> The qualified yes was really a no: I believe that the market structure can't and won't deliver... My hypothetical to which you replied was: "Assume that all

> The qualified yes was really a no: I believe that the market structure can't and won't deliver... My hypothetical to which you replied was: "Assume that all IoT devices are secure and only exist to serve your interests, rather than the interests of a national intelligence agency or corporate overlord. Doesn't the ability to remotely monitor and control the devices that you own from any place of your choosing bring benefit to you directly, and -directly or indirectly- to society as a whole?". I even took pains in my comment to mention that I recognised the wide gulf between the situation in my hypothetical and the abysmal state of consumer electronics security. Now that you've been reminded of what my hypothetical question was, is your answer an unqualified yes, or an unqualified no? Remember that market forces don't apply here; these devices are correctly designed, implemented, secure, and only serve your interests. > I was referring to the Solow productivity paradox: computerised technology certainly feels much more efficient, but in terms of the economic variable "productivity per person-hour".. Ah. shrug Good software to solve complex problems is often not easy. There are clearly areas where the proper application of computerized systems either save substantial amounts of time and effort, or let personnel more easily collect and digest the information required to do his job.