6 ms·

> Without strong regulation of privacy and consent, this will be a persistent and dangerous issue. It won't be a dangerous issue because no one can force a TV

by oDot 6y ago

> Without strong regulation of privacy and consent, this will be a persistent and dangerous issue. It won't be a dangerous issue because no one can force a TV inside your house/office. Meanwhile leave the rest of us the option to make this trade-off

girvo 6y ago
My ability to watch content produced by one company should not be impinged upon because I don’t consent to frankly gross privacy violations by another entirely unrelated company. This is exactly what regulation is for. Privacy should be protected. You and I can make this trade-off. My parents? They don’t. We protect those who aren’t well versed in a topic through regulation for this reason.
- oDot 6y ago
  You are not obligated to buy anything you disapprove of
  - Shared404 6y ago
    > We protect those who aren’t well versed in a topic through regulation for this reason. You're still missing the crux of the matter. You can't disapprove of something you don't know about. In addition (Slightly OT, but related), there are many people who do disapprove, but have to have access to a product/service in order to do their job. The only way to protect them is regulation.
    - oDot 6y ago
      I get it -- beyond a certain point this sort of thing becomes fraud, which is already illegal. Regarding the job example -- the employer is also a human being, and if they want to get that TV they may. If you disapprove of that, you don't have to work there. Either way, best if you keep your private conversations out of the office.
      - Shared404 6y ago
        > I get it -- beyond a certain point this sort of thing becomes fraud, which is already illegal. True. I suppose that the people asking for more regulation (myself included in this instance) would mostly just like for those laws to actually have teeth in this sort of situation. Unfortunately, lawmakers/enforcers mostly fall in the "not knowing" category. Also, my apologies if I came across as overly combative, that was not my intention. > If you disapprove of that, you don't have to work there. Unfortunately, many people do not have the option to drop a job and find a better work environment. I have some other views on this, but that would be OT for this thread. > Either way, best if you keep your private conversations out of the office. Definitely agree on that.
    - eru 6y ago
      > You're still missing the crux of the matter. You can't disapprove of something you don't know about. Well, it sounds like the regulation you might want is something that oDot could also live with: a requirement for full disclosure and clear labeling, but not a ban on anything.
      - Shared404 6y ago
        I would be quite fine with that. Maybe something akin to the labels required on cigarettes (in the US at least).
  - eaandkw 6y ago
    Affordable Care Act
  - willis936 6y ago
    Like poisoned water? Consumer protection exist for a good reason.
Dahoon 6y ago
1) If it is dangerous in his situation is not up to you to decide. Saying he shouldn't get a TV is like saying to someone to not get internet. Please... 2) Being OPT-in would not stop you from using it. I'm very curious why you feel so strongly that SmartTV's should be allowed to send data without anyone's knowledge?
swiley 6y ago
Sometimes I'm worried my gf will get upset that I can't watch something on the projector and want to get a TV. I could absolutely see that happening if something weird happens with widevine.
matthewmacleod 6y ago
No, it is dangerous because it subverts even quite well-informed expectations of a product. If I purchase and install an appliance, and do not connect it to a network, I have a reasonable expectation that it will not not send my personal data to the manufacturer. It is unlikely that consumers will anticipate hidden data-gathering being performed by products. We already enforce standards to validate that products will not do things like burst into flames, or emit toxic gases. It is equally reasonable to require that products being sold to customers meet acceptable levels of protection for private data. Additionally, you are still welcome to make that trade-off for yourself. Regulation requires that you are informed and in some cases consent to data-gathering. It does not require it to not exist.
- oDot 6y ago
  That sounds like borderline fraud, which does not require any additional regulation
- eru 6y ago
  > Additionally, you are still welcome to make that trade-off for yourself. Regulation requires that you are informed and in some cases consent to data-gathering. It does not require it to not exist. Nobody mentioned yet what kind of regulation they are talking about. I reckon oDot was objecting to an outright ban, but would accept a disclosure requirement.
pacamara619 6y ago
> It won't be a dangerous issue because no one can force a TV inside your house/office. No, but the government forces me to pay for the public TV stations and there is no way to opt out. So yes, I do want a TV in my home. Inb4 sunk cost fallacy.

by oDot 6y ago

girvo 6y ago

My ability to watch content produced by one company should not be impinged upon because I don’t consent to frankly gross privacy violations by another entirely unrelated company. This is exactly what regulation is for. Privacy should be protected. You and I can make this trade-off. My parents? They don’t. We protect those who aren’t well versed in a topic through regulation for this reason.

oDot 6y ago
You are not obligated to buy anything you disapprove of
- Shared404 6y ago
  > We protect those who aren’t well versed in a topic through regulation for this reason. You're still missing the crux of the matter. You can't disapprove of something you don't know about. In addition (Slightly OT, but related), there are many people who do disapprove, but have to have access to a product/service in order to do their job. The only way to protect them is regulation.
  - oDot 6y ago
    I get it -- beyond a certain point this sort of thing becomes fraud, which is already illegal. Regarding the job example -- the employer is also a human being, and if they want to get that TV they may. If you disapprove of that, you don't have to work there. Either way, best if you keep your private conversations out of the office.
    - Shared404 6y ago
      > I get it -- beyond a certain point this sort of thing becomes fraud, which is already illegal. True. I suppose that the people asking for more regulation (myself included in this instance) would mostly just like for those laws to actually have teeth in this sort of situation. Unfortunately, lawmakers/enforcers mostly fall in the "not knowing" category. Also, my apologies if I came across as overly combative, that was not my intention. > If you disapprove of that, you don't have to work there. Unfortunately, many people do not have the option to drop a job and find a better work environment. I have some other views on this, but that would be OT for this thread. > Either way, best if you keep your private conversations out of the office. Definitely agree on that.
  - eru 6y ago
    > You're still missing the crux of the matter. You can't disapprove of something you don't know about. Well, it sounds like the regulation you might want is something that oDot could also live with: a requirement for full disclosure and clear labeling, but not a ban on anything.
    - Shared404 6y ago
      I would be quite fine with that. Maybe something akin to the labels required on cigarettes (in the US at least).
- eaandkw 6y ago
  Affordable Care Act
- willis936 6y ago
  Like poisoned water? Consumer protection exist for a good reason.

Dahoon 6y ago

1) If it is dangerous in his situation is not up to you to decide. Saying he shouldn't get a TV is like saying to someone to not get internet. Please... 2) Being OPT-in would not stop you from using it. I'm very curious why you feel so strongly that SmartTV's should be allowed to send data without anyone's knowledge?

swiley 6y ago

Sometimes I'm worried my gf will get upset that I can't watch something on the projector and want to get a TV. I could absolutely see that happening if something weird happens with widevine.

matthewmacleod 6y ago

No, it is dangerous because it subverts even quite well-informed expectations of a product. If I purchase and install an appliance, and do not connect it to a network, I have a reasonable expectation that it will not not send my personal data to the manufacturer. It is unlikely that consumers will anticipate hidden data-gathering being performed by products. We already enforce standards to validate that products will not do things like burst into flames, or emit toxic gases. It is equally reasonable to require that products being sold to customers meet acceptable levels of protection for private data. Additionally, you are still welcome to make that trade-off for yourself. Regulation requires that you are informed and in some cases consent to data-gathering. It does not require it to not exist.

oDot 6y ago
That sounds like borderline fraud, which does not require any additional regulation
eru 6y ago
> Additionally, you are still welcome to make that trade-off for yourself. Regulation requires that you are informed and in some cases consent to data-gathering. It does not require it to not exist. Nobody mentioned yet what kind of regulation they are talking about. I reckon oDot was objecting to an outright ban, but would accept a disclosure requirement.

pacamara619 6y ago

> It won't be a dangerous issue because no one can force a TV inside your house/office. No, but the government forces me to pay for the public TV stations and there is no way to opt out. So yes, I do want a TV in my home. Inb4 sunk cost fallacy.