6 ms·

Privacy issues aren't my number one priority. I have lost count of the number of times people misunderstand me thanks to not knowing I am deaf or believing it,

by kopo 8y ago

Privacy issues aren't my number one priority. I have lost count of the number of times people misunderstand me thanks to not knowing I am deaf or believing it, or me misunderstanding them. And as a techie I am not too bothered by Google and MS using my data to sell me stuff. What bothers me much more about is the dark architectural decisions that misguide/divides people or get them addicted to their streams and devices screwing their lives up.

vkou 8y ago
> Privacy issues aren't my number one priority. It's not your privacy that's the issue (Well, it is, as a user of the device) - it's also the privacy of the persons speaking with you. Single-party consent for digital recording of audio is a controversial topic.
- ozim 8y ago
  But that should not be issue for kopo, he should have means of comfortable communication without giving up on his privacy. That is just basic human right, there is nothing about people he is going to speak with, that is secondary issue.
- gpm 8y ago
  I'm all for single party consent. But it's also the privacy of everyone close enough to the microphone that single processing can extract what they are saying. That's 0 party consent that I'm not ok with for always on devices.
  - PyroLagus 8y ago
    I don't know. Single party consent is great if you want proof that someone is threatening you (or something similar) or even just to have a personal record of a conversation, but I don't know about single party consent to give a copy of the recording to a non-law third party. (There are still ethical issues with providing a copy to authorities when the incriminating information doesn't affect you, but that's beside the point.) For one, it's a huge breach of trust, but it could be very damaging for the non-consenting party. For instance, secretly recording a partners voice during sex and distributing that online would be pretty similar to revenge porn but in audio form. I don't think anybody would be "all for" that Now this piqued my interest, so I took a look at Wikipedia[1]. Interestingly enough, England seems to allow recording phone calls without notifying the other party as long as it is only for personal use and not made available to a third party, but US Federal law does not seem to have such a stipulation, thus presumably allowing people in one-party consent states to post recordings of phone calls on social media without the other party's consent (unless the state forbids that. It's a bit hard to find concrete information on this), which is pretty troublesome I think. However that is only for telephone recordings and not for private conversations, so maybe the laws are a bit more sensible in that case. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws
ozim 8y ago
One part of me is happy that someone impaired can use products from Google or MS and it will actually really improve their life. On the other hand you should not be putting privacy issues as secondary matters. Governments have a lot of work to do and that is part of 'how things should be' for people to be equal. I don't think 'people deserve things' but enabling people to be the best they can is government responsibility.
- jstanley 8y ago
  I'm as staunch a privacy advocate as anyone, but if a deaf person wants to give up their privacy in order to be able to "hear", who are we to stand in their way?
  - bobthepanda 8y ago
    They're also giving up the speaker's privacy, though. Do they have that right?
    - jstanley 8y ago
      This is actually a really interesting question. I'm not even sure which outcome I think I prefer, let alone which outcome is right. It seems unfair for a hearing person to deny a deaf person the right to "hear" if he has a technological solution available, but it also seems unfair for the deaf person to be streaming everything the hearing person says to the cloud for analysis. Maybe the deaf person can stream whatever he wants to the cloud, but you can refuse to talk in his presence if you don't want your speech to be streamed to the cloud?
      - bobthepanda 8y ago
        Then people, because they have the right to know, pass legislation forcing deaf people to identify themselves in public. People refuse to have normal conversations with the deaf because they can't speak to them in confidence. Everyone is much worse off as a result. The societal reaction to Google Glass was overwhelmingly negative, because it turns out that people don't want to be knowingly recorded all the time. Throw in some people that are easy to "other" and you have a pretty ugly situation on your hands. Cochlear implants and hearing aids are available, and do work for people; throwing networking into the mix sounds really unnecessary, in the same way that a smart fridge talking to the internet does.

by kopo 8y ago

vkou 8y ago

> Privacy issues aren't my number one priority. It's not your privacy that's the issue (Well, it is, as a user of the device) - it's also the privacy of the persons speaking with you. Single-party consent for digital recording of audio is a controversial topic.

ozim 8y ago
But that should not be issue for kopo, he should have means of comfortable communication without giving up on his privacy. That is just basic human right, there is nothing about people he is going to speak with, that is secondary issue.
gpm 8y ago
I'm all for single party consent. But it's also the privacy of everyone close enough to the microphone that single processing can extract what they are saying. That's 0 party consent that I'm not ok with for always on devices.
- PyroLagus 8y ago
  I don't know. Single party consent is great if you want proof that someone is threatening you (or something similar) or even just to have a personal record of a conversation, but I don't know about single party consent to give a copy of the recording to a non-law third party. (There are still ethical issues with providing a copy to authorities when the incriminating information doesn't affect you, but that's beside the point.) For one, it's a huge breach of trust, but it could be very damaging for the non-consenting party. For instance, secretly recording a partners voice during sex and distributing that online would be pretty similar to revenge porn but in audio form. I don't think anybody would be "all for" that Now this piqued my interest, so I took a look at Wikipedia[1]. Interestingly enough, England seems to allow recording phone calls without notifying the other party as long as it is only for personal use and not made available to a third party, but US Federal law does not seem to have such a stipulation, thus presumably allowing people in one-party consent states to post recordings of phone calls on social media without the other party's consent (unless the state forbids that. It's a bit hard to find concrete information on this), which is pretty troublesome I think. However that is only for telephone recordings and not for private conversations, so maybe the laws are a bit more sensible in that case. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws

ozim 8y ago

One part of me is happy that someone impaired can use products from Google or MS and it will actually really improve their life. On the other hand you should not be putting privacy issues as secondary matters. Governments have a lot of work to do and that is part of 'how things should be' for people to be equal. I don't think 'people deserve things' but enabling people to be the best they can is government responsibility.

jstanley 8y ago
I'm as staunch a privacy advocate as anyone, but if a deaf person wants to give up their privacy in order to be able to "hear", who are we to stand in their way?
- bobthepanda 8y ago
  They're also giving up the speaker's privacy, though. Do they have that right?
  - jstanley 8y ago
    This is actually a really interesting question. I'm not even sure which outcome I think I prefer, let alone which outcome is right. It seems unfair for a hearing person to deny a deaf person the right to "hear" if he has a technological solution available, but it also seems unfair for the deaf person to be streaming everything the hearing person says to the cloud for analysis. Maybe the deaf person can stream whatever he wants to the cloud, but you can refuse to talk in his presence if you don't want your speech to be streamed to the cloud?
    - bobthepanda 8y ago
      Then people, because they have the right to know, pass legislation forcing deaf people to identify themselves in public. People refuse to have normal conversations with the deaf because they can't speak to them in confidence. Everyone is much worse off as a result. The societal reaction to Google Glass was overwhelmingly negative, because it turns out that people don't want to be knowingly recorded all the time. Throw in some people that are easy to "other" and you have a pretty ugly situation on your hands. Cochlear implants and hearing aids are available, and do work for people; throwing networking into the mix sounds really unnecessary, in the same way that a smart fridge talking to the internet does.