6 ms·

Is there a good reason to put minors in a separate group here, aside from legal aspects or that it just 'feels' like a worse offense to the casual reader? I as

by ve55 7y ago

Is there a good reason to put minors in a separate group here, aside from legal aspects or that it just 'feels' like a worse offense to the casual reader? I ask because a lot of common arguments in this area don't seem to apply here that well. I'm not sure adults and adolescents on average have that much better of an understanding of how technology like this works in general (in terms of what is tracked and what your rights to that data are) - so mentioning that the kid didn't consent doesn't seem to change much, because adults using this technology don't understand what is being done behind the scenes either.

Angostura 7y ago
Adults are presumed to able to give informed consent, given a clear explanation of how that data will be used.
- crankylinuxuser 7y ago
  I saw an Echo Dot on sale at Krogers (supermarket, midwest US) for $20 today. No, I won't install any sort of 1984-level spy machines in or around my house. But this is easily within 'mow a lawn' budget for a kid. If I was younger, I might have considered it for 'cool' factor. But there's no restriction at Kroger like there is for alcohol(21) or cigarettes(18) or cold pills(18). A 10 year old could buy it and leave the store... And yet, this $20 purchase is more dangerous long-term than 3 packs of cigarettes, a bottle of whiskey, or 2 boxes of cold pills. The data is being used in unknown and likely very unethical ways. There's quite a few questions that could easily cause ramifications for decades down the line. Examples are: 1. Asking about drugs 2. Asking about child abuse 3. Talking about suicide 4. Expressing sentiment that is now or will be persecuted 5. Private conversations that were never meant heard by a 3rd party That data will always be attributed to them, no matter how they try to shed from it. Who would Amazon 'share' it with? We have no clue; European rules would indicate they didn't have the rights to sell/share to begin with, but we US citizens have no such rights. And for that 10-15 year old, they could very well have the rest of their life to deal with that fallout. Damn, I'm glad that my childhood didn't have cell phones, or all this spytech, or ubiquitous always-on-always-snooping computer platforms. I truly can't relate to what kids go through these days, with in-person AND online presence, being on the edge of a gen-x'er and millenial.
  - scarejunba 7y ago
    It is literally not more dangerous than three packs of ciggies. Are you kidding me? That is prima facie ludicrous and you have to present pretty strong evidence of that. My childhood had append-only bulletin boards and I put a lot of stuff in there that I am never going to delete. Guess what? I'm fine. And have been for twenty years. On the other hand, getting off cigarettes changed my fucking life. Jesus Christ. "Worse than 3 packs of cigarettes."
    - crankylinuxuser 7y ago
      Addicted and 3 packs are very different things. I would agree by far that being addicted to nicotine and smoking cigarettes is terrifically deleterious. But I said only 3 packs. Not 4, not 5, or more. And with https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1117323/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1117323/ , 3 packs is 60 cigs at a total of "11 hours" shortened lifespan. > "My childhood had append-only bulletin boards and I put a lot of stuff in there that I am never going to delete. Guess what? I'm fine. And have been for twenty years." How many of those had geospacial data, telemetry, chat logs, real names policy, email logs, and more attributed to you? Kids these days do have all of that. We never did.
      - scarejunba 7y ago
        Perhaps if you'll help me understand what 'dangerous' means to you here. I will wager⁰ $1000 that if there were two kids of equivalent lives and you give one an Echo and the other 3 packs of cigarettes, boy 2 will die earlier, have a lower quality of life throughout, and have a higher likelihood of drug abuse. Geospatial data, telemetry, chat logs, real names, email logs (we had that one, it's all our mailing list stuff). That is nothing in the face of burning tar in your lungs. I will wager actual money down on this. If you're in SF, I will send someone to meet you or your equivalent representative, with a contract you may discuss with him. 0: In fact, the $1k is intentionally low to encourage you to participate. I will do $10k. I am very convinced of my thesis: introduction to cigarettes is far more dangerous than introduction to voice assistants and will continue to be far more dangerous for the remainder of the century.
Barrin92 7y ago
If adults don't understand the technology and kids don't consent, isn't that exactly a scenario where we should at least protect the children, given that its widely accepted in most countries that children can't actually enter commercial relationships on their own?
- ve55 7y ago
  While protecting the kids would be nice, it results in a large inconsistency to apply it here, given the level of control we allow parents to have over their kids in many areas. For example, parents have near-complete jurisdiction over the diet of their children and can therefore cause significant health issues at their own discretion (or just due to lack of nutritional knowledge). This is (at least at the current moment) a significantly larger issue for kids than if Amazon has personal data on them or not. Accordingly, it seems strange for us to want the government to intervene with respect to data on children, but not with respect to a child's diet.
  - hrktb 7y ago
    Government can and mostly do intervene in respect to child diet as well.
    - ve55 7y ago
      I said 'near-complete' in attempt to include edge cases. Most parents definitely make their own decisions as to what to feed their kids rather than letting the government make them, just as they decide what to teach their kids.
      - hrktb 7y ago
        It wildly depends on where you live I guess, but I expect a large portion of kids to eat lunch at school, and school meals are regulated.
  - dvdbloc 7y ago
    Whataboutism

by ve55 7y ago

Angostura 7y ago

Adults are presumed to able to give informed consent, given a clear explanation of how that data will be used.

crankylinuxuser 7y ago
I saw an Echo Dot on sale at Krogers (supermarket, midwest US) for $20 today. No, I won't install any sort of 1984-level spy machines in or around my house. But this is easily within 'mow a lawn' budget for a kid. If I was younger, I might have considered it for 'cool' factor. But there's no restriction at Kroger like there is for alcohol(21) or cigarettes(18) or cold pills(18). A 10 year old could buy it and leave the store... And yet, this $20 purchase is more dangerous long-term than 3 packs of cigarettes, a bottle of whiskey, or 2 boxes of cold pills. The data is being used in unknown and likely very unethical ways. There's quite a few questions that could easily cause ramifications for decades down the line. Examples are: 1. Asking about drugs 2. Asking about child abuse 3. Talking about suicide 4. Expressing sentiment that is now or will be persecuted 5. Private conversations that were never meant heard by a 3rd party That data will always be attributed to them, no matter how they try to shed from it. Who would Amazon 'share' it with? We have no clue; European rules would indicate they didn't have the rights to sell/share to begin with, but we US citizens have no such rights. And for that 10-15 year old, they could very well have the rest of their life to deal with that fallout. Damn, I'm glad that my childhood didn't have cell phones, or all this spytech, or ubiquitous always-on-always-snooping computer platforms. I truly can't relate to what kids go through these days, with in-person AND online presence, being on the edge of a gen-x'er and millenial.
- scarejunba 7y ago
  It is literally not more dangerous than three packs of ciggies. Are you kidding me? That is prima facie ludicrous and you have to present pretty strong evidence of that. My childhood had append-only bulletin boards and I put a lot of stuff in there that I am never going to delete. Guess what? I'm fine. And have been for twenty years. On the other hand, getting off cigarettes changed my fucking life. Jesus Christ. "Worse than 3 packs of cigarettes."
  - crankylinuxuser 7y ago
    Addicted and 3 packs are very different things. I would agree by far that being addicted to nicotine and smoking cigarettes is terrifically deleterious. But I said only 3 packs. Not 4, not 5, or more. And with https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1117323/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1117323/ , 3 packs is 60 cigs at a total of "11 hours" shortened lifespan. > "My childhood had append-only bulletin boards and I put a lot of stuff in there that I am never going to delete. Guess what? I'm fine. And have been for twenty years." How many of those had geospacial data, telemetry, chat logs, real names policy, email logs, and more attributed to you? Kids these days do have all of that. We never did.
    - scarejunba 7y ago
      Perhaps if you'll help me understand what 'dangerous' means to you here. I will wager⁰ $1000 that if there were two kids of equivalent lives and you give one an Echo and the other 3 packs of cigarettes, boy 2 will die earlier, have a lower quality of life throughout, and have a higher likelihood of drug abuse. Geospatial data, telemetry, chat logs, real names, email logs (we had that one, it's all our mailing list stuff). That is nothing in the face of burning tar in your lungs. I will wager actual money down on this. If you're in SF, I will send someone to meet you or your equivalent representative, with a contract you may discuss with him. 0: In fact, the $1k is intentionally low to encourage you to participate. I will do $10k. I am very convinced of my thesis: introduction to cigarettes is far more dangerous than introduction to voice assistants and will continue to be far more dangerous for the remainder of the century.

Barrin92 7y ago

If adults don't understand the technology and kids don't consent, isn't that exactly a scenario where we should at least protect the children, given that its widely accepted in most countries that children can't actually enter commercial relationships on their own?

ve55 7y ago
While protecting the kids would be nice, it results in a large inconsistency to apply it here, given the level of control we allow parents to have over their kids in many areas. For example, parents have near-complete jurisdiction over the diet of their children and can therefore cause significant health issues at their own discretion (or just due to lack of nutritional knowledge). This is (at least at the current moment) a significantly larger issue for kids than if Amazon has personal data on them or not. Accordingly, it seems strange for us to want the government to intervene with respect to data on children, but not with respect to a child's diet.
- hrktb 7y ago
  Government can and mostly do intervene in respect to child diet as well.
  - ve55 7y ago
    I said 'near-complete' in attempt to include edge cases. Most parents definitely make their own decisions as to what to feed their kids rather than letting the government make them, just as they decide what to teach their kids.
    - hrktb 7y ago
      It wildly depends on where you live I guess, but I expect a large portion of kids to eat lunch at school, and school meals are regulated.
- dvdbloc 7y ago
  Whataboutism