I have no problem with monitoring temps over internet.

Who ever thought it was OK to control freezers over the internet should be hung.

That implies you also ensure that they monitoring system is isolated from the control system. No one can be bothered to do that, and no one wants to spend the money on an extra microcontroller (a tiny fraction of the cost of each unit, but it comes straight out of your margin because no one pays extra for security).

> Who ever thought it was OK to control freezers over the internet should be hung.

I've got really bad news for you about how many critical systems are connected to the Internet.

Analytics are very different from controls. People who model them the same tend to suffer. A lot of academics and project managers don't understand this unfortunately.

Trivial to prove that, just set up an open wifi and show it connecting, getting an IP, and then transmitting data.

I haven't managed to reproduce it.

I've seen this "yeah well they'll just connect to open WiFI" for 10+ years at this point and have never seen any vaguely credible reproduction.

Best you get is "my friend's LG TV connected to the internet even after changing his WiFI password" vaguely recalled hearsay.

Or the second order retreat-to-motte argument of "well they'll add that to the firmware overnight when ad revenues drop if enough people stop connecting to the internet".

It'd be trivial to prove and yet it has never been proven. I'll give you three guesses why, and the first two don't count.

That's exactly the point.

How many open WiFi networks are around you? I live in a city and there are 0 within range. ISP routers have defaulted to password protection for more than a decade. The only places with open WiFi are places of business that provide guest work. Even those are far less common and usually password protected these days.

1. From the article:

> During the first nine months of fiscal 2026 (October through June), authorities recorded 1,509 encounters, down from 10,291 during the same period in fiscal 2023, a decline of about 85 percent.

10k was the number recorded 3 years ago, it's been down significantly regardless of whether a wall exists or not.

2. These numbers aren't specific to Big Bend NP itself but rather to the much larger Big Bend Sector (the border contained within the park is but ~22% of these 517 miles [1]):

>The figures cover the entire Big Bend Sector, which is wider than the park itself and spans roughly 517 miles of the border.

There are no figures as to how many of the people recorded illegally crossing even used the NP part of Big Bend Sector.

Add to that the fact that the NP terrain is far more difficult to walk through than the surrounding sector and it's quite easy to see that the number of recorded illegal crossing from within the NP itself are likely to at least an order of magnitude smaller than these figures.

[1] - https://home.nps.gov/bibe/planyourvisit/border_travel.htm

Is that an exceptional number?

It's a small fraction of illegal crossings in a very remote area where it's easy for border patrol or sheriffs to pick them up. A wall will just degrade the park and hurt the local economy.

>The article said 10,000 people Illegally Crossed the border in this region.

And? Good for them on making it through. People will continue to cross the boarder because the shitty wall isn't going to stop people.

Who cares?