5 ms·

It's the Privacy v. Convenience trade off. The conveniences are promoted, the privacy implications shrugged off, and in the end you pay someone money to invade

It's the Privacy v. Convenience trade off. The conveniences are promoted, the privacy implications shrugged off, and in the end you pay someone money to invade your home 24 hours a day. It's a simple but scary formula that doesn't make me optimistic for the future.

thomastjeffery 9y ago
I think the biggest ways we can combat this formula are: 1. Fight DRM. DRM is a pipe-dream enforced by law (DMCA Section 1201 2. Promote Free Software. Proprietary software does not deserve our data.
- tfha 9y ago
  At some point we will have to embrace full loss of privacy. Today, only the rich and powerful have mass surveillance capabilities. But if we embrace surveillance, we can give that power to everyone. It's much harder to do selective enforcement when the same strategies can be turned on the prosecutor.
  - mulmen 9y ago
    I disagree with this solution. Privacy has utility and when you give it up you do lose something. Even if we give it up to each other we are still in a worse place.
    - tfha 9y ago
      You may disagree with the solution, but I don't see how privacy can be preserved given the technology we are building. Cameras getting smaller, and better. Microphones getting smaller, and better. Drones getting smaller and better. And all cheaper as well. Storage and search is also getting better and cheaper. The tide may be far away, but it's rushing in and you can't stop it. We must embrace the water.
      - mulmen 9y ago
        Giving up a right is not an effective way of preventing it from being stolen. Technology is continually improving but we still have a say in how it is used. I have no respect for this or any other defeatist strategy.
      - thomastjeffery 9y ago
        > We must embrace the water. No. Just because it seems inevitable does not mean I must embrace it. I refuse to embrace it. While the things that are used to perform secret surveillance improve, the things that are used to uncover secret surveillance also improve. I am not going to willingly give up my privacy.
  - pdkl95 9y ago
    > we can give that power to everyone Just like how "voting" gave everyone useful legislative influence? A society where everyone reports on each other is the canonical model for dystopia. Tom Scott's "Oversight"[1] is warning, not a recommendation. > the same strategies can be turned on the prosecutor. Having evidence about a prosecutor's misdeeds doesn't mean you have the power to enforce anything. We already have police walking away from from video evidence of murder without charges. That will change with a lot more active political involvement. More surveillance wouldn't help. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIuf1V1FhpY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIuf1V1FhpY
    - iamthirsty 9y ago
      > A society where everyone reports on each other is the canonical model for dystopia. Or: Russian/Chinese Communism.
  - khedoros1 9y ago
    > At some point we will have to embrace full loss of privacy. At some point we will have to embrace full loss of all rights. Today, only the rich and powerful can literally get away with murder...OK, that's stupid and over-dramatic, but only a little more absurd than what you said. Living in a panopticon would just make society into more of a jail than it already is. That's not something we should embrace, even if it's difficult to fight against.
- TaylorAlexander 9y ago
  You forgot “don’t use”. I don’t use any assistant apps. I can’t possibly imagine how my life would be better if I did.
  - iamthirsty 9y ago
    Neither do I. Doesn't stop those around me.
  - thomastjeffery 9y ago
    Unfortunately, "don't use" isn't a practical or effective solution. Boycotts only work if a significant group is boycotting.
unobtaniumstool 9y ago
Ah yes, the terrifying privacy implications of Alexa. Now Google and Amazon know I check the weather every morning. Oh, the dystopia.
- mfrommil 9y ago
  They also know the argument between you and your partner, the private secret a friend asked you to share with no one, when you're not going to be home, etc. etc.
  - feocco 9y ago
    How so if they're not recording all the time?
    - nine_k 9y ago
      How can you be sure? Maybe you have the source code?
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        Well, for one, there's the power switch on the side. And the power switch on the power strip it's attached to if, for some reason, I decide to suspect that the hard switch on the device is a lie.
        khedoros1 9y ago
        If you're worried enough to turn it off sometimes, why not just...not have one in the first place?
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        > If you're worried enough to turn it off sometimes, why not just...not have one in the first place? The same reason why the fact that I'm worried enough sometimes (e.g., major lightning storms) to unplug various electronics does not mean I choose not to own such electronics in the first place: sometimes isn't all the time, and both the costs of potential vulnerability and the benefit of features (and thus the balance between those two things) can shift with context. Though, in reality, I'm never actually that worried about my Google Home, I just recognize that this there are adequate existing hardware-based solutions that, should I be concerned at some time—which I can imagine being, though I haven't been—an adequate mitigation exists that doesn't involve not possessing the device.
Trav5 9y ago
An invasion is unwelcome. More accurately people are paying for the device and inviting the company into their home. As long as the guest does not break the trust of the host, they will be allowed to stay.
- cmroanirgo 9y ago
  This is the biggest problem with the website: shodan.io. They're always there to report the slightest gap in a system. To me it's like someone with a camera attached to their shoe to look up ladies skirts. It's creepy and should be illegal. (Of course, they put in under the label: it's publicly available information... but anyone with privacy concerns will realise that it's not true) Whenever you have a 'smart' device, there'll always be someone banging away looking for holes in it, especially with shodan.io. To me, it seems to be the biggest perpetrator in enabling privacy loss. Edit: typo.

thomastjeffery 9y ago

I think the biggest ways we can combat this formula are: 1. Fight DRM. DRM is a pipe-dream enforced by law (DMCA Section 1201 2. Promote Free Software. Proprietary software does not deserve our data.

tfha 9y ago
At some point we will have to embrace full loss of privacy. Today, only the rich and powerful have mass surveillance capabilities. But if we embrace surveillance, we can give that power to everyone. It's much harder to do selective enforcement when the same strategies can be turned on the prosecutor.
- mulmen 9y ago
  I disagree with this solution. Privacy has utility and when you give it up you do lose something. Even if we give it up to each other we are still in a worse place.
  - tfha 9y ago
    You may disagree with the solution, but I don't see how privacy can be preserved given the technology we are building. Cameras getting smaller, and better. Microphones getting smaller, and better. Drones getting smaller and better. And all cheaper as well. Storage and search is also getting better and cheaper. The tide may be far away, but it's rushing in and you can't stop it. We must embrace the water.
    - mulmen 9y ago
      Giving up a right is not an effective way of preventing it from being stolen. Technology is continually improving but we still have a say in how it is used. I have no respect for this or any other defeatist strategy.
    - thomastjeffery 9y ago
      > We must embrace the water. No. Just because it seems inevitable does not mean I must embrace it. I refuse to embrace it. While the things that are used to perform secret surveillance improve, the things that are used to uncover secret surveillance also improve. I am not going to willingly give up my privacy.
- pdkl95 9y ago
  > we can give that power to everyone Just like how "voting" gave everyone useful legislative influence? A society where everyone reports on each other is the canonical model for dystopia. Tom Scott's "Oversight"[1] is warning, not a recommendation. > the same strategies can be turned on the prosecutor. Having evidence about a prosecutor's misdeeds doesn't mean you have the power to enforce anything. We already have police walking away from from video evidence of murder without charges. That will change with a lot more active political involvement. More surveillance wouldn't help. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIuf1V1FhpY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIuf1V1FhpY
  - iamthirsty 9y ago
    > A society where everyone reports on each other is the canonical model for dystopia. Or: Russian/Chinese Communism.
- khedoros1 9y ago
  > At some point we will have to embrace full loss of privacy. At some point we will have to embrace full loss of all rights. Today, only the rich and powerful can literally get away with murder...OK, that's stupid and over-dramatic, but only a little more absurd than what you said. Living in a panopticon would just make society into more of a jail than it already is. That's not something we should embrace, even if it's difficult to fight against.
TaylorAlexander 9y ago
You forgot “don’t use”. I don’t use any assistant apps. I can’t possibly imagine how my life would be better if I did.
- iamthirsty 9y ago
  Neither do I. Doesn't stop those around me.
- thomastjeffery 9y ago
  Unfortunately, "don't use" isn't a practical or effective solution. Boycotts only work if a significant group is boycotting.

unobtaniumstool 9y ago

Ah yes, the terrifying privacy implications of Alexa. Now Google and Amazon know I check the weather every morning. Oh, the dystopia.

mfrommil 9y ago
They also know the argument between you and your partner, the private secret a friend asked you to share with no one, when you're not going to be home, etc. etc.
- feocco 9y ago
  How so if they're not recording all the time?
  - nine_k 9y ago
    How can you be sure? Maybe you have the source code?
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      Well, for one, there's the power switch on the side. And the power switch on the power strip it's attached to if, for some reason, I decide to suspect that the hard switch on the device is a lie.
      - khedoros1 9y ago
        If you're worried enough to turn it off sometimes, why not just...not have one in the first place?
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        > If you're worried enough to turn it off sometimes, why not just...not have one in the first place? The same reason why the fact that I'm worried enough sometimes (e.g., major lightning storms) to unplug various electronics does not mean I choose not to own such electronics in the first place: sometimes isn't all the time, and both the costs of potential vulnerability and the benefit of features (and thus the balance between those two things) can shift with context. Though, in reality, I'm never actually that worried about my Google Home, I just recognize that this there are adequate existing hardware-based solutions that, should I be concerned at some time—which I can imagine being, though I haven't been—an adequate mitigation exists that doesn't involve not possessing the device.

Trav5 9y ago

An invasion is unwelcome. More accurately people are paying for the device and inviting the company into their home. As long as the guest does not break the trust of the host, they will be allowed to stay.

cmroanirgo 9y ago
This is the biggest problem with the website: shodan.io. They're always there to report the slightest gap in a system. To me it's like someone with a camera attached to their shoe to look up ladies skirts. It's creepy and should be illegal. (Of course, they put in under the label: it's publicly available information... but anyone with privacy concerns will realise that it's not true) Whenever you have a 'smart' device, there'll always be someone banging away looking for holes in it, especially with shodan.io. To me, it seems to be the biggest perpetrator in enabling privacy loss. Edit: typo.