5 ms·

I suppose it's to be expected, but the naïveté of thinking that an IoT sex toy wasn't phoning home still surprises me. Not to excuse it, because spying on your

by rosser 10y ago

I suppose it's to be expected, but the naïveté of thinking that an IoT sex toy wasn't phoning home still surprises me. Not to excuse it, because spying on your users — particularly in an identifiable way, and doubly so given the sensitivity of this specific case — is a shitty thing to do, but it's not like this is unprecedented.

TeMPOraL 10y ago
> I suppose it's to be expected, but the naïveté of thinking that an IoT sex toy wasn't phoning home still surprises me. I agree. My experience with tech industry, IoT in particular, deserves quoting Avasarala on this: "My life has become a single, ongoing revelation that I haven't been cynical enough."
deadowl 10y ago
Then again, considering the number of retailers that categorize sex toys under sexual health and wellness, health being the keyword, is it possible that HIPAA could be relevant? And if not, should it?
- ceejayoz 10y ago
  > is it possible that HIPAA could be relevant? No. If it were, Amazon would've shut the entire category down by now.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Then again, considering the number of retailers that categorize sex toys under sexual health and wellness, health being the keyword, is it possible that HIPAA could be relevant? No, because HIPAA covered entities and the information held by them to which the Privacy and Security rules applies are very explicitly defined, and how retailers categorize products is not a factor. > And if not, should it? Probably not, though you could probably make a good case that a more general privacy law not focussed on relations between healthcare providers, payers, and patients should exist and apply.
- LordDragonfang 10y ago
  Considering stores like CVS can freely track things like cough and pain medicine (which are indisputably health-related) for marketing and giving-you-endless-coupons purposes, it almost certainly wouldn't be a HIPAA violation.
- rosser 10y ago
  HIPAA might be relevant if your dildo was prescribed by your doctor. But no, random IoT dildos aren't covered.

by rosser 10y ago

TeMPOraL 10y ago

> I suppose it's to be expected, but the naïveté of thinking that an IoT sex toy wasn't phoning home still surprises me. I agree. My experience with tech industry, IoT in particular, deserves quoting Avasarala on this: "My life has become a single, ongoing revelation that I haven't been cynical enough."

deadowl 10y ago

Then again, considering the number of retailers that categorize sex toys under sexual health and wellness, health being the keyword, is it possible that HIPAA could be relevant? And if not, should it?

ceejayoz 10y ago
> is it possible that HIPAA could be relevant? No. If it were, Amazon would've shut the entire category down by now.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Then again, considering the number of retailers that categorize sex toys under sexual health and wellness, health being the keyword, is it possible that HIPAA could be relevant? No, because HIPAA covered entities and the information held by them to which the Privacy and Security rules applies are very explicitly defined, and how retailers categorize products is not a factor. > And if not, should it? Probably not, though you could probably make a good case that a more general privacy law not focussed on relations between healthcare providers, payers, and patients should exist and apply.
LordDragonfang 10y ago
Considering stores like CVS can freely track things like cough and pain medicine (which are indisputably health-related) for marketing and giving-you-endless-coupons purposes, it almost certainly wouldn't be a HIPAA violation.
rosser 10y ago
HIPAA might be relevant if your dildo was prescribed by your doctor. But no, random IoT dildos aren't covered.