5 ms·

I wish I could go back to the time when I thought this kind of thing was awesome. Nowadays, it's just one more aspect of our private lives that'll be stored on

I wish I could go back to the time when I thought this kind of thing was awesome. Nowadays, it's just one more aspect of our private lives that'll be stored on Google's (or whomever) servers, sold to advertisers, harvested by the NSA, and abused by law enforcement. Add some object recognition to the 3D scanning, and you can start getting marketing messages about how much better [Featured Brand]'s refrigerator would suit your needs, courts will rule that no reasonable person would expect the interior contents of their house to be private and require a search warrant, and the DEA will be able to find something that looks enough like drug paraphenalia in the images from anyone's home to justify a home invasion of whoever their preferred target of the moment is.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- mempko 13y ago
  It isn't paranoia if they are actually watching you.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - yazaddaruvala 13y ago
      The problem is also that, "watching you" is a bad analogy. It implies, like you mention, that the entity has to prioritize who/what they "watch". This is a bad analogy because unlike humans, who can't watch historic events and therefore can only speculate at them (not held up in court), these entities can look back with a high degree of accuracy. The problem, is no longer that someone is "watching you". Its worse. The problem is that someone, one day, could watch your entire life. Then proceed to pull apart events and use them, mostly out of context, against you. I wouldn't call myself paranoid. I'm not doing anything about it. Honestly, if the data was only retained a month, unless needed in a current investigation, I would agree with you, this wouldn't be worth mentioning. However, retention of data is cheap and the data of your life will probably outlast you. As such, the parent posters in this convo have a point, it is something worth giving attention to. PS. And to be quite honest, I don't even care that they can look back at my life and scrutinize me for an email or two. The real fear is that they can pull specific quotes or life choices out of context. You as an individual can't even discredit them because you don't have access to the original files (unless the entity does you a favor and shares them with you). So you can show how innocent the same email quote or life choice is while in context. You are instead left with your memory, and hopefully powerful rhetoric to convince a jury you are innocent.
- pyrocat 13y ago
  I think you meant dystopian. And those are all logical conclusions, based on the information we've learned in the last 8 months.
- discostrings 13y ago
  > All your doing is slippery sloping your way into a cynical Utopian future which exists only within your own psyche. Your comment reeks of paranoia and baseless conspiratorial fear. If all you can think of in relation to the uses of cool and new technology is someone taking advantage of you than this is most likely the wrong industry to be participating in. What you label as "paranoia" and "baseless conspiratorial fear" is better described as "examining the potential consequences of the things we build". You are advocating that we examine only the positive potential uses of the technology we develop and that we ignore the potential consequences, because "we'll work it out and everything will be awesome!", or something. Perhaps the potential consequences will never come to fruition--but it's still very important that we examine them. There's a real shortage of that going on, which is why some people post negative reactions to these developments rather than something more balanced. Stop trying to dismiss those concerns and that conversation--if you're not interested in hearing it or taking part in it, this is likely the wrong discussion forum for you to be participating in.
- T-A 13y ago
  Except Google sold SketchUp back in 2012: http://techland.time.com/2012/04/26/google-sells-sketchup-wait-google-sold-something/ http://techland.time.com/2012/04/26/google-sells-sketchup-wa...
bestdayever 13y ago
Hey I found an article about you. http://www.theonion.com/articles/911-truther-vows-not-to-rest-until-everyone-knows,35319/ http://www.theonion.com/articles/911-truther-vows-not-to-res...
- sneak 13y ago
  Please don't be a dick on HN. There are other places for that.
- redthrowaway 13y ago
  That's unnecessary.
rl3 13y ago
I suppose the good news is that 3D point cloud data in context of a public setting wouldn't be much more invasive than the already-pervasive video surveillance we have today. The bad news is as you say: having mapping data of your private residence siphoned off by third parties, be it government or private industry. I would say I'm as excited as I am worried about the potential for this technology. That said, I think the privacy implications are very similar to Kinect, which is already here. The only difference perhaps being mobility.
- psbp 13y ago
  Did HN react to the Kinect or Kinect 2 this way? It seems like there's a lot of burden put on Google to not do stuff that could be creepy even though that's all they do.
  - bri3d 13y ago
    I can't comment on "HN's reaction" because I don't tend to put much stock in trying to draw a consensus from HN. However, my recollection is that there was a reasonably vocal reaction to the privacy implications of Xbox One / Kinect 2 in gaming and tech media, although they mostly related to the timing of the first Snowden leaks. This article is a pretty good example of the media hype around it: http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/16/4526770/will-the-nsa-use-the-xbox-one-to-spy-on-your-family http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/16/4526770/will-the-nsa-use-t... . I think the "always-on" nature was more criticized than the point-cloud/time-of-flight abilities of the camera, but pushback against more and more ways to collect data attached to equipment made by big tech corporations isn't exclusive to Google.
  - ksk 13y ago
    I suppose the obvious answer is "Because they don't need to mine your data - they already got your money."
- joebobfrank 13y ago
  If you don't want to show something in the map you yourself create of your own home, then just don't include it in the map. Having point cloud data of your home in general is a complete non-issue, I'm sure most of the time the government already has floor plan data for your home.
joebobfrank 13y ago
Seriously?! This kind of talk sounds just like conspiracy theory to me. If the worst case you can come up with for this tech is that the DEA will be able to find pictures of drug paraphernalia YOU YOURSELF take pictures of and upload, then I really can't see why you take issue with this tech. Just don't turn the room mapping service on to take pictures of stuff you don't want online; you're still in control here. Besides, if the government really has it out for you as an individual, they won't need pictures of the inside of your house to justify searching it, I'm sure they can come up with any number of other reasons. Do you put stickers over your phone camera to prevent the DEA spying on your room to see your drug paraphernalia? No? I didn't think so. The possible benefits of this tech are tremendous, and far outweigh any crazy conspiracy theory downsides.
- skywhopper 13y ago
  My comment was somewhat tongue in cheek and hyperbolic, but none of it is outside the range of what goes on with every other similar technology today. My main point was that I used to be excited about stuff like this, but now I just wonder how new tech will be abused to deliver ads.
  - joebobfrank 13y ago
    Such a boring and cynical way to see the world. Even if the technology is used to target ads to you more effectively, how exactly is this a bad thing? How are you being harmed?
wutbrodo 13y ago
I think this probably speaks to some paranoid tendencies more than it does to the environment that Tango exists in.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

mempko 13y ago
It isn't paranoia if they are actually watching you.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - yazaddaruvala 13y ago
    The problem is also that, "watching you" is a bad analogy. It implies, like you mention, that the entity has to prioritize who/what they "watch". This is a bad analogy because unlike humans, who can't watch historic events and therefore can only speculate at them (not held up in court), these entities can look back with a high degree of accuracy. The problem, is no longer that someone is "watching you". Its worse. The problem is that someone, one day, could watch your entire life. Then proceed to pull apart events and use them, mostly out of context, against you. I wouldn't call myself paranoid. I'm not doing anything about it. Honestly, if the data was only retained a month, unless needed in a current investigation, I would agree with you, this wouldn't be worth mentioning. However, retention of data is cheap and the data of your life will probably outlast you. As such, the parent posters in this convo have a point, it is something worth giving attention to. PS. And to be quite honest, I don't even care that they can look back at my life and scrutinize me for an email or two. The real fear is that they can pull specific quotes or life choices out of context. You as an individual can't even discredit them because you don't have access to the original files (unless the entity does you a favor and shares them with you). So you can show how innocent the same email quote or life choice is while in context. You are instead left with your memory, and hopefully powerful rhetoric to convince a jury you are innocent.
pyrocat 13y ago
I think you meant dystopian. And those are all logical conclusions, based on the information we've learned in the last 8 months.
discostrings 13y ago
> All your doing is slippery sloping your way into a cynical Utopian future which exists only within your own psyche. Your comment reeks of paranoia and baseless conspiratorial fear. If all you can think of in relation to the uses of cool and new technology is someone taking advantage of you than this is most likely the wrong industry to be participating in. What you label as "paranoia" and "baseless conspiratorial fear" is better described as "examining the potential consequences of the things we build". You are advocating that we examine only the positive potential uses of the technology we develop and that we ignore the potential consequences, because "we'll work it out and everything will be awesome!", or something. Perhaps the potential consequences will never come to fruition--but it's still very important that we examine them. There's a real shortage of that going on, which is why some people post negative reactions to these developments rather than something more balanced. Stop trying to dismiss those concerns and that conversation--if you're not interested in hearing it or taking part in it, this is likely the wrong discussion forum for you to be participating in.
T-A 13y ago
Except Google sold SketchUp back in 2012: http://techland.time.com/2012/04/26/google-sells-sketchup-wait-google-sold-something/ http://techland.time.com/2012/04/26/google-sells-sketchup-wa...

bestdayever 13y ago

Hey I found an article about you. http://www.theonion.com/articles/911-truther-vows-not-to-rest-until-everyone-knows,35319/ http://www.theonion.com/articles/911-truther-vows-not-to-res...

sneak 13y ago
Please don't be a dick on HN. There are other places for that.
redthrowaway 13y ago
That's unnecessary.

rl3 13y ago

I suppose the good news is that 3D point cloud data in context of a public setting wouldn't be much more invasive than the already-pervasive video surveillance we have today. The bad news is as you say: having mapping data of your private residence siphoned off by third parties, be it government or private industry. I would say I'm as excited as I am worried about the potential for this technology. That said, I think the privacy implications are very similar to Kinect, which is already here. The only difference perhaps being mobility.

psbp 13y ago
Did HN react to the Kinect or Kinect 2 this way? It seems like there's a lot of burden put on Google to not do stuff that could be creepy even though that's all they do.
- bri3d 13y ago
  I can't comment on "HN's reaction" because I don't tend to put much stock in trying to draw a consensus from HN. However, my recollection is that there was a reasonably vocal reaction to the privacy implications of Xbox One / Kinect 2 in gaming and tech media, although they mostly related to the timing of the first Snowden leaks. This article is a pretty good example of the media hype around it: http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/16/4526770/will-the-nsa-use-the-xbox-one-to-spy-on-your-family http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/16/4526770/will-the-nsa-use-t... . I think the "always-on" nature was more criticized than the point-cloud/time-of-flight abilities of the camera, but pushback against more and more ways to collect data attached to equipment made by big tech corporations isn't exclusive to Google.
- ksk 13y ago
  I suppose the obvious answer is "Because they don't need to mine your data - they already got your money."
joebobfrank 13y ago
If you don't want to show something in the map you yourself create of your own home, then just don't include it in the map. Having point cloud data of your home in general is a complete non-issue, I'm sure most of the time the government already has floor plan data for your home.

joebobfrank 13y ago

Seriously?! This kind of talk sounds just like conspiracy theory to me. If the worst case you can come up with for this tech is that the DEA will be able to find pictures of drug paraphernalia YOU YOURSELF take pictures of and upload, then I really can't see why you take issue with this tech. Just don't turn the room mapping service on to take pictures of stuff you don't want online; you're still in control here. Besides, if the government really has it out for you as an individual, they won't need pictures of the inside of your house to justify searching it, I'm sure they can come up with any number of other reasons. Do you put stickers over your phone camera to prevent the DEA spying on your room to see your drug paraphernalia? No? I didn't think so. The possible benefits of this tech are tremendous, and far outweigh any crazy conspiracy theory downsides.

skywhopper 13y ago
My comment was somewhat tongue in cheek and hyperbolic, but none of it is outside the range of what goes on with every other similar technology today. My main point was that I used to be excited about stuff like this, but now I just wonder how new tech will be abused to deliver ads.
- joebobfrank 13y ago
  Such a boring and cynical way to see the world. Even if the technology is used to target ads to you more effectively, how exactly is this a bad thing? How are you being harmed?

wutbrodo 13y ago

I think this probably speaks to some paranoid tendencies more than it does to the environment that Tango exists in.