I mean, I see “leaked” videos of protests in authoritarian countries like China and just wonder why they dont just like make a backdoor that disables videos from being recorded. Or use some sort of 0-day exploit that installs malware on their phones and disable cameras.

I mean, I can’t be the only one that thought of it, right? Surely someone in the government would’ve thought of it.

Wonder why such tactic isn’t being used.

  • DontTakeMySky@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 day ago

    You’d likely only be able to use it effectively once before people seek out different recording devices, or just the knowledge that cameras were disabled in that area would be as damning as any video.

    Especially for any zero-day exploits. As soon as it gets used people start protecting against them so they often don’t work for very long. It would need to be a pretty big coverup to be worth burning an exploit on. Especially if it’s likely that at least one person in the area wouldn’t be susceptible and could still record it.

    • otp@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      just the knowledge that cameras were disabled in that area would be as damning as any video.

      I wish it worked that way. Logically yes, but not in court (as far as I’m aware). At least not when the offending officer is on the stand

      • DontTakeMySky@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        24 hours ago

        Looking at how bad our current system is, there’s clearly no need to prevent the videos from getting out because the officer can get away with it despite that.

        And even if the officer doesn’t, the department can just scapegoat them and just keep doing the same things.

        All the more reason to not waste a 0-day or risk the knowledge of a backdoor getting out.