An online backup tool - that they willingly installed - did the transfer. Anyone that uses such programs should really keep in mind what such a program does.

Granted, cloud-backup providers are acting irresponsibly in failing to express the risks of using their system.

Indeed, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to say the victims failed to take sensible basic steps to protect themselves.

Might as well take the locks off our doors while we're at it - they're not perfect, after all.

Anyway, who says they'll be connected to the Internet?

I disagree ;-P

I presume you are a troll. Convince me otherwise, and I will explain to you why this is a stupid suggestion.

Except you don't need to store the videos indefinitely. I imagine a couple of months is long enough. It's a pretty huge amount of data, but I'm sure it's not that hard to cope with a couple of petabytes of simple video files. That's on the order of a thousand hard-disks full (not counting redundancy), and there's no fancy database requirements here, just a huge pile of videos indexed by car ID and day.

Anyway, I don't think peragrin was saying anything to the contrary, but was instead just suggesting IA could act as the 'tape library'.

One can also view it as a problem with how the system works. The car cam, and proper treatment of its tapes, shouldn't be the responsibility of the officers in the car.

If there were a designated 'cam tape librarian' for the department, and that person alone were allowed to manage the tapes, this stuff would presumably be much less of a problem. (Naturally, if tapes go missing, that should be enough to put the tape librarian's job on the line, and the don't screw with the tapes unless it's your job to rule would have to have teeth.)

It took a dentist to tell him that?

Flashblock, surely?

Makes me think: is auto-playing HTML5 video a possibility? If so, can this easily be disabled in browsers' settings?

Let the arms race continue!

I'll have a go: the Eighteenth.

It was never meant to be set in stone. It was meant to be honored, however.

You appear to think it's self-evident that they are wrong. It's not. Ideas of morality vary.

Anyway, you're generalising and confusing the terms vegetarian and vegan. If someone eats hunted meat, they don't strictly qualify as a vegetarian. Not that this semantic line of discussion will be enlightening, of course, nor does it have any bearing on the soundness of their moral stance whether a certain word applies.

Tell me about it. Large rocks are so much tastier.

It is fortunate, then, that vegans aren't claiming otherwise.

There's a difference between denying the diet of our evolutionary ancestors, and having a problem with the way animals are treated in modern farms. I'm surprised by how often I have to point this out.

Just because it's how the Internet works, doesn't mean it might not be a problem. There's a tin-foil hat brigade who use VPNs, after all.

Crypto analogy: the Internet works in plain-text. That doesn't mean plain-text is always appropriate.