4 ms·

It's not even a free problem, it's general pricing. Companies constantly seek ways to increase profits, while customers constantly seek bargain basement pricing

It's not even a free problem, it's general pricing. Companies constantly seek ways to increase profits, while customers constantly seek bargain basement pricing.Electronic privacy is not a problem people have dealt with at large, I think. People also often view the competency of corporations much higher than the HN crowd typically does. I think this is the same for any category of information though. Informed people will heavily advise against things that the public just has no idea on. Health is a big one. My question is what can we do aside from running around in panic? It feels hopeless.

ethbro 7y ago
Mandate transparent disclosure. Consumers don't care about these schemes because they largely don't know the details. There should be clear, tobacco-esque disclosure requirements of this sort of thing on the product packaging. If Samsung et al. want to data mine their customers in exchange for lower pricing, they're welcome to do so. What should not be legal is doing so and appearing the same as a company who does not do so. Then the market can make up its own mind.
- inetknght 7y ago
  Transparent disclosure doesn't mean shit when the company can honestly say what it's doing and there's zero repercussions for it.
  - ethbro 7y ago
    Are there? I couldn't point to one IoT / internet-enabled appliance that I would say is transparent about its adtech to non-technical users.
  - jellicle 7y ago
    I think it would make a difference if some TVs came with large stickers mandated on the box, advertising, and included within, that said: "THIS TELEVISION MONITORS ALL OF YOUR VIEWING HABITS AND THE DATA IS SOLD FOR PROFIT. ANY TIME IT IS USED, THE PROGRAM BEING WATCHED IS SENT TO THE MANUFACTURER. IF YOU DECLINE TO BE MONITORED, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO RETURN IT FOR 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF PURCHASE AT NO CHARGE TO YOU." and some did not.
hibbelig 7y ago
I apologize for being dense. Are you saying that informed people will advise against health? I think you meant something different but I’m too dense to understand.
- asdkhadsj 7y ago
  Nah, I just brought up Health as a general topic - one that has a deep pool of knowledge, more than a typical person even remotely knows, and also one that the experts in it's subfields advise against all sorts of things. What to eat, how much to drink, how much to exercise. My step mother didn't even know what a carb was, which I thought was basic understanding on food intake. So I used health as an example of a field where: 1. there is a lot of knowledge 2. the ramifications of not knowing things in that field are fairly high. 3. is a common source of experts advising the public do things differently. Eat less, exercise more, etc. Which I think is somewhat the case here with Privacy and Information Tech. It's a problem that affects the public to some degree of severity, but "they" seem largely unaware of it.

ethbro 7y ago

Mandate transparent disclosure. Consumers don't care about these schemes because they largely don't know the details. There should be clear, tobacco-esque disclosure requirements of this sort of thing on the product packaging. If Samsung et al. want to data mine their customers in exchange for lower pricing, they're welcome to do so. What should not be legal is doing so and appearing the same as a company who does not do so. Then the market can make up its own mind.

inetknght 7y ago
Transparent disclosure doesn't mean shit when the company can honestly say what it's doing and there's zero repercussions for it.
- ethbro 7y ago
  Are there? I couldn't point to one IoT / internet-enabled appliance that I would say is transparent about its adtech to non-technical users.
- jellicle 7y ago
  I think it would make a difference if some TVs came with large stickers mandated on the box, advertising, and included within, that said: "THIS TELEVISION MONITORS ALL OF YOUR VIEWING HABITS AND THE DATA IS SOLD FOR PROFIT. ANY TIME IT IS USED, THE PROGRAM BEING WATCHED IS SENT TO THE MANUFACTURER. IF YOU DECLINE TO BE MONITORED, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO RETURN IT FOR 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF PURCHASE AT NO CHARGE TO YOU." and some did not.

hibbelig 7y ago

I apologize for being dense. Are you saying that informed people will advise against health? I think you meant something different but I’m too dense to understand.

asdkhadsj 7y ago
Nah, I just brought up Health as a general topic - one that has a deep pool of knowledge, more than a typical person even remotely knows, and also one that the experts in it's subfields advise against all sorts of things. What to eat, how much to drink, how much to exercise. My step mother didn't even know what a carb was, which I thought was basic understanding on food intake. So I used health as an example of a field where: 1. there is a lot of knowledge 2. the ramifications of not knowing things in that field are fairly high. 3. is a common source of experts advising the public do things differently. Eat less, exercise more, etc. Which I think is somewhat the case here with Privacy and Information Tech. It's a problem that affects the public to some degree of severity, but "they" seem largely unaware of it.