5 ms·
> It’s not hard to see why: “smart” has become code for “terrible”. A “smart speaker” is a speaker that eavesdrops on you and leaks all your conversations to di
by kristianc 7y ago
> It’s not hard to see why: “smart” has become code for “terrible”. A “smart speaker” is a speaker that eavesdrops on you and leaks all your conversations to distant subcontractors for giant tech companies. “Smart watches” spy on your movements and sell them to data-brokers for ad-targeting. “Smart TVs” watch you as you watch them and sell your viewing habits to brokers.
I guess that would make the Guardian a “smart website”.
> The problem is that the smart city, as presently conceived, is a largely privatised affair designed as a public-private partnership to extract as much value as possible from its residents
I looked quite hard for any evidence in the article that this was the case other than ‘I don’t know, it feels kind of icky’ but couldn’t find any.
> If you want to page a minibus – something like an Uber Pool, but run by the city, licensed, safe, paying a living wage and not mining your data – you can summon one, and yes, this exposes your identity so that the driver can find you.
Ah, and there’s the nub of it. It’s fine for a responsible (read public-sector) technocrat to mine and process your data, but it’s evil when a company does it.
- SQueeeeeL 7y agoIt's evil if both/either were to collect more information then is necessary and sell it to 3rd parties for analytics. The DMV in some states have started to sell people's data, that's fucked.
- luckylion 7y agoSelling data is a problem, I'm with you so far. Having the government (that also controls the police, the military etc) collect & analyze large amounts of data on citizens is a recipe for disaster even if they never sell that data to a third party. I hear people say "but we can write laws that they cannot use that data for anything nefarious" and I'm amazed that there are still people alive that believe that laws have ever stopped a government. I'm fine with "let's limit the amount of data corporations can collect on citizens", but I'm really not fine with "let's allow the state to collect any data on citizens other than absolutely necessary to provide basic services, at least they don't sell it".
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- falcolas 7y agoThe DMV is less selling it, than people are requesting the DMV records as part of a Government transparency program, and the DMV is applying a service charge to it. They have made this service available for decades. It’s good in that it’s the government providing transparency into the records they hold, and allowing them to be corrected. It’s bad in that it’s a big treasure trove of data for companies or individuals who want to mis-use it.
- _jal 7y agoThe "service charges" came to $42M over 3 years in one state: https://www.wyff4.com/article/the-dmv-sells-your-information-makes-millions/22520650# https://www.wyff4.com/article/the-dmv-sells-your-information...
- citrablue 7y agoIs that a lot, or a little, when compared to the cost of providing the service? Without context, this number is meaningless.
- mandelbrotwurst 7y agoIt doesn't cost $42M to make a CSV file available.
- citrablue 7y agoIs your argument that a CSV file of everyone's data should be publicly accessible? Because that's not what I understand the fee to cover; it covers extra personnel to field and review the requests, computer systems to process it, paper to print it out. It probably also covers supervisors time, office space, printers. Like most government spending, I'm sure it's excessive. However, I'm not clear what your counter-point was. Yes, producing a CSV costs less than $42M. No, producing a CSV file is not what this service entails.
- 7y ago
- tmoravec 7y agoYou could have guessed their conclusion just by checking what domain is it: theguardian.com.
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoI guess Cory Doctorow got no input in what his article said?
- brosinante 7y agoI guess that would make the Guardian a “smart website”. And what an excellent excuse for dismissing all critisism.
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoYou don't seem to have noticed that in concluding "It’s fine for a responsible (read public-sector) technocrat to mine and process your data" you're replying to a quote that explicitly states "and not mining your data". It's perfectly possible to deliver services using only the data necessary to deliver the service. Selling none of it to advertisers or other third parties, gathering nothing other than that necessary to make the service the best you can provide. Not only would it feel a much more equitable exchange for the customers providing the data, it would no doubt end up with a better service. Adding data mining for sale corrupts every service, as they twist to gather ever more for less, or poorer and poorer results. You become a data cow for the milking.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- m463 7y agoSurveillance Mechanisms Abusing Repugnant Technology