4 ms·
> I don't think you'd want a world where that wasn't true. Again, I'm speechless at the level of indoctrination. It is for my own good! I'll be working on my
by mlaX 6y ago
> I don't think you'd want a world where that wasn't true.
Again, I'm speechless at the level of indoctrination. It is for my own good!
I'll be working on my next business idea. A shower head with an invisible camera that streams to the manufacturer for the protection of the shower user. After all, he might slip and the device could call an ambulance.
The shower head could monitor if the user is overweight and send some weight-loss ads. It is for the user's own good!
Also, I'll make it opt-out, and the opt-out process will be in a shrink wrap license.
It is all for our own good!
- gindely 6y ago> Also, I'll make it opt-out, and the opt-out process will be in a shrink wrap license. I do not understand this point.
- winkeltripel 6y agoIt's the idea that you can opt out, but the process is not simple or advertised. It will probably involve a notary, registered post and a fax of your government-issued ID.
- dmos62 6y agoYou're too quick on the trigger. Going from a smart device to a smart device that tracks is technologically trivial. If you consider that the problem, you'll end up retreating to the 1800s. That's why I said that surveillance will always be "at our fingertips". I don't think that mass surveillance is for our own good. Why would I call it abuse if I though it were?
- glacyx 6y agoIt would be going back to the period of 1995-2005. IoT devices are often evil, and I would no longer be surprised if anyone took the above business "idea" as a manual and went ahead with it. It would have been unthinkable 20 years ago, and those were better times in that respect (and many others).