From: antispam@fricas.org
Don Y wrote:
> 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.
Well, that is a feature, not a bug. Business wants to get
private data.
>> 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.
Yes, exactly.
> 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.
Yes, business bets they they will be able to monetize data that
they collect.
>> 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??
I am affraid that this will not be a real concern to manufactures.
At worst they will charge premium for devices without data
collection capabilities. And do not forget power of state and
insurers: today insurers offer lower premium for cars that report
to them various driving events, that may be vastly expanded.
Similarly, state can mandate use of equipement that collect
data about you.
I think that majority of people that undertand those issues are
against such developement. But a lot of people do not
understand. And powerful forces in USA work to make sure
that popular dissatisfaction does not lead to any meaningful
oposition.
--
Waldek Hebisch
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
