5 ms·

I think the risk adverse managers messing everything up and the angry responses in this thread are coming from the same place. It's a result of the authoritari

I think the risk adverse managers messing everything up and the angry responses in this thread are coming from the same place. It's a result of the authoritarian lean of our current times. The concept of freedom IMPLYING responsibility has been completely done away with. The operating concept is: adult consumers are like children, and need to be protected. The pathology of this can really be felt when it's a CEO of creators.com complaining that he can't be bothered to use different passwords. In other words, he wants to have all the rights and privileges that come with having the highest levels of social power, but none of the responsibility. It seems he doesn't feel it's fair to be given the responsibility I've seen school children master (keeping different passwords)

gduffy 7y ago
That seems true. I'm a fan of empowering users, with safeguards in place that they can disable if they opt-out and know what they are doing. For a product like this, though, you need to make sure everyone who is ever in eye or ear-shot (or will purchase it used) are considered/informed as well. In my book, once information is equalized, be adults, go nuts.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
Is it authoritarian though, in the paternalistic/patronizing sense? I view it more as abusive. Customers are viewed as children in the sense that it's trivial to just steal a lollipop from a kid, or repeatedly exploit their trust to part them with their lunch money.
- 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
  Can you please specifically say what you want? I mean, how did they fail, what should be done, and how that requirement isn't authoritarian? To be clear, if they broke criminal laws they should go to jail. If they broke civil laws they should be sued. I'm not some crazy anti-gov person, just someone who believes in personal responsibility and that our blame/victim culture is perverse. Your post is filled with innuendos and blame. I'd suggest that if you compare a company to 'stealing a lollipop from a kid' you can provide strong and concrete examples of theft. It's a pretty damning accusation. Also, you are comparing adults making purchasing decisions to someone stealing candy from a kid. To me that sounds like the epitome of authoritarian patronizing. I'm guessing when you say that you don't see yourself as the child, only other adults right?
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    Well, sure: customers are treated like children in the sense that companies correctly notice that non-tech-savvy users have no clue how to evaluate anything about a tech product (nor should they), and exploit it. Regular people can't in advance tell that a device is insecure. Regular people haven't yet learned that a device tied to an Internet service will be a paperweight in a year or two. Regular people don't understand what a botnet is, why is it a bad thing, and that their service-based IoT device is likely to be one for most of its lifetime. My point is simple observation: vendors exploit the extreme information and understanding asymmetry on the market to sell insecure, low quality and abusive offerings. If you haven't noticed it yourself yet and need more direct evidence, follow https://twitter.com/internetofshit https://twitter.com/internetofshit.
    - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
      You have a fact: > vendors exploit the extreme information and understanding asymmetry on the market to sell insecure, low quality and abusive offerings This is true. Now, please tell me how this applies to the FA we are talking about? The FA is about a nest customer using an insecure and exposed password and then complaining about his nest being taken over by a hacker. And this isn't some joe shmoe. This is a CEO. He is complaining. RTFA and you will see. My point: he has not right to complain, his complaint is based on the authoritarian perspective that people need to be protected against themselves. He has no giant information asymmetry which Nest exploited to hurt him. He messed up. Simple. If he can't understand how to keep passwords, he really shouldn't be a CEO, ESPECIALLY of a tech company. And here's a bigger idea, if you can't keep passwords, maybe don't use systems that need them. Just as if you can't drive drunk... maybe not drive or maybe not drink? Blaming beer companies for being abusive (which they can be) is in no way relevant to the RESPONSIBILITY people have to not drink and drive. IF a company sells a defective and bad product, they should and will be sued. If they imply you can drink and drive. Sue. If they imply or say their product doesn't need safe passwords, sue. INAL, but this probably doesn't apply here. Which is why the guy who penned the FA is writing it. He wants to shame nest. And those who are authoritarian inclined seem to me to be backing him up. Instead of seeing the article for what I see it: A captain of industry wanting all the rights and rewards of being a captain of industry, but not having to keep the responsibility of maintaining proper passwords.
- kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
  It is Apple style "we know what's best for you" authoritarianism. Multi-button mice are confusing. USB ports and headphone jacks are ugly. Nobody needs an Escape key. We'll take those away and restrict what you can do with the product to enhance your experience.

gduffy 7y ago

That seems true. I'm a fan of empowering users, with safeguards in place that they can disable if they opt-out and know what they are doing. For a product like this, though, you need to make sure everyone who is ever in eye or ear-shot (or will purchase it used) are considered/informed as well. In my book, once information is equalized, be adults, go nuts.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

Is it authoritarian though, in the paternalistic/patronizing sense? I view it more as abusive. Customers are viewed as children in the sense that it's trivial to just steal a lollipop from a kid, or repeatedly exploit their trust to part them with their lunch money.

4ntonius8lock 7y ago
Can you please specifically say what you want? I mean, how did they fail, what should be done, and how that requirement isn't authoritarian? To be clear, if they broke criminal laws they should go to jail. If they broke civil laws they should be sued. I'm not some crazy anti-gov person, just someone who believes in personal responsibility and that our blame/victim culture is perverse. Your post is filled with innuendos and blame. I'd suggest that if you compare a company to 'stealing a lollipop from a kid' you can provide strong and concrete examples of theft. It's a pretty damning accusation. Also, you are comparing adults making purchasing decisions to someone stealing candy from a kid. To me that sounds like the epitome of authoritarian patronizing. I'm guessing when you say that you don't see yourself as the child, only other adults right?
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Well, sure: customers are treated like children in the sense that companies correctly notice that non-tech-savvy users have no clue how to evaluate anything about a tech product (nor should they), and exploit it. Regular people can't in advance tell that a device is insecure. Regular people haven't yet learned that a device tied to an Internet service will be a paperweight in a year or two. Regular people don't understand what a botnet is, why is it a bad thing, and that their service-based IoT device is likely to be one for most of its lifetime. My point is simple observation: vendors exploit the extreme information and understanding asymmetry on the market to sell insecure, low quality and abusive offerings. If you haven't noticed it yourself yet and need more direct evidence, follow https://twitter.com/internetofshit https://twitter.com/internetofshit.
  - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
    You have a fact: > vendors exploit the extreme information and understanding asymmetry on the market to sell insecure, low quality and abusive offerings This is true. Now, please tell me how this applies to the FA we are talking about? The FA is about a nest customer using an insecure and exposed password and then complaining about his nest being taken over by a hacker. And this isn't some joe shmoe. This is a CEO. He is complaining. RTFA and you will see. My point: he has not right to complain, his complaint is based on the authoritarian perspective that people need to be protected against themselves. He has no giant information asymmetry which Nest exploited to hurt him. He messed up. Simple. If he can't understand how to keep passwords, he really shouldn't be a CEO, ESPECIALLY of a tech company. And here's a bigger idea, if you can't keep passwords, maybe don't use systems that need them. Just as if you can't drive drunk... maybe not drive or maybe not drink? Blaming beer companies for being abusive (which they can be) is in no way relevant to the RESPONSIBILITY people have to not drink and drive. IF a company sells a defective and bad product, they should and will be sued. If they imply you can drink and drive. Sue. If they imply or say their product doesn't need safe passwords, sue. INAL, but this probably doesn't apply here. Which is why the guy who penned the FA is writing it. He wants to shame nest. And those who are authoritarian inclined seem to me to be backing him up. Instead of seeing the article for what I see it: A captain of industry wanting all the rights and rewards of being a captain of industry, but not having to keep the responsibility of maintaining proper passwords.
kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
It is Apple style "we know what's best for you" authoritarianism. Multi-button mice are confusing. USB ports and headphone jacks are ugly. Nobody needs an Escape key. We'll take those away and restrict what you can do with the product to enhance your experience.