I don't see how. The premise of these cameras is that anybody is allowed to film in public. All you're doing is showing something in public which is perfectly legal. It doesn't damage the camera. If they decide to use the image from their camera to enter text into a database, then that's on them if something bad happens. You have no control over what happens inside of their computer. It's no different than someone blindly copy pasting commands into their Linux terminal and deleting system 32.

[–] Solemarc@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

As far as I'm aware cybercrime is generally: "anything done maliciously involving a computer" intentionally sticking a drop table command over your plates because you're expecting something to read your plate and input it into a db might count.

[–] space@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 8 months ago

I highly doubt cameras would be able to recognize this as a valid plate.

[–] PriorityMotif@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

No, because it is a widly known meme and would be considered free speech as satire. Since you did not access the system, there is no crime. If a person was manually entering license plates and entered it into a database, would it be your fault? No, you had no control over that person's actions, and no reasonable person would mistake that as a licence plate. If a computer enters it on its own, then that is also not your fault, the programmer is responsible. You have no responsibility to know how a system handles its database inputs in order to avoid messing it up.

[–] Solemarc@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Sure, so you just get a fine for obstructing your license plate then.

[–] PriorityMotif@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago

Some us states don't require a front plate, or you could put it next to your rear plate or in the rear window.

[–] 14th_cylon@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

All you’re doing is showing something in public which is perfectly legal.

no, it is not, showing something in public is often not legal, it - as is often the case - depend on the context.

It doesn’t damage the camera.

it damages the database.

then that’s on them if something bad happens. You have no control over what happens inside of their computer.

no, that is on you, because you made that clearly intentionally malicious input. it is the same as if you had used the keyboard, the input method is really not important.

do you think that if you successfully hack a bank and steal some money you will get away with the defense of "all i did was send your computer some input, sending input to computers is perfectly legal and i really don't have any control over what is going inside it"?

that is 5 year's old idea of how law works.

[–] PriorityMotif@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

So what you're saying is that anytime sometime is filming or photographing someone else in public the person being filmed or photographed is

Responsible for what the camera sees

Is a direct user of any database or computer used to process the images

The person filming is allowed to impose restrictions because they are filming other people in public

That doesn't sound quite right to me

[–] 14th_cylon@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago

So what you’re saying is (...)

no, that is not what i am saying.

That doesn’t sound quite right to me

it would help if you stopped putting fabricated nonsense into other people's mouths. then you wouldn't have to wonder whether that nonsense "sounds quite right."

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I made a joke elsewhere about Amazon's search thing using AI to generate a string that would crash the Amazon server and thought about that too afterward. If that actually worked, could someone be charged with a crime?

[–] Solemarc@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Id guess maybe, if I generated a string using AI and intentionally crashed their stuff, it might be crime.

[–] SeabassDan@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I'm only using the tools provided, not accessing anything that's clearly pointed out I shouldn't. If anything, that question field is specifically designed for me to use.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

If I go to a hardware store and start taking a sledgehammer to the walls "I'm only using the tools provided" is not going to be a valid defense.

[–] SeabassDan@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Not a good comparison, the sledgehammer isn't meant to be used in the store, the search function in the website is, don't be dumb.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Okay, the hardware store has a saw for customers to cut planks to the length they need. There are many ways they could "misuse the tool provided"

[–] SeabassDan@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

That actually makes a lot more sense, I'll accept that. Although there are signs saying not to misuse the tools provided. Don't see any of that on Amazon. At least not yet.

[–] StopSpazzing@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Knowingly doing something that could be malicious is still malicious.

[–] SeabassDan@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

You're right on that one. Just seems like they brought it upon themselves.

[–] nintendiator 1 points 8 months ago

If that were true we'd see lots more charges on corporate stuff.