6 ms·

Well, that I call a literal foot in the door. I am waiting for the "I have nothing to hide" folks to call for "privacy and personal space is sacred" when people

Well, that I call a literal foot in the door. I am waiting for the "I have nothing to hide" folks to call for "privacy and personal space is sacred" when people are going to start to incriminate themselves with domestic abuse/violence or tax evasion, etc. Internet-connected "smart homes" are beyond stupid.

account-5 6y ago
I have no problems with the police doing their jobs, and were I the police I'd be definitely looking for these devices to aid an investigation. What I don't like or want is these multinational, but US based, companies spying in my home. And I don't want my neighbours doing the same. Were I to have cameras installed they would not be from an internet ad network. Beyond stupid is correct!
arthur_sav 6y ago
People can just NOT buy these things. We vote with our money, if we keep buying then they will keep invading our privacy.
- rat9988 6y ago
  Why should we only vote with out money. We have other means to vote why are they vilified?
  - sn_master 6y ago
    Like what? How can you "vote" against what a giant corporation does?
    - matt_f 6y ago
      I suspect he/she means we have the ability to vote in our political system, which _does_ have the ability to influence what corporations are/aren't allowed to do.
      - sn_master 6y ago
        That's far harder to do tho. It's not uncommon for politicians to deprioritize issues after getting elected or even use certain events to strengthen the state security apparatus. If 49% voted for more privacy, they'd lose to the 51%, but if 49% stopped using those service, it'll force the companies to implement better privacy options.
    - kgermino 6y ago
      Well, voting for one thing. My mayor doesn’t have a ton of control over what the police department does; but they obviously can influence it. Similarly for the state legislature. We also have laws defining advertising standards and protecting privacy. You can vote for people who would require that relationships like this be disclosed, or ban police use of private cameras without the owner’s direct consent. Or define ownership of the videos from cameras like this to say that the manufacturer has no right to use or share the footage.
- sn_master 6y ago
  Problem is, people have unrealistic expectations of privacy from the marketing these companies do. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqFWcI7TcTs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqFWcI7TcTs
- DoingIsLearning 6y ago
  The main issue is that people that are disturbed by this and the people buying connected IOT such as this are not vastly overlapping groups. Assuming a front door ring camera scenario, the main privacy invasion is not inflicted upon you but on your front door neighbour, which, at least in many European terraced house neighbourhoods, is literally a living room window a few meters away.
- 542354234235 6y ago
  > People can just NOT buy these things. You cannot sell yourself into slavery. You cannot sign a contract if you are a child. You can’t give up your right to basic work safety standards. The government does not allow people to enter into fundamentally abusive or exploitative agreements. I’m all for voting with your money when it comes to quality. When it comes to basic rights to privacy for you and those around you, this is not a free market issue, it is a rights issue. The police are overstepping and it should not be allowed.
  - missedthecue 6y ago
    What's the difference between selling yourself into slavery and working a job? In both cases, you're getting paid to do labor, and you're doing so voluntarily
    - DougN7 6y ago
      Most slaves don’t get to leave when the work loses it’s luster
sn_master 6y ago
If you ever interact with law enforcement in a non-friendly way, even something like being depressed and someone doing a invoking a wellness check, or getting SWATted, you'll know very very quickly how invasive cops are, and how they give themselves uninvited access to everything in your apartment, smartphone and anything else they find. Doesn't matter if six months later it's admissible or not to court, the damage would have already been done, if not legally, then mentally and psychologically on you. The "I have nothing to hide" is similar to the "I don't need a gun" or "I don't need a car" that people living in big safe cities with plenty of police/transit say, ignoring the fact that the other half of the country is living in areas with nearby forests/wild animals and less law enforcement and plenty of crime and everything is far apart. Plenty of people out there have issues in their lives and they do need the privacy to keep themselves sane.

account-5 6y ago

I have no problems with the police doing their jobs, and were I the police I'd be definitely looking for these devices to aid an investigation. What I don't like or want is these multinational, but US based, companies spying in my home. And I don't want my neighbours doing the same. Were I to have cameras installed they would not be from an internet ad network. Beyond stupid is correct!

arthur_sav 6y ago

People can just NOT buy these things. We vote with our money, if we keep buying then they will keep invading our privacy.

rat9988 6y ago
Why should we only vote with out money. We have other means to vote why are they vilified?
- sn_master 6y ago
  Like what? How can you "vote" against what a giant corporation does?
  - matt_f 6y ago
    I suspect he/she means we have the ability to vote in our political system, which _does_ have the ability to influence what corporations are/aren't allowed to do.
    - sn_master 6y ago
      That's far harder to do tho. It's not uncommon for politicians to deprioritize issues after getting elected or even use certain events to strengthen the state security apparatus. If 49% voted for more privacy, they'd lose to the 51%, but if 49% stopped using those service, it'll force the companies to implement better privacy options.
  - kgermino 6y ago
    Well, voting for one thing. My mayor doesn’t have a ton of control over what the police department does; but they obviously can influence it. Similarly for the state legislature. We also have laws defining advertising standards and protecting privacy. You can vote for people who would require that relationships like this be disclosed, or ban police use of private cameras without the owner’s direct consent. Or define ownership of the videos from cameras like this to say that the manufacturer has no right to use or share the footage.
sn_master 6y ago
Problem is, people have unrealistic expectations of privacy from the marketing these companies do. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqFWcI7TcTs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqFWcI7TcTs
DoingIsLearning 6y ago
The main issue is that people that are disturbed by this and the people buying connected IOT such as this are not vastly overlapping groups. Assuming a front door ring camera scenario, the main privacy invasion is not inflicted upon you but on your front door neighbour, which, at least in many European terraced house neighbourhoods, is literally a living room window a few meters away.
542354234235 6y ago
> People can just NOT buy these things. You cannot sell yourself into slavery. You cannot sign a contract if you are a child. You can’t give up your right to basic work safety standards. The government does not allow people to enter into fundamentally abusive or exploitative agreements. I’m all for voting with your money when it comes to quality. When it comes to basic rights to privacy for you and those around you, this is not a free market issue, it is a rights issue. The police are overstepping and it should not be allowed.
- missedthecue 6y ago
  What's the difference between selling yourself into slavery and working a job? In both cases, you're getting paid to do labor, and you're doing so voluntarily
  - DougN7 6y ago
    Most slaves don’t get to leave when the work loses it’s luster

sn_master 6y ago

If you ever interact with law enforcement in a non-friendly way, even something like being depressed and someone doing a invoking a wellness check, or getting SWATted, you'll know very very quickly how invasive cops are, and how they give themselves uninvited access to everything in your apartment, smartphone and anything else they find. Doesn't matter if six months later it's admissible or not to court, the damage would have already been done, if not legally, then mentally and psychologically on you. The "I have nothing to hide" is similar to the "I don't need a gun" or "I don't need a car" that people living in big safe cities with plenty of police/transit say, ignoring the fact that the other half of the country is living in areas with nearby forests/wild animals and less law enforcement and plenty of crime and everything is far apart. Plenty of people out there have issues in their lives and they do need the privacy to keep themselves sane.