3 ms·

I read this article a few times, but I don’t see any quotes of actual communication from either the dental insurance or the toothbrush company. If the second bo

by kylec 9y ago

I read this article a few times, but I don’t see any quotes of actual communication from either the dental insurance or the toothbrush company. If the second box contained a letter with the purported message, why not post it? If the author received warnings about being in violation of the “free” deal, why not post them? It’s hard to tell here what has actually been said by the insurance or toothbrush vendor vs inferred by the author.

mar77i 9y ago
As the business in these cases usually takes place in a form of lie of omission, that slightly bigger amount of data that is collected than promised, that slight adrenaline kick which free IoT toothbrushes were supposed to give OP that should have shut out all doubt about the situation. And if anything could proof excess data collection or whatever violation of privacy or human reason, it wouldn't be found in the carefully curated communication by any of the companies involved, but the source code that comprises the software running this thing.
- madeofpalk 9y ago
  I think the point is though, that a major premis of the article was "you must use these brushes and give us your dats OR ELSE", but it was entirely unsubstaniated.
  - mar77i 9y ago
    What's it called when you look for a general wisdom in an everyday situation? ethics? That's all I see myself pointed to in the article. Would we accept "OR ELSE" as a society? Should we? What laws does our government come up with so we can make sure "OR ELSE" doesn't happen past the certain extent it already does? Can we attach a metric for how much "OR ELSE" is too much?
    - madeofpalk 9y ago
      But the article doesnt put forward that the 'OR ELSE' case actually exists. The author just hypothesis it (which is relevant itself!) and goes from there, without providing any sort of hint of evidence.

3 ms·

I read this article a few times, but I don’t see any quotes of actual communication from either the dental insurance or the toothbrush company. If the second bo

by kylec 9y ago

mar77i 9y ago
As the business in these cases usually takes place in a form of lie of omission, that slightly bigger amount of data that is collected than promised, that slight adrenaline kick which free IoT toothbrushes were supposed to give OP that should have shut out all doubt about the situation. And if anything could proof excess data collection or whatever violation of privacy or human reason, it wouldn't be found in the carefully curated communication by any of the companies involved, but the source code that comprises the software running this thing.
- madeofpalk 9y ago
  I think the point is though, that a major premis of the article was "you must use these brushes and give us your dats OR ELSE", but it was entirely unsubstaniated.
  - mar77i 9y ago
    What's it called when you look for a general wisdom in an everyday situation? ethics? That's all I see myself pointed to in the article. Would we accept "OR ELSE" as a society? Should we? What laws does our government come up with so we can make sure "OR ELSE" doesn't happen past the certain extent it already does? Can we attach a metric for how much "OR ELSE" is too much?
    - madeofpalk 9y ago
      But the article doesnt put forward that the 'OR ELSE' case actually exists. The author just hypothesis it (which is relevant itself!) and goes from there, without providing any sort of hint of evidence.