28 minutes ago, joz said:

So long as we don’t get surveillance cameras in public places, I’d hate them getting a vid of me sctaching or pickin.?

I have a sly vid on my phone of you having a nose pick in your kitchen. Third knuckle job and all.

 

4 hours ago, emesbee said:

Final nail in the coffin of privacy? That seems to be a popular view these days, but it sounds like defeatism to me.

 

Well..... yes, that was my general idea, hence why I would never, ever even think about buying or using  these devices. I am also saddened by the amount of data mining of people's lives by corporations who work largely unfettered, spying on the lives of regular people.

Your words read like there is something you can actually do to cease this trend when all you ( and I ) can do, is to make an individual choice to not buy into the culture, so let's be realistic.

 

Reality and personal preference are quite often just parallel lines.

 

I also acknowledge that other people have a vastly different view on this and they have every right to do whatever they please in their own homes or workplaces. My opinion on this is not personal in any way or judgemental to anybody here. I don't preach. I may not like it but nobody cares about that anyway.

Edited April 12, 20196 yr by rantan

16 minutes ago, Darren69 said:

I have a sly vid on my phone of you having a nose pick in your kitchen. Third knuckle job and all.

 

That’s fine as long as those guys in a control room somewhere aren’t enjoying it.

1 hour ago, joz said:

So long as we don’t get surveillance cameras in public places, I’d hate them getting a vid of me sctaching or pickin.?

Umm cctv

Yea, dats dem.

2 hours ago, Marc said:

 

No. As clearly stated I have nothing to hide therefore no concerns about this at this point in time. I’m entitled to my opinion and stance as much as you’re entitled to your opinion, right to privacy and the extent you wish to fight to uphold that.

 

It’s not even about hiding anything. That misses the point. 

2 hours ago, Darren69 said:

I think (and correct me if wrong) underlying question is 'are we considering everything?

There are many underlying questions. One is “who gave these companies the right to take and own and sell our personal data”

20 minutes ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

There are many underlying questions. One is “who gave these companies the right to take and own and sell our personal data”

The consumer? I just pretended I was interested in a Google Home Mini and looked for one. At the base of the page is the privacy policy.

 

https://www.apple.com/au/legal/privacy/en-ww/

 

I hope you appreciate this, I will now be bloody inundated with Google Home Mini ads.  

1 minute ago, Darren69 said:

The consumer? I just pretended I was interested in a Google Home Mini and looked for one. At the base of the page is the privacy policy.

 

https://www.apple.com/au/legal/privacy/en-ww/

 

I hope you appreciate this, I will now be bloody inundated with Google Home Mini ads.  

Did you read it?

i read somewhere that if you read every privacy policy that you were asked to approve, on average it would take like three months every year. 

 

Is that informed consent?

24 minutes ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

Did you read it?

i read somewhere that if you read every privacy policy that you were asked to approve, on average it would take like three months every year. 

 

Is that informed consent?

Yes, it informs that they will share your info with all of the world and half of the moon.

 

Serious question- do you suggest 'they' should have cigarette-packet-style warning or something on the packaging?

 

It would be interesting if they did. I don't think it would change a thing. Those worried about such stuff are already are awake to it as if you are worried about such stuff you are always seeking it out and those that don't care, don't care.

 

This reminds me a bit of the insurance company bashing where a burst water pipe isn't covered because the policy states a burst water pipe isn't covered.

 

I admit I will never buy a Google Home Mini. I find it weird. Not because it 'invades your 'privacy''. Just because...these sort of devices are weird.  

 

Maybe watched too many 1970's 'evil home tech' movies as a kid. Demon Seed etc.

Edited April 12, 20196 yr by Darren69

1 hour ago, Darren69 said:

Serious question- do you suggest 'they' should have cigarette-packet-style warning or something on the packaging?

No. I think someone should ask the question “does simply asserting the right to use my personal data actually give them the right”

 

To run with your analogy: we should have the conversation about whether cigarettes are legal before we have the conversation about what sort of warnings to put on cigarette packets. 

 

 

6 hours ago, Marc said:

 

No. As clearly stated I have nothing to hide therefore no concerns about this at this point in time. I’m entitled to my opinion and stance as much as you’re entitled to your opinion, right to privacy and the extent you wish to fight to uphold that.

 

4 hours ago, Darren69 said:

.

 

I admit I will never buy a Google Home Mini. I find it weird. Not because it 'invades your 'privacy''. Just because...these sort of devices are weird.  

 

Maybe watched too many 1970's 'evil home tech' movies as a kid. Demon Seed etc.

For whatever reason you are not buying one, it is one less situation where the individual forgoes his/her most private moments and puts their lives in the hands of soul-less corporations. Data mining is now many orders of magnitude more valuable than gold or diamonds. It is the pre eminent source of corporate power in the 21st century.

42 minutes ago, rantan said:

For whatever reason you are not buying one, it is one less situation where the individual forgoes his/her most private moments and puts their lives in the hands of soul-less corporations. Data mining is now many orders of magnitude more valuable than gold or diamonds. It is the pre eminent source of corporate power in the 21st century.

I don't agree, sorry Lindz. When there are set ups now where you cut the internet or telly to get your family to come to the table for dinner, to me that proves the main key to control is through a screen.

 

And no one knows this more than the media.

9 hours ago, Marc said:

 

No. As clearly stated I have nothing to hide therefore no concerns about this at this point in time. I’m entitled to my opinion and stance as much as you’re entitled to your opinion, right to privacy and the extent you wish to fight to uphold that.

 

 

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, I never said otherwise. I was merely stating my opinion, which is different.

 

8 hours ago, rantan said:

Well..... yes, that was my general idea, hence why I would never, ever even think about buying or using  these devices. I am also saddened by the amount of data mining of people's lives by corporations who work largely unfettered, spying on the lives of regular people.

Your words read like there is something you can actually do to cease this trend when all you ( and I ) can do, is to make an individual choice to not buy into the culture, so let's be realistic.

 

Reality and personal preference are quite often just parallel lines.

 

I also acknowledge that other people have a vastly different view on this and they have every right to do whatever they please in their own homes or workplaces. My opinion on this is not personal in any way or judgemental to anybody here. I don't preach. I may not like it but nobody cares about that anyway.

 

I certainly feel that we are swimming against the tide, and it is difficult to see how much we can do as individuals. What does mystify me though is how the term 'privacy' has almost become a dirty word. Many people seem to dismiss it out of hand, and I do find that attitude rather hard to understand.

 

A serious concern about the amount of data mining that is going is how it might be used be used by corporations or other entities as a means of control. One obvious example of that is China's social credit system, which uses surveillance and data gathered about individuals as a tool for social engineering, the aim of which is to encourage (coerce?) individuals into behaviour that the government deems to be acceptable to it by applying rewards, and by applying social penalties to what it considers to be unacceptable behaviour. We would be naive to think that such a system, or at least elements of it, would not be happening here.

 

And I will stress that all this is just my opinion.

 

46 minutes ago, Darren69 said:

I don't agree, sorry Lindz. When there are set ups now where you cut the internet or telly to get your family to come to the table for dinner, to me that proves the main key to control is through a screen.

 

And no one knows this more than the media.

Very true Daz. I agree 100%  but consider this.

 

How do those media outlets target their advertising?

 

The answer is of course that they are provided with data collected by all manner of means, these home devices ,smart phones etc. Once the information is purchased by a media outlet from these data miners they can then target audiences of particular demographics which tells them not only what programs  to show and at what time and the corresponding product aimed at that demographic.

 

If we take Google as a prime example, they have made hundreds of billions but producing................nothing . The obtain information without consent and make obscene amounts of money selling that information. it is not a matter of "well I have nothing to hide",  most of us don't,  but they are not seeking criminals or scams. They are aiming to create  cradle-to-grave life profiles, which we apparently just accept as normal so they make money from your life, without your consent.

Dunno about you but that isn't my world or my reality.

 

It digs far deeper into the collective psyche and learns one's habits and preferences far than many people realise.

 

 

Edited April 12, 20196 yr by rantan

13 hours ago, rantan said:

Very true Daz. I agree 100%  but consider this.

 

How do those media outlets target their advertising?

 

The answer is of course that they are provided with data collected by all manner of means, these home devices ,smart phones etc. Once the information is purchased by a media outlet from these data miners they can then target audiences of particular demographics which tells them not only what programs  to show and at what time and the corresponding product aimed at that demographic.

 

If we take Google as a prime example, they have made hundreds of billions but producing................nothing . The obtain information without consent and make obscene amounts of money selling that information. it is not a matter of "well I have nothing to hide",  most of us don't,  but they are not seeking criminals or scams. They are aiming to create  cradle-to-grave life profiles, which we apparently just accept as normal so they make money from your life, without your consent.

Dunno about you but that isn't my world or my reality.

 

It digs far deeper into the collective psyche and learns one's habits and preferences far than many people realise.

 

 

We should be able to charge them for their use of the information that they gather about us. Google royalties perhaps?

 

Google workers are listening

 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/11/google-home-assistant-listen-recordings-users-privacy

One example of the technology at its best....

 

https://www.news.com.au/technology/gadgets/voicepowered-virtual-assistant-alexa-saves-girlfriend-from-a-beating/news-story/3d7e8cdf045163e2d09a52c269e8e28a

On 12/04/2019 at 2:45 PM, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

No. I think someone should ask the question “does simply asserting the right to use my personal data actually give them the right”

You agree.   This is how the law works.    If contemplating some different system, be very careful what you wish for   

 

 

 

In the future, the ideal is to have systems where you retain the exclusive control over your data.    There will be no "privacy policy" as such.   The data you create, will be stored somewhere you exclusively control.   How it's used will be directly controlled by you.

 

Nobody will have access to what you searched for, unless you let them see it (and you can revoke permission).   You might require a company to pay you for access to your data, for example.

 

On 13/04/2019 at 9:27 AM, emesbee said:

We should be able to charge them for their use of the information that they gather about us.

Systems like this are exactly what is being developed right now.

 

It is not that "they will collect the data" in the future.    You will be  the one creating the data, and you will create it in such a way, that only you can see it or control it (unless you decide otherwise).

3 hours ago, davewantsmoore said:

You agree.   This is how the law works.    If contemplating some different system, be very careful what you wish for   

 

you miss my point. The law shouldn't allow them to impose those conditions

On 13/09/2017 at 2:52 PM, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

Am I the only one who thinks that allowing listening devices into my home is an invasion of privacy? 

Nope.

No. Ars technica keeps a running watch on the excesses that are now business-as-usual.