From: blockedofcourse@foo.invalid   
      
   On 1/10/2026 2:08 AM, Waldek Hebisch wrote:   
   > Don Y  wrote:   
   >>    
   >   
   > IMO, those are not technical failures.  Rather, they show how current   
      
   The comments aren't focused on whether they "work" or not.   
   But, rather, the consequences of their potential adoption.   
      
   A camera in a doorbell, connected to a server owned by a third   
   party, can technically perform as intended.  But, now adds   
   privacy and security issues where they didn't, before.   
      
   Ditto "nanny cams", voice assistants, etc.   
      
   All can "work" remarkably well.  But, have serious costs that   
   the user may not be aware of.   
      
   > economy works.  Remember, goal of a businesses is to make money.   
   > Delivering working product is just cost of doing business.  And   
   > as business improve, there is tendency to cut costs.   
      
   Note that the reviewers are not commenting on the ability of   
   a product to make money.  Rather, their assessment of the   
   downsides of the products from the consumer/societal perspective.   
      
   Bottled water is a wonderful way to make money -- selling tap   
   water in convenient, disposable plastic containers.  But,   
   that doesn't mean it's an idea that folks should champion.   
      
   > Software (especially in USA due to DCMA) is very attractive as   
   > a means to lock down customers into using specific product.   
   > Of course, software is also a cost effective way to deliver   
   > various features (useful or not).  So manufacturers want   
   > many features in software.  And there is long tradition in   
   > software developement to cut cost on testing: just let   
   > customers test your product.   
      
   I didn't see any comments regarding how well/poorly the   
   products performed.  Rather, the unseen consequences of   
   their "specifications" (ignoring execution).   
      
   You *know* that law enforcement agencies contact "camera servers"   
   to obtain video that they use for their purposes, often without   
   the knowledge of the provider of that video.   
      
   If manufacturer A makes privacy "guarantees" today, will they be   
   honored, tomorrow?  Or, will the "fine print" of a future firmware   
   update change those terms knowing most users won't notice what   
   they've agreed to?  If the company is sold, will the new owner   
   be bound by the terms from the previous owner?   
      
   In the US, there is no current legislation protecting your privacy   
   in these devices -- even if the result of the intermediary   
   being maliciously hacked and YOUR data stolen.  I.e., there is no   
   downside to the manufacturer with regard to that aspect.  Yet,   
   the manufacturer can monetize that data as he sees fit.   
      
   > The products in the article clearly represent things that   
   > businesses want to sell.  Some people will buy them because   
   > features look attractive to then.  Other will buy once there   
   > are no alternatives.   
      
   And, others will NOT buy them because they don't welcome the features   
   and their attendant price increases.   
      
   What does the manufacturer do when/if that becomes a real concern?   
   A new model with those features removed??   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)