Tesla (TSLA), Cloudfare (NET) Breached in Verkada Security Camera Hack. A group of hackers say they breached a massive trove of security-camera data collected by Silicon Valley startup Verkada Inc., gaining access to live feeds of 150,000 surveillance cameras inside hospitals, companies, police departments, prisons and schools.
Companies whose footage was exposed include carmaker Tesla Inc. and software provider Cloudflare Inc. In addition, hackers were able to view video from inside women’s health clinics, psychiatric hospitals and the offices of Verkada itself. Www.vice. Hacking.
Disinformation. Surveillance. CYBER is Motherboard's podcast and reporting on the dark underbelly of the internet. Hackers have broken into Verkada, a popular surveillance and facial recognition camera company, and managed to access live feeds of thousands of cameras across the world, as well as siphon a Verkada customer list. The breach shows the astonishing reach of facial recognition-enabled cameras in ordinary workplaces, bars, parking lots, schools, stores, and more.
CCTV surveillance in the most populated cities in the United States - Comparitech. Some of the most populated cities in the United States are under a heavy amount of surveillance, according to new research by Comparitech.
The average city has around six cameras per 1,000 people but the most-watched city, Atlanta, had almost 50 cameras per 1,000 people*. From monitoring traffic to preventing crime, closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras have a range of purposes. But with increasingly-high resolutions, more remote access to live video streams, and the utilization of technologies like facial recognition and Ring doorbell cameras – just how much is too much when it comes to police surveillance?
CCTV cameras and captured images – DataRainbow. The omni-presence of CCTV cameras.
A subject I have been writing about for many years, including here and here. Two new guidances, one by the Irish Data Protection commissionner and one by the UK ICO. I know, big Brother is taking over our streets and buildings. This omniveillance has severe chilling effects on our Fundamental Rights of freedom and human dignity. CCTV cameras. CCTV Cameras are watching us. Are we secure. Update 22/01/2011 ‘Britain’s ‘creeping’ spy cameras’Update 20/01/2011: UK Is CCTV creeping too far?
D.C. expanding public surveillance camera net Via @hiiamfoz: Is CCTV creeping too far? Britains could be among the worlds most watched people. Www.komando. CCTV. Data Protection Commissioner. The state of cybersecurity in the physical security industry. Our website uses cookies.
By continuing to browse the website you are agreeing to our use of cookies. For more information on how we use cookies and how you can disable them, please read our Privacy Policy. CCTV. Vidéosurveillance au travail : la CNIL fait condamner une petite entreprise pour rappeler les règles. A l’heure de la prochaine application en Mai 2018 d’un Règlement européen, le RGPD, qui va considérablement durcir la manipulation des données personnelles et aggraver fortement les sanctions, les questions relatives à ces données et au respect de la vie privée des salariés sur leur lieu de travail, se bousculent.
Ainsi, par une délibération du 15 Juin 2017, la CNIL a sanctionné une entreprise de Pantin pour avoir mis en place un système de vidéosurveillance d’une assistante administrative salariée. Une caméra placée au-dessus du poste de travail de la salariée qui permettait au gérant de la société d accéder en temps réel aux images depuis son téléphone mobile. L’assistante administrative s’est plainte à la CNIL en faisant valoir que ce dispositif de surveillance avait été posé à son insu. C’est sur la base de ce contrôle et des constats opérés, qu’elle convoquait le gérant à une audience qui aboutissait à la condamnation.
Tout cela peut paraître empreint de bon sens. Deux décisions sévères contre la vidéosurveillance. Publié le 08/02/2018 par Etienne Wery - 2624 vues A deux reprises, la CEDH vient de s’opposer à la vidéosurveillance, y voyant une ingérence tantôt illicite, tantôt disproportionnée.
Commissioner - 11.17.001.007.219 - GDPRhub. The Cypriot Data Protection Authority held that the footage from a CCTV system of an individual shall be handled as subjects to Article 4(1) of GDPR Regulation.
The meaning of that conclusion is that the Data Controller is obligated to provide access to the affected individual. English Summary[edit | edit source] Facts[edit | edit source] The Complainer had an accident outside a store, and an Action has been filed subsequently. Access to the video footage records has been requested from the Complainer’s lawyer, but as an out-of-court procedure and before any court order to produce relevant evidence to the trial. Initially, the Company, as the Data Controller, has rejected the above request on the ground that if a trial is taking place, then Article 55(3) of GDPR is triggered.
The Cypriot DPA intervened and informed the Company for his erred in law. Client Alert: European Court CCTV damages judgment. The recent European Court of Human Rights judgment in the case of Antovic and Mirkovic v Montenegro has highlighted the issue of the unlawful use of CCTV (or surveillance cameras) in the workplace in the data protection context.
The very basic facts of the case were as follows: The European Court of Human Rights ruled in the claimants’ favour, awarding them damages of €1,000 each along with their costs. The court ruled that the scope of “private life” did cover professional activities or activities taking place in a public context – university amphitheatres were teachers’ workplaces where they not only taught but also interacted with students, developing relationships etc. The court had previously ruled that covert video surveillance at work was an intrusion in an employee’s private life and in the current case this could also be extended to non-covert surveillance in the workplace – video surveillance was a “considerable intrusion in [an] employee’s private life”. HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights. Domestic CCTV systems – guidance for people being filmed. Some users of domestic CCTV systems need to comply with data protection laws.
This depends on what their cameras can see. Data protection laws don’t apply if the cameras cover only the user’s own private property, including their garden. Therefore, visitors caught on these cameras don’t have specific data protection rights in relation to the images captured on those cameras. CCTV Users at ‘Risk of Breaching GDPR’ Organizations that use CCTV systems could be putting themselves at risk of breaching GDPR data protection and privacy requirements by failing to understand how the forthcoming regulations cover the collection of visual data.
That was a warning issued by Andrew Charlesworth, Reader in IT Law at the University of Bristol, in white paper Watching the Watchers. Charlesworth highlighted the fact that because there has been little regulation governing CCTV systems (until now) there is a danger that users will fall short in their obligations to ensure safe usage under GDPR, which comes into force in just six months.