2 ms·

Yes, you understand correctly. I am willing to give up some amount of privacy in exchange for some features, like pretty much everybody who uses some kind of co

Yes, you understand correctly. I am willing to give up some amount of privacy in exchange for some features, like pretty much everybody who uses some kind of connected device. I'm aware of the level of privacy and control that I want to have of the data I produce, and have set the appropriate settings. I am reasonably confident that the tools provided to control this do what they say. It's possible that Amazon is lying to me, but I have no immediate reason to think that is the case. I don't find this odd, counterintuitive, or unusual in any way. "I trust Amazon! Except not entirely... But I trust them when they give me the option to make them more trustworthy! Kinda..." More like… "I trust Amazon to do the things that they say they do, and this is the extent to which I am willing to risk my data on that". It's literally a spy device No, it's literally not. People have a justifiable reason to not trust anything about these devices People are entirely free to make their own decisions about what level of trust they are willing to place on third parties. It's nowhere near a "dumb argument". Yes, the argument that anybody who uses one of these devices has then essentially no right to control or complain about the privacy of them is obviously dumb.

kempbellt 6y ago
> No, it's literally not. Yes, it literally is. It's a remote-accessible listening device, controllable by someone who is not you. By any classical definition, this is a spy device... > Yes, the argument that anybody who uses one of these devices has then essentially no right to control or complain about the privacy of them is obviously dumb. Moving goal posts and bordering a straw-man argument by adding the "no right to control" part, but saying it's obviously dumb doesn't make it so and isn't productive conversation. When you buy third-party hardware running third-party software that you cannot audit yourself, there is implicit risk that the device can do nefarious things. I don't explicitly believe that Amazon is doing anything malicious, but I also don't trust their systems implicitly. One developer with the right access can potentially remote-access any device, anywhere... I understand this risk, and I believe you do as well, but I also don't go around complaining that this risk exists. This is implicit in purchasing third-party products, which is the underlying point the argument tries to make...

kempbellt 6y ago

> No, it's literally not. Yes, it literally is. It's a remote-accessible listening device, controllable by someone who is not you. By any classical definition, this is a spy device... > Yes, the argument that anybody who uses one of these devices has then essentially no right to control or complain about the privacy of them is obviously dumb. Moving goal posts and bordering a straw-man argument by adding the "no right to control" part, but saying it's obviously dumb doesn't make it so and isn't productive conversation. When you buy third-party hardware running third-party software that you cannot audit yourself, there is implicit risk that the device can do nefarious things. I don't explicitly believe that Amazon is doing anything malicious, but I also don't trust their systems implicitly. One developer with the right access can potentially remote-access any device, anywhere... I understand this risk, and I believe you do as well, but I also don't go around complaining that this risk exists. This is implicit in purchasing third-party products, which is the underlying point the argument tries to make...