4 ms·
If forced to, users may forego privacy for convenience. But in the case of ring there's no reason users shouldn't be able to expect both.
by nomilk 4y ago
If forced to, users may forego privacy for convenience. But in the case of ring there's no reason users shouldn't be able to expect both.
- phailhaus 4y agoBut they don't. They see the product, it's useful to them, they buy it. Practically nobody is doing research into privacy practices of the things they buy. It's only a problem if it becomes a news story.
- danaris 4y agoYou're missing the "informed" part of "informed consent". 20 years ago, if the world's biggest online retailer had a particular security camera that was their most recommended, chances are it would just be a pretty good security camera. Today, that retailer is deliberately pushing its own products that compromise our privacy so they can collect more data on us in hopes of making more money—and, if that weren't enough, providing it to the police with no warrant, no consent, and no recourse. In my experience, most "average people"—not tech-savvy people, and not conspiracy nuts—fall into one of two camps on privacy: Either they don't understand that their privacy is likely to be violated by something like Ring, or they do, but they've come to the conclusion that there's no hope for privacy and just given up. In neither of these cases can true informed consent be possible.