated feeders in china when someone posted that page to HN recently.
I'm surprised this is still a thing though. I remember being shocked when I came across an extensive feed of these inadvertently pubic CCTV feeds ~15 years ago. I had assumed it was no longer a problem.
I thought it was common knowledge you should physically cover any camera even if you believe they are secure
Do you physically cover the multiple cameras of your smartphone all the times you're not using them?
Everything is a bad analogy, because the internet has something like 6 billion of us on it these days.
We evolved for small tribes, e.g. Dunbar's number is ~150. Roughly 1/129 of the people on the internet are software developers, so in the days of everyone living in villages your in-group would include roughly one person who thinks like we think.
"Inadvertently live-streaming to the 1/129 of the world who consider searches like this to be trivial, with zero feedback unless you found your home accidentally went viral" is not like anything we otherwise experience.
If anything, projecting onto a nearby sidewalk as you describe is more like "I was bathing after my day's work scribing for the king and wouldn't you know it, that 𒈗𒍠𒄀𒋛 living by the temple decided to walk right in and say hi! Doesn't even think to knock, just opened my front door and walked right in.", while the closest thing you can find to accidental live webcams in old writing is gods spying on mortals for fun, making us the Anansi, the Loki, the Eshu. And for the furries, the Coyote.
“Everything is a bad analogy” is a beautiful observation——like Plato’s Cave.
No, it really isn't...
Not really? It’s just like not closing your blinds and being shocked that people on the street can see you.
Not closing the blinds on the window you can't see that looks out onto an invisible street that only exists from your perspective as some sort of abstract concept. Also your "window" isn't readily visible from a distance someone has to go stumbling around in the dark and find it by physically running into it.
In other news I'm considering developing a new app and was wondering about VC funding. It's for mapping out ladders adjacent to windows down back alleys. I think it would dovetail well with nipalert.
$19 Chinese IP cameras? Try $800 dashcams. Blackview dashcams by default join the company’s public webcam feed which is viewable inside their app.
99.9% of normies have a router NATing all their traffic
It takes active effort to expose a camera publicly
Unless that camera uses UPnP and has no auth configured by default.
Or admin/1234 which is about 90% of them
You’re saying f the camera will talk to the firewall using a username and password and open a hole/port forward?
I don't think the username as password is required.
Open a Bittorrent client and it will try and port forward port 6881 using UPnP.
Which doesn’t matter about the password. If you have a faulty router which allows unauthorised inbound connections then you have a bigger problem than weak credentials
huh? The camera pokes the hole in the "firewall" (NAT in 99% of cases, which isn't a firewall, hence why it's so easy for bits of software to poke holes in it.
You don't even need to do UPnP, if you're okay with a random port, you can just do STUN.
No, I mean the cameras have these settings.
Some cameras do also open ports with UPnP but it's rare in my experience. I think these cams are more users who are a bit technical but not too much to realise the implications.
Ok so aside from some malware running inside your security perimeter what’s the threat?
Yes weak passwords are bad, but if nobody can access it it’s not the end of the world.
Well this very site is why it's bad. And things like Shodan.
It's the swiss cheese model. I'm sure most of these people didn't mean to make their cam accessible to the internet. If there had been a unique username/pw they wouldn't have got exposed.
which cameras do this?
What could go possibly go wrong with “point and shoot”?
> There's also a difference between your neighbor not closing her blinds and you using a telescope to look inside her apartment, which is what sites like this are.
How else are things supposed to change. Hopefully this will embarrass some oligarch enough to force companies to close their loopholes.
This website---naturally, I think---weirds me out. Many of these cameras are in private spaces, with some places you most certainly don't want people to have live feeds of. It's quite disturbing how you can see personal snapshots of people's lives without them knowing. There's a perverse feeling of dread about being able to see into someone's life and being able to paradoxically watch someone eat dinner alone, seemingly so detatched from human connection even with someone watching like some kind of otherworldly spectator.
Every consumer tech company I’ve worked for had at least one guy who was a PM or a PM like role, who would say things like “InfoSec UX is confusing! Users don’t want to deal with IP addresses and firewalls and passwords and keys. We need to make the product easier to share by default!” This scenario seems to be what happens when anyone actually listens to That Guy.
Sharing on the internet should be one of the hardest things to do in your product. You need to make enough friction that the user can never do it by accident or by default. And the user should be warned at every step.
The answer is to make sharing secure, easy, and with informed consent. The answer is not to impose IP addresses, NAT routing, keys, etc. so that only technical people can give their consent.
How _does_ it work then, without imposing IP addresses, NAT routing, keys, etc?
One method (for many trans-NAT routing issues) is the manufacturer provides a proxy on the Internet, creates a secure connection between camera and proxy (controlling both ends, they should be able to navigate NAT issues, etc.), and then securely publishes the video. The manufacturer could encrypt the video E2E so they can't see it. This also hides the camera's location and IP.
All with informed consent of course.
Edit: Come to think of it, video chat apps (WhatsApp, Signal, etc.) seem to do this, at least sometimes.
But then you’re tethered to the device manufacturer and probably need other Terrible UX like an account/credentials, password resets, and so on. And that tether also opens the door for the company to remote control the product, spy through telemetry, and remotely “alter the deal” at their whim. Some people might be ok with this but a “tether to the company” is a deal breaker to me for most products.
For most, “these cameras might livestream your bedroom to the open internet if you aren’t tech savvy” is a bigger dealbreaker. And “the product from XYC corp is controlled by XYZ corp” is not concerning, but what they expected.
The idea of tech sovereignty for the sake of it is not an idea that resonates with many people outside of the tech community. Many people buy a product or service based solely on their immediate need.
While I agree about the current state of things ...
> The idea of tech sovereignty for the sake of it is not an idea that resonates with many people outside of the tech community.
That's a failure of the tech community to educate the public, and accepting the idea that it 'just doesn't resonate' is a failure of responsibility and a condescending arrogance. The people in the public are intelligent and learn many things, such as literacy and sanitation.
> for the sake of it is
It's not for the sake of it, it's necessary for security and freedom, and it's a practical, simple solution to the problem of technically analyzing every product and every update to every product.
Self hosting is not necessary for security. If it were, B2B and B2G services wouldn’t exist.
It could be necessary for “freedom” depending on your definition, which is a political argument and not a technical one.
I don’t know if you’ve ever tried to explain RMS’s opinions to anyone outside of tech before, but the primary disconnect is not an issue of education or literacy, but priority.
The primary reason people are not dissuaded by a services model is because they want a service.
Imagine you are reading a lawnmower enthusiast forum and everyone unanimously agrees that lawn services are immoral because they don’t let the homeowner own the mower or make adjustments to it. This is what this argument sounds like to many people. Many people just want their lawn cut, they don’t give a shit about the tool that accomplishes it.
> Self hosting is not necessary for security.
That moves the goalposts from 'tech sovereignty' to self-hosting.
The rest describes the tech community's failure to communicate its importance. Sanitation is also inconvenient, as is quitting smoking, wearing seatbelts, and forgoing lead where it might be eaten or breathed, but people are persuaded. We've failed so far, and it's even more embarassing to blame the circumstances.
For me too, but we can manage keys, firewalls, routing, IP addresses, etc. The issue is a solution for the vast public of end users who can't do those things. Anyway, the vendor could offer the proxy as an optional service, and let you and I do what we want in some advanced mode.
Here-in lies another issue, users see "$£€$" when it's a subscription, but oh look, a free version. Lets do that!
We technical people use IPv6 so that anything can access anything, and the camera people put a password on their camera so you can only see the video feed if you know the password.
Meanwhile users
"admin admin is fine"
The way that Nest/Wyze/Ring/etc all universally do it. They provide an service to intermediate and enforce access controls.
If you give laypeople a DIY project outside of their expertise, you can expect failures.
I mean, realistically: let us run your thing, uploaded all data to our cloud, and then let us handle access control.
People do want simplicity though. Plug in the device, be able to access it.
So you either host some infrastructure it calls back into, so you get around things like NAT. Or you punch holes in the network.
The same users who want simplicity don't want the complexity of having to remember passwords either...
Granted, I only have worked in B2B and never B2C, but as a technical PM, I care VERY much about security and am often the primary SME for several aspects of security (I was an engineer with a background in security for more than a decade before becoming a PM). Saying "Users don't want to deal with that and it should be easy" is not the same thing as "open a gaping security hole", the fact you are conflating them indicates either the people you're referring to or you yourself lack creativity.
What weirds me out is how empty it is of humans. These are some, but mostly empty rooms, empty roads, parked cars, empty gardens, empty warehouses, empty shops, empty chairs... page after page even of places like Mexico City or Berlin Germany where there are many millions of people.
You'd be forgiven for thinking this was the 'after' footage of an end-of-the-orld movie where all the humans have been disappeared, Mary Celeste style.
I wonder how plausible it would be to deduce where a given webcam is (some combination of IP data, context clues, visible landmarks, maybe face searching) and then contact the owner to let them know. There used to be this fun site called where-is-this.com where people could share images of public places for others to try to track down; it would be nice to harness something like that for good.
I feel like I’ve read about three letter agencies using the humming of power lines to geo-locate where a video/audio was recorded.
“Electrical Network Frequency (ENF) analysis”.
I’m going to dig more and will leave some links when I get back to a computer.
When, not where.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0elNU0iOMY
You don’t need to be a TLA.
Google “4chan tracks down Shia LaBeouf”
>images of public places for others to try to track down
isn't this handled by AI nowdays? In my experiments (some time ago) AI was extremly good at it.
At least one of them seems to be in an office, and the office has it's own netblock.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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".
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
This is both completely wrong from a concrete standpoint (if I put an ip camera in your home broadcasting without your knowledge, your home doesn't become magically "a public space"- you still have a full right to privacy); and completely trivial from a literal standpoint (if everyone can see you then you are in public, hey no shit Sherlock).
Which makes me think that people proposing such view are not, in fact, trying to communicate its (obviously wrong or entirely trivial, depending on the interpretation) content; they're trying to say "hey look at me, how tech savvy I am, I'm so in it that for me an open port is, like, a window open on the village square yeah".
OK, I won't bother trying to talk further with someone who thinks in false dichotomies and cannot understand that two things can be true at the same time.
When I'm in my home, I can consider that private and have a right to privacy, and at the same time there can be a camera in there broadcasting to a million people so in no stretch of the word do I have privacy, and my home is not private, and those two truths are not dependent on whether the camera being there, or people watching the feed, is right or wrong.
> When I'm in my home, I can consider that private and have a right to privacy
Agreed
> at the same time there can be a camera in there broadcasting to a million people so in no stretch of the word do I have privacy and my home is not private
Agreed.
And this is the situation we're discussing now: people who are in a private space, whose privacy is violated by an ip camera that makes their private things accessible to the public. This is the description of the website this entire thread is about. What did you add to the conversation?
It’s not superfluous. It’s saying “it’s unsafe to assume any space is private.”
possibilities exist.
a] they may be exhibitionists
b] they dont realise they are misconfigured
c] someone hacked them to whatever end
d] they are doing nothing wrong thus believe they have nothing to hide.
Or they don't even know the camera is there. I've heard of landlords doing that in tenant's private spaces, including bathrooms. When caught, they like to claim they are just keeping an eye on the property, but everyone knows they are just perverts.
I think this kind of websites show you the humanity true colours, we don't usually think about that.
Nothing changed compared to 2012 https://web.archive.org/web/20151013010243/http://internetce...
> As a rule of thumb, if you believe that "nobody would connect that to the Internet, really nobody", there are at least 1000 people who did.
So many SCADA terminals and HMIs just hangin out on the internet.
Connect it but make sure authorization is actually secure
[dead]
Someone keeping an eye on their (illegal?) cannabis pants in the UK? https://ipcrawl.com/?cam=3892f36f150ff9db
I know Droitwich, this made me laugh
Droitwich is famous for its 213m Long Wave radio transmission towers. Once the tallest structures in the country and now set to be decommissioned as the BBC shuts down its Long Wave service after 90+ years:
https://hackaday.com/2026/06/27/requiem-for-long-wave-as-the...
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c74yn7v7k4qo
We had a whole town dedicated to this called Radio Kootwijk, in the Netherlands.
It's also long been decommissioned.
In one way I think it's a bad idea because long wave works even when satellites and cables no longer work. It's great for emergencies. On the other hand, the number of people with equipment to receive it is shrinking (even though you can build it with a few components). That of course really hampers its value for emergencies.
Hehe, this one has a feeding tray with a novelty sign on it:
> Baiting deer is illegal!
> This corn pile is intended for squirrels, chipmunks, and other such critters.
> Any deer found eating this corn will be shot!
https://ipcrawl.com/fun/c/373ef0178c5281a5
For several decades relatives of mine always swept out their trucks after transporting cattle salt blocks or alfalfa bales on the same quiet narrow S shaped section of roadway in the bush about a mile from the house at the back of the property. Amazing how almost every year someone managed to shoot a deer there in the fall.
That is clever! If the guy does get caught hunting deer in that immediate area, I wonder if this could be used against him.
No wonder why deers are seen as snobbish. All the illiterate ones were shot.
Definitely an invasion of privacy. I can’t visit this website in good faith. It should be taken down.
The point is valuable, and the mission is important, but the ends do not justify the means. If this must be shared, at least use static pictures and don’t stream the content for viewers.
Yes and no? The owners of these devices made them publicly available by design or through ignorance. While they should be notified of their (maybe) mistake, it's no different from a person who doesn't understand that their neighbours can see into an open window at night.
Should Shodan be taken down because it can search for these devices? What about Google because it can find admin consoles?
There is a difference between you taking a look through your neighbor's window, and compiling a list of houses known to have curtains open in your city and publishing the list to the public.
> What about Google because it can find admin consoles?
Intention and proportion matters. Google is overwhelmingly not used for discovering unsecured endpoints and that is what makes it OK. If you build a search engine that only serves admin consoles and markets itself as the search engine for admin consoles then you have a problem. There is a reason why DDOS for hire services market themselves as selling "stress testing for your own servers," because they are smart enough to know the consequences of knowingly breaking the law.
> it's no different from a person who doesn't understand that their neighbours can see into an open window at night.
And standing out in the street staring through with binoculars is still wrong and creepy.
> Should Shodan be taken down because it can search for these devices? What about Google because it can find admin consoles?
It’s not a new idea, nor that controversial, that we restrict things specifically aimed at doing something rather than ones just capable of it.
The site even lets you see if any of your cameras are exposed, where it switches to a map view and shows any near you.
I know that my cameras are behind an auth layer but, as it is painfully obvious here, many people do not. A 'check my cameras' feature is a nice way to find out if you messed up.
"Your honour I just scanned a list of all devices in the planet and filtered those that looked like cameras and made a website such that even more people can access it even more easily."
I get it if you think this is a legal gray area (it's not), but it's surprising to see how many people seem to think this is plain justified. Makes me think that there's some users that gravitate towards this site because the hacker in hackernews refers to hacking as in accessing systems without permission.
If you think hosting a website like this is ok, I encourage you to talk to a criminal lawyer and consider if you are a criminal. At least do it knowingly, do not pretend shit like this is fine.
I think the website is kind of awesome. If you put a window in your home and opened it to the world is it wrong to look through the window? If someone installed the camera and didn’t understand what they are doing that is on them.
If you’re aware the person wouldn’t want you to do that, yes it’s wrong. Being able to do something is not the same as it being right to do something.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-legal-to-look-through-someone-el...
Maybe I missed it but this only seemed to be about the legality (which is always also specific countries)
Being able to do something, even if you can do it without the police showing up, is not the same as it being right to do something.
I think it’s wrong to cheat in a relationship but it’s probably legal.
[dead]
It's not the site's fault.
These things are open server ports on the wild internet. Anyone with a "for" loop can find them easily. If they care about privacy they shouldn't have them public.
No, the world's job is not to make itself safe for you if you don't give a crap.
If you roll your eyes at the thought of having to manage credentials or refuse to learn how the internet works on a basic level, you're not fit to set up devices connected to the internet.
Secure your shit or don't play with technology you can't handle.
Do you feel this is true for government agencies too?
If I set up a camera in my money laundering room and put it online, I would not fault a government from using it against me. If they bruteforced a password or used some undisclosed zeroday then I might take issue.
Hell, yes. (Not GP.)
I think the author of the website should next work on some kind of alerting system for the owners of these webcams to let them know they're exposed and how to make them private.
Then everyone could get what they want: voyeurs can watch exhibitionists like God intended.
How do you manage that? I tried setting up a specialized directory of type-related websites and pages back around 1999–2001 and trying to find contact info for websites was difficult then when people still had public WHOIS info most of the time. I can’t imagine any scalable way to be able to connect to the owners of cams where you have little more than an IP address to work from.
(Not sure how much metadata there is on the site since it’s currently suffering the hug of death so I can’t see anything at the moment.)
Perhaps the providers should offer a way similar to abuse etc. because these Cameras are probably used in botnets as well.
Site won't load for me, but I remember in the late 2000s when I was a kid, I found online some string you could type into Google and it would give you unsecured webcams in the results. (Not sure why Google was indexing random people's home IPs, how does the crawler even end up there?)
I recall most of them were in Asia.. street cameras, supermarkets.. then I suddenly found myself looking into someone's bedroom.
Fortunately it was empty, but I promptly shat myself and turned off my computer.
Those were all pages that were on HTTP(s), these won't turn up on Google unless someone links to it.
All these “is this ethical” comments remind of similar discussions happening in the IMG_0416 articles, about YouTube video that were most likely not meant to be scene publicly: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42102506
Hah, someone from UK seems to have a camera pointing to his cannabis plants... Hopefully the guy has a "loicense" for that, otherwise it would be a hilarious way to get busted
That’s the first one I saw too.
I’m not even convinced these are all real, or at least are staged:
https://ipcrawl.com/?page=6&cam=63f7feaf5042d223
That’s the invisible man hanging out at a tennis match…
[dead]
I might be wrong, but I have a very very big suspicion that this website is fake and probably a scam of some way.
If you look at it, all "feeds" that are without any moving part or human are "live", and when there is anything that could have movements, then it is a "snapshot" that doesn't move.
And then there is this very funny one that I'm quite sure is AI generated: https://ipcrawl.com/?page=2&cam=63f7feaf5042d223 The picture: blob:https://ipcrawl.com/939da98f-dfbf-4019-8518-8bfbdfbcb8df
Yes, as someone else pointed out the snapshot cameras are just results from Shodan.
The "live" aspect is also questionable, as I can see broad daylight on a camera where in reality it's currently after sunset and pitch black.
If I had to guess I'd say that the project is obviously AI generated and the creator has probably not caught all the "workarounds" and "clever tricks" the vibe coding has produced...
This seems to just be a map interface to Shodan Images. I've found the exact same camera with the exact same snapshot on both sites.
https://images.shodan.io/?query=port%3A554+country%3A%22GB%2...
https://ipcrawl.com/imce?cam=069b2971c357edbd
I dont think it is? https://alec.is/posts/ip-crawl-exposing-the-massive-open-web...
You think two independent scans of the internet captured the same image with the same timestamp entirely by coincidence?
Edit: they're literally the same image
2fc4ad21cfce564f7aa65942eae7d4529c8af3d7ffb6287aa1fd79ebb78eb648 ipcrawl.jpg
2fc4ad21cfce564f7aa65942eae7d4529c8af3d7ffb6287aa1fd79ebb78eb648 shodan.jpg
From the article he linked:
So it uses Shodan, but is not purely a mirror.People hating on this project should ask themselves, should Shodan be taken down too? Because you can easily find these camera feeds on there too.
Why don't any of them have sound? Any way to sort on resolution and frame rate? Multiple cameras at any one location?
Plot-twist: large bunch of people here are willing to have their life made public.
Would be interesting if people could claim their camera and use the site to keep a long-term archive of footage. AI could detect various activities too and notify owners of thieves, intruders or infidelity. Could also charge outsiders to view. Best if streams were made private first to stop mirror sites. What happens if certain householders or visitors aren't told about the camera while being recorded?
Perhaps someone could have some fun with this...
Feeding faked looped security camera footage is a classic plot device in many films, and could make some good comedy!
These days you could do with AI. Godzilla over Tokyo anyone?
Weird https://ipcrawl.com/?page=6&cam=63f7feaf5042d223
Must be staged?
I thought it all had to be fake but, thinking it would be innocent, did watch what seems to have been the priests’s concluding procession for 430 Saturday vigil at St Martin of Tours in Louisville which I had to labor a bit to identify At first I thought ‘who goes to church Saturday afternoon’ - and not a bad crowd for Louisville on a Saturday afternoon. God knows how such a thing turns up.
Saturday vigil masses are rather popular as they cover a Catholic’s Sunday obligation without requiring getting up early.
There's a number of streams from resorts and swimming pools, may be a good idea in case kids get into trouble around the water.
Adults too, if you had a pool like this wouldn't everybody want to share their "sex pool party cam"?
https://ipcrawl.com/?page=7&cam=398d4f57a3155d42
One of the top ones, is a camera of a weed farm, in the UK. Which is a licensed activity, not in some 2-bit setup like this.
Which I thought was hilarious!
It is kind of weird seeing inside someone house. I only went a few pages in, but what the hell is this?
https://ipcrawl.com/?page=2&cam=63f7feaf5042d223
So many cameras pointed at billboards. I assume it's a quality assurance thing.
Droitwich, UK, is a bit revealing.
Meanwhile I have thingino firmware on the camera with 64+ long pass running on local nvr on a separate lan reachable through vpn only, and I still physically cover the lens when I sit in the living room, crazy stuff.
Totally left field request I know but does anyone know of a webcam that can do RTSP/sane protocol and long focus (think looking outside at landscape)?
I feel like a small group of Geo Guesser pros could organize a nice competition for them selves and at the same time make a big service to lots of people.
regardless of which side the author personally finds themselves on the privacy debate here; there's cameras directed baby's changing tables. the snapshots are hosted from the ipcrawl itself. it doesn't take a genius to put one and one together. this is potentially generating imagery you absolutely don't want to host from/on your domain.
Really freaky seeing how many of these are bedrooms.
So that's where all of that footage came from on **** leak. I mean I knew it was bad, but there's just so many and it is 2026.
Lazy manufactures and ignorant users are responsible for the majority of this nonsense.
Lazy manufacturers and ignorant users are responsible for the existence of those unsecured devices. Assholes and criminals are responsible for accessing, recording, and distributing the output of those unsecured devices.
Some people just want to use an app to see what their pets are doing when they are not home.
Without realizing that the entire world can see what the owners are doing when they are at home. Without using any special app at all.
I’m more interested in how they do large scans without their ISP or hosting provider going bananas about it.
There a plenty of hosting providers who do not care about port scanning. And as long as you don't DOS or brute force credentials, why should anyone? It's the public internet. You're just sending traffic over a public network people chose to connect to.
If your ISP cares, you need a better ISP.
How do you find an ISP that doesn't kick you out for scanning?
You buy bandwidth from a proper one. I've never been "kicked off" before, only had the odd "You might be compromised" e-mail from scanning a honeypot.
Also so many people are infected with malware constantly scanning that ISP's don't bother
Sex-Offender-roulette.com is still available for this.
Imagine if someone put plausible but strange/shocking fake videos on an open port for the voyeurs to think real and freak out about.
https://ipcrawl.com/?page=6&cam=63f7feaf5042d223
Is it legal to have such a website?
Depends on jurisdiction, but as these are "public", there's reasonable defence in a court that you're not committing an offence.
Like trespass, requires intent. When a car-park is private land, it's inferred that the public has access.
https://ipcrawl.com/about
I can see my house from here!
@dang Shouldn't there be a warning in the title? Atlas makes it sound like pins on a map. I, for one, would be highly uncomfortable to open this and see something private that someone has unwittingly shared with the internet.
I also question whether this site really fits with HN's values. By being so highly ranked here, a great number of eyeballs are being directed at cameras that are clearly not supposed to be publicly accessible. At a minimum that doesn't seem especially kind.
What, no plotting on a map?
Seems a bit shifty to be honest...
What is the goal?
And they've created a reddit page specifically for this!
Imagine you're at work and there's a camera behind you filming everything you do and it's just out in the open.
https://ipcrawl.com/?page=2&cam=6a12c0423e8e0193
One word: crazy
[dead]
Off topic: Is there anyone doing any research on how to use Claude/Agents to design websites that don't look so, "Claude"?
People always say that LLMs design websites/write text/produce code that is the same.
I don't really understand this b/c it's trivial to say "write me a letter in the style of <famous letter writer A> mixed with the style of "<famous letter writer B>"
Or
"Here are some examples websites, make a new website that is a remix of all of the example sites".
You would be surprised at the results.
No research needed, just use the tool differently.
I don't think it needs research the person developing just has to care what the website looks like. A lot of people just want functionality. But there are also pre-made front-end skills that do a lot of that front-end "taste" legwork for you (still obviously pre-made, but not in the default Claude look)
Maybe ask Claude how to keep the site up before doing a redesign of the UI...
“Give 20 different designs all must be distinct unique and not look averaged like a typical LLM site”
"make no mistakes"
You should ask Claude and see how many kWh and gallons it can use up to hallucinate an answer.
Assuming a stack of H100's is required for the size of the model, about 66 kilojoules. It's okay, I'll offset it by eating a cold sandwich tonight instead of boiling water for spaghetti, and then I'll be good for a dozen such conversations.
This is precisely why I never heat my food and consume caffeine pills instead of coffee.