5 ms·

No device should be allowed to be sold without the ability to function without telemetry or sale of data to third parties. And telemetry and any data sharing sh

No device should be allowed to be sold without the ability to function without telemetry or sale of data to third parties. And telemetry and any data sharing should be opt in, as part of configuring the thing the first time. With a one click opt out of all.

mjevans 2y ago
Default Opted Out Opt In should NOT be required to enable features. Features should not be rented, and should be delivered as purchased with the car. Shipped but disabled features that take up additional vehicle weight (relative to lacking the feature) should not be allowed. (This phrasing is precise, to allow for silicon and software enhancements which are not a material change to vehicle manufacturing / design.) Setup processes should always empower the user. If there are multiple choices or paths a default may be indicated, but alternatives MUST NOT be in other locations, and MUST be displayed with equal prominence in a logically adjacent section of the dialog. Example from a website: 'Paperless' should not be force enabled by default; the ability to have paper or paperless billing should be radio boxes next to each other. Additional benefits (E.G. higher account interest rates) should not be tied to either selection.
- IanCal 2y ago
  Devils advocate here If this made it more expensive, because having cars that are physically different is harder, would you prefer that? Why can't I simply not care that I don't get something I've not paid for and there's a doodad in the car that's capable of it? If the alternative is having to buy that feature or pay more for a car that doesn't have it, that sounds like a bad outcome.
  - shakna 2y ago
    It's a question of ownership. If I see fit to modify something I own, as has always been done, why am I not free to utilise a particular piece of my purchase? If I'm not free to do so - then do I actually still own my own product? Or is it now a lease? Why should the era of rebuilding your car simply end? There are already safety regs you need to comply with. The average hotrod modifies a considerable proportion of the car. Reusing the majority of the structure in ways the manufacturer did not intend.
    - IanCal 2y ago
      I think you're talking about something related but not discussed here, which would be making car modifications illegal. Let's say BMW make heated seats an optional extra, which it already is. What if they also install them in every car because it's cheaper to have one build, and subsequently are able to sell them more competitively - none of that would require making it illegal for you to get the seats working yourself.
      - shakna 2y ago
        Not illegal, in so far as I don't believe it's been tested in court - but it is an explicit breach of the giant terms and conditions contract that they require you to sign, when purchasing the vehicle. There is an attempt to prevent you from doing so.
- flir 2y ago
  Although I'm generally pro coming down hard on dark patterns, I'm uncomfortable with that last example. To me, it's just differentiation. You can have the bare-bones service (digital only) with a higher interest rate, or the deluxe service (paper statements, in-country phone support, etc) with a lower interest rate. That doesn't seem inherently bad to me, it seems like a company offering two different products.
ryandrake 2y ago
Expand this to any product. I should be able to use ANY product fully, without maintaining some kind of communication channel to and/or from the product's manufacturer. When I buy a hammer from Home Depot, I take it home and hammer with it. The manufacturer doesn't know I have it, doesn't know how many nails per month I hammer with it, how many swings it takes on average for me to drive in a nail, how often I use the claw side. They don't know if I use it for other purposes besides hammering nails. They don't know if I lend it to my neighbor. I can sell it to someone else without the manufacturer's permission. Somehow hammer manufacturers can live with this. Why can't automakers, tech device manufacturers, and software developers live with this?
- cozzyd 2y ago
  Just wait.... "Your hammer has reached its monthly nail limit. Please upgrade to the pro plan to unlock an additional 60 nails"
  - vaindil 2y ago
    I'm having a really fun time imagining how a hammer would physically prevent you from hammering a nail based on a subscription.
    - anonandy42 2y ago
      [dead]
    - cozzyd 2y ago
      Handle has retractable spikes (digitally retractable mincers, perhaps?) to promote compliance.
    - TeMPOraL 2y ago
      They wouldn't. Instead, they'd try to keep charging you automatically for out-of-plan extra nailing, and if you denied them the ability to charge your CC, they'll put your debt to collections by the end of the month.
- 2y ago

mjevans 2y ago

Default Opted Out Opt In should NOT be required to enable features. Features should not be rented, and should be delivered as purchased with the car. Shipped but disabled features that take up additional vehicle weight (relative to lacking the feature) should not be allowed. (This phrasing is precise, to allow for silicon and software enhancements which are not a material change to vehicle manufacturing / design.) Setup processes should always empower the user. If there are multiple choices or paths a default may be indicated, but alternatives MUST NOT be in other locations, and MUST be displayed with equal prominence in a logically adjacent section of the dialog. Example from a website: 'Paperless' should not be force enabled by default; the ability to have paper or paperless billing should be radio boxes next to each other. Additional benefits (E.G. higher account interest rates) should not be tied to either selection.

IanCal 2y ago
Devils advocate here If this made it more expensive, because having cars that are physically different is harder, would you prefer that? Why can't I simply not care that I don't get something I've not paid for and there's a doodad in the car that's capable of it? If the alternative is having to buy that feature or pay more for a car that doesn't have it, that sounds like a bad outcome.
- shakna 2y ago
  It's a question of ownership. If I see fit to modify something I own, as has always been done, why am I not free to utilise a particular piece of my purchase? If I'm not free to do so - then do I actually still own my own product? Or is it now a lease? Why should the era of rebuilding your car simply end? There are already safety regs you need to comply with. The average hotrod modifies a considerable proportion of the car. Reusing the majority of the structure in ways the manufacturer did not intend.
  - IanCal 2y ago
    I think you're talking about something related but not discussed here, which would be making car modifications illegal. Let's say BMW make heated seats an optional extra, which it already is. What if they also install them in every car because it's cheaper to have one build, and subsequently are able to sell them more competitively - none of that would require making it illegal for you to get the seats working yourself.
    - shakna 2y ago
      Not illegal, in so far as I don't believe it's been tested in court - but it is an explicit breach of the giant terms and conditions contract that they require you to sign, when purchasing the vehicle. There is an attempt to prevent you from doing so.
flir 2y ago
Although I'm generally pro coming down hard on dark patterns, I'm uncomfortable with that last example. To me, it's just differentiation. You can have the bare-bones service (digital only) with a higher interest rate, or the deluxe service (paper statements, in-country phone support, etc) with a lower interest rate. That doesn't seem inherently bad to me, it seems like a company offering two different products.

ryandrake 2y ago

Expand this to any product. I should be able to use ANY product fully, without maintaining some kind of communication channel to and/or from the product's manufacturer. When I buy a hammer from Home Depot, I take it home and hammer with it. The manufacturer doesn't know I have it, doesn't know how many nails per month I hammer with it, how many swings it takes on average for me to drive in a nail, how often I use the claw side. They don't know if I use it for other purposes besides hammering nails. They don't know if I lend it to my neighbor. I can sell it to someone else without the manufacturer's permission. Somehow hammer manufacturers can live with this. Why can't automakers, tech device manufacturers, and software developers live with this?

cozzyd 2y ago
Just wait.... "Your hammer has reached its monthly nail limit. Please upgrade to the pro plan to unlock an additional 60 nails"
- vaindil 2y ago
  I'm having a really fun time imagining how a hammer would physically prevent you from hammering a nail based on a subscription.
  - anonandy42 2y ago
    [dead]
  - cozzyd 2y ago
    Handle has retractable spikes (digitally retractable mincers, perhaps?) to promote compliance.
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    They wouldn't. Instead, they'd try to keep charging you automatically for out-of-plan extra nailing, and if you denied them the ability to charge your CC, they'll put your debt to collections by the end of the month.
2y ago