3 ms·

Night and day difference. With Google glass, you're bringing a stealthy, concealed video camera into public spaces like restrooms, where the guy using the urin

Night and day difference. With Google glass, you're bringing a stealthy, concealed video camera into public spaces like restrooms, where the guy using the urinal next to you has no idea if you're recording him or not. With smart home devices, you put a microphone on private property that you already own, and it needs to be connected to an AC outlet. It's not a public space. Meanwhile, most seem to have no problem carrying smartphones on them 24/7, which have the same capability of recording microphone input, but in public spaces disconnected from an AC outlet. The faux outrage at surveillance is fairly hypocritical, if you ask me.

CaptSpify 9y ago
> Meanwhile, most seem to have no problem carrying smartphones on them 24/7, which have the same capability of recording microphone input, but in public spaces disconnected from an AC outlet. I never understood using this as an argument in favor of always listening devices. Just because someone is invading your privacy in one way, doesn't mean you should just open the floodgates and let everyone invade your privacy. It is possible to be outraged at both, while being required to use one or the other.
- illumin8 9y ago
  I agree, if you are the type of person that refuses to use a smartphone on anti-surveillance principals, however, the same people that say they would never buy a digital assistant have one on their phones already.
  - CaptSpify 9y ago
    My point is that those can be two different things, and it's possible to be upset at both. I have to have a smartphone for work, but that doesn't mean I am not outraged by the fact that I can't find one that is not a surveillance device. The day that a quality open-source smartphone becomes available, I'll buy one. But in the meantime, since I have to have a smartphone, you are arguing that I should just get any device that listens without regard for privacy. That doesn't make any sense.

CaptSpify 9y ago

> Meanwhile, most seem to have no problem carrying smartphones on them 24/7, which have the same capability of recording microphone input, but in public spaces disconnected from an AC outlet. I never understood using this as an argument in favor of always listening devices. Just because someone is invading your privacy in one way, doesn't mean you should just open the floodgates and let everyone invade your privacy. It is possible to be outraged at both, while being required to use one or the other.

illumin8 9y ago
I agree, if you are the type of person that refuses to use a smartphone on anti-surveillance principals, however, the same people that say they would never buy a digital assistant have one on their phones already.
- CaptSpify 9y ago
  My point is that those can be two different things, and it's possible to be upset at both. I have to have a smartphone for work, but that doesn't mean I am not outraged by the fact that I can't find one that is not a surveillance device. The day that a quality open-source smartphone becomes available, I'll buy one. But in the meantime, since I have to have a smartphone, you are arguing that I should just get any device that listens without regard for privacy. That doesn't make any sense.