However, Hikvision has fault here. Hikvision formally refused comment to both the SCMP and IPVM, even though Hikvision clearly knows that the River Park Towers facial recognition story was false. Why they chose to do so has not been shared.
Here is another theory why they did not answer. If the journalist talking about you claims he can change copper in to gold and reports on deathstar submarines, I can imagine they just ignore it and reckon anyone with a little sense sees the journalist and figurs the absuridity in the story.
Sometimes not responding is best. Not saying it is or isn't in this case, but it could be a way to handle it.
People reading that one article most likely don't take the time to check into the author's other articles as IPVM did. So they read it and take it at face value not knowing the author is a fiction writer. A simple "that is not correct" is much better than a no comment in this situation.
However, I do agree that sometimes not responding is best. It just wasn't in this case (responding to your comment) or in Hilkvisdion's case of not responding to the author or IPVM.
I think HikVision's default response to almost any IPVM inquiry is to ignore it at this point. Right, wrong, or indifferent doesn't matter. They will just stick their heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist.
#1, in fairness to Hikvision, in the past 6 months or so, Hikvision (official PR / communications) has regularly answered IPVM's questions on technical topics (firmware, product availability, model selection). And even on 'political topics' they will politely respond with 'no comment'.
Related, mainstream journalists who ask about 'political topics' almost always get the same 'no comment' response from Hikvision so, at this point, it seems less of an IPVM specific issue than a general strategy.
NY Times reporter Paul Mozur comments on this SCMP story and the broader trend of SCMP 'massively misleading tech stories':
Scmp is establishing a trend of massively misleading tech stories, usually in the service of exaggerating the tech capabilities of Chinese companies/gov’t. You’d hope their editors and management would be concerned about it. https://t.co/bVy4DVTK0J