Another Reason Not To Do Case Studies...

Why do I get the feeling this temple was more secure before the study was published?

In the city of Oroville, north of Sacramento, the Chinese Temple listed on the National Register of Historic Places, stands as a California landmark and an epitome of Chinese culture. Playing the role of a museum, it is home to hundreds of priceless Chinese artefacts, including embroidered tapestries, parade parasols, medicinal herbs, and gold to name but a few.

Beyond its rich cultural heritage, the Temple is also open to the public and provides worship services for devotees far and beyond the city. The limited number of staff and the lack of a large organised security department make the Temple highly prone to theft and burglary. The layout of the buildings resembles traditional Chinese architecture with pillars and angles that make it challenging for caretakers to monitor activities when it is flooded with visitors. Reliance on public law enforcement is not an efficient solution due to lag between the times of reporting and the arrival of law enforcers.


Somebody there should be doing a facepalm right about now.

Selected excerpts from

Hikvision secures California Landmark

Indeed, even the most unnoticeable gestures from visitors could not escape the watchful lens of the strategically positioned cameras. All it takes is a staff member or two to peruse the screens from the office and everything is within the Temple’s control.

Gesture detection and countermeasures? Advanced.

The wide coverage of the cameras also came as a surprise to Hikvision’s installation officer, Larry Tracy. He explained that they “installed fewer cameras than originally intended because they worked far better than expected.”

How does a camera work "far better than expected" before you even install it?

How well do they usually work, Larry?

I am going to guess they used MP and that it provided more details / coverage than SD analog.

It's from 2012. Has it been robbed since? Otherwise, not sure why to emphasize it.

I get your general point, though. It's not a good idea to publicize vulnerabilities like this.

It's from 2012.

They don't do this type of thing anymore?

Otherwise, not sure why to emphasize it.

As a caution to those who might feel pressure to allow one, to at least review the copy. Which I find hard to imagine was done in this case.

The rest is just evidence found in 'clear view' during the investigation. Like this claim I'm sure you'll find quite entertaining:

These network cameras provide the same optimum performance regardless of the weather.