Berkeley professor's camera caught student allegedly sabotaging another student
mercurynews.comPhoto for posterity so people can choose not to make the mistake of hiring this criminal:
https://web.archive.org/web/20251209222458/https://ieeexplor...
via
Sounds like a USB kill style device. Something you can easily plug in and blow the circuit
https://hackerwarehouse.com/product/usb-kill-v4/
> When plugged in power is taken from the USB power lines, multiplied, and discharged into the data lines, typically disabling an unprotected device.
What a stupid way to piss away all the time spent on a PhD.
This strategy doesn't make sense. What was the end goal? To have the other person keep buying new computers.
> This strategy doesn't make sense. What was the end goal? To have the other person keep buying new computers.
I would assume it was to interfere with the other student's research. That other person almost certainly had data on the destroyed computers that he either lost completely, or had to do extra work to recover when they failed.
The goal was definitely to impede the other researcher's work, and I can imagine a few possible reasons for that. In descending order of probability, interpersonal conflict (in my experience, graduate students in the same lab tend to either become best friends or hate each other, with little in-between), trying to beat the other student to the punch w.r.t publication, or good ol' schizophrenic delusions that the person's work needs to be stopped (mid 20's is a pretty standard age for onset in men).
> interpersonal conflict low probability in this case because this guy seems a repeat offender but absolutely things can get that toxic and ugly
> trying to beat the other student to the punch w.r.t publication, this is my highest suspicion. Why is anxiety. Deep anxiety. Anxiety about failing. Anxiety about the other guy beating you. Sabotaging other guys's computer alleviates the anxiety so thusly becomes a repeat pattern. Anxiety can be quite insidious and nasty and is more pervasive in more ways than many are aware.
> good ol' schizophrenic delusions that the person's work needs to be stopped possible but more rare
You can't logic your way out of a crazy box.
Trying to understand the root cause motivation of people with mental illness is usually futile and almost always fruitless
Without the email-wall
Overall I think we need a lot more cameras in a lot more places. Their presence should be the default, but their feeds should not be monitored if there isn't a reported crime or a suspicion of one. I am not saying that the government should have default access to these feeds either.
A camera also helps exonerate someone who is not guilty, which is not an unimportant benefit.
It sounds great until someone starts abusing. And the room for abuse seem very ample in such a case.
Counterpoint: cops.
A society that abides by its own laws should require police to keep their bodycams operative, under severe penalty.
We aren't that good, but being videotaped by civilians is moving the needle slightly, making them more accountable. It's the reason George Floyd's murders were (surprisingly) convicted.
Cops are working for the public and should be accountable for what they do. Exposing what cops do is not problematic, except maybe in some specific cases like a cop infiltrating some drug-dealer network.
Law enforcement can abuse more if a camera is not present. Often a camera is what exonerates a person, setting them free.
It’s 2025. You can deploy a camera anywhere you want. This article is a perfect example.
I’m instantly suspicious when I see a random phone charger plugged in a common area.
AR glasses are perpetually just around the corner. Everyone will be streaming video all the time.
While I like the positives of that (easier to catch some criminals), I fear the abuse potential and the negatives overall way more.
It's not just to catch criminals. It's also to free those who get unfairly witch-hunted and accused of a crime when the evidence (camera) shows otherwise.
“The Panopticon is good”