| Recurring |
unknown |
(a) The software failure incident related to the couple being caught on camera having sex on an Austrian mountain due to the software failing to notice them and switch off the lens seems to be a unique incident specific to the organization or company involved in this case, which is the WMS company (WebMediaSolutions) as mentioned in the article [115255]. There is no specific mention of a similar incident happening before within the same organization.
(b) There is no information in the articles to suggest that a similar software failure incident like the one involving the couple on the Austrian mountain has happened before at other organizations or with their products and services. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design, operation |
(a) The software failure incident in the article can be attributed to the design phase. The incident occurred because the software failed to notice the couple engaging in intimate activities and did not switch off the camera as intended. This failure was likely due to factors introduced during the system development or updates, which did not account for such scenarios. The software was supposed to pixelate faces and ensure privacy protection, but it did not flag the images in this case, possibly because the couple's faces were not visible [115255].
(b) Additionally, the software failure incident could also be linked to the operation phase. The failure occurred during the operation of the system when the camera captured the intimate moment of the couple and posted it online. This failure could be attributed to factors related to the operation or misuse of the system, as the software did not function as intended during its operational use [115255]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system |
(a) The software failure incident in this case can be categorized as within_system. The article mentions that the software failed to notice the couple engaging in intimate activities and did not switch off the camera as it should have. The failure was attributed to the software not flagging the images, possibly because the couple's faces could not be seen, indicating an internal issue with the software's recognition capabilities [115255]. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident in this case occurred due to non-human actions. The failure was attributed to the software failing to notice the couple engaging in intimate activities and switch off the camera lens, leading to the images being captured and posted online [115255]. The failure was not directly caused by human actions but rather by the limitations of the software in detecting and handling such scenarios automatically. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
software |
(a) The software failure incident in this case does not seem to be related to hardware issues. The failure was primarily attributed to the software's inability to detect the couple engaging in intimate activities and switch off the camera as intended. The software was expected to pixelate faces and ensure privacy protection, but it failed to do so in this instance, possibly because the couple's faces were not visible in the images captured by the camera [115255].
(b) The software failure incident in this case is directly related to software issues. The software responsible for monitoring the cameras in the Nock Mountain National Park failed to detect the intimate moment between the couple and did not pixelate their faces as intended for privacy protection. This failure led to the images being posted online, causing discomfort and privacy concerns [115255]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
non-malicious |
(a) The software failure incident in this case does not appear to be malicious. It seems to be a non-malicious failure where the software failed to notice the couple engaging in intimate activities and did not switch off the camera as intended. The failure was likely due to the software not being able to detect the presence of individuals in the camera's view, leading to the unintended capture and sharing of the images online [115255]. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
accidental_decisions |
(a) The software failure incident in this case seems to be more related to accidental decisions rather than poor decisions. The failure occurred because the software failed to notice the couple engaging in intimate activities and did not switch off the camera as it should have. The failure was not due to a deliberate poor decision but rather a mistake or oversight in the software's functionality [115255]. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
development_incompetence |
(a) The software failure incident in this case seems to be more related to development incompetence. The article mentions that the software failed to notice the couple engaging in intimate activities and did not switch off the camera as it should have. Ronald Schellander from the WMS company explained that the software is typically used to pixelate faces and ensure privacy, but in this instance, it failed to flag the images, possibly because the couple's faces were not visible [115255]. This failure to properly detect and handle sensitive content points towards a lack of professional competence in setting up the software to protect privacy in such scenarios. |
| Duration |
temporary |
The software failure incident in the article was temporary. The failure occurred because the software failed to notice the couple engaging in intimate activities and did not switch off the camera, leading to the images being captured and posted online [115255]. The failure was attributed to the software not flagging the images, possibly because the couple's faces could not be seen, indicating a specific circumstance that led to the failure. |
| Behaviour |
omission, value, other |
(a) crash: The software failed to notice the couple and switch off the camera, leading to the unintended capture and publication of intimate images [115255].
(b) omission: The software did not manage to flag the images of the couple engaging in intimate activities, possibly because their faces could not be seen, resulting in a breach of privacy [115255].
(c) timing: The software captured the images every 20 minutes, including the moment when the couple was engaged in the intimate act, indicating that the system was functioning on a timed schedule [115255].
(d) value: The software failed to pixelate the faces of individuals in the images, which was a breach of privacy and an incorrect performance of its intended function [115255].
(e) byzantine: Not evident from the provided information.
(f) other: The software was supposed to ensure that no identifiable individuals were captured in the images, but it failed to do so in this instance, leading to the public exposure of the couple's intimate moment [115255]. |