Why not? I'm pretty sure they know roundabout what it would cost to tear it down, so why not see if someone is willing to buy it because they think they can get the work done cheaper and make a profit off the raw material.
I expected this comment to be made anyways, so I didn't even bother rephrasing.
If it helps you, I don't support the initiative. Doesn't change the fact that rental property is scarse, public transport is full and children/teacher ratio is horrendous.
IP68 doesn't require a sealant if you just use enough pressure. Phones are just too thin to screw on the back plate and use a proper gasket. Which is stupid in the first place because most people then go and put a bulky cover on them.
You are technically correct but also very wrong. Yes, it is a lot of pain to get the paperwork done and you have a high chance of being rejected without a good reason. I know dozens of people who run cheap, chinese IP cams recording public spaces directly to dubious cloud services here in Switzerland. You just don't ask.
Work related: We sell solutions including CCTV and video-intercom and we have only recently started providing customers with stickers they can use to make those installations comply with regulations. Technically, it has been the responsibility of the customer installing the device, so us doing this is just nudging people towards compliance because nobody cares. I can guarantee you that there are tens of thousands of cameras here filming public ground and it is not prosecuted. In fact, someone at the office put one up a long time ago for a PTZ demo (not recording) that was not compliant and it took almost 10 years until we got ordered to take it down.
Most of these are not recording, only recording situationally or only locally. Still not legal technically. However, ever since cheap cloud-connected doorbells have become available, they have definitely been installed here. They do not comply with regulations whatsoever and next to nothing is done about it.
I should have probably said: "[...] exclusive content which is curated on [the creators] Patreon and [accessible to the user via the web browser or] their app."
Hope this clears things up. My main point was that there is in fact an incentive for users to check the app beyond setting up payment and forgetting about it. Even if it is not the only way such content is available, it certainly is a convenient one.
This is not an accident. This is exactly why Apple (and Google also) have made the PWA experience bad for years. They must force users to believe their app store is the only source of programs.