I found an Amazon folder with thousands of audio recordings from my home gadgets(nypost.com)
nypost.com
I found an Amazon folder with thousands of audio recordings from my home gadgets
https://nypost.com/2021/10/19/i-found-an-amazon-folder-with-thousands-of-audio-recordings-from-my-home-gadgets/
99 comments
Linkedin has also been doing this for years - tens upon tens of different "communication preference" options. They keep adding more, or renaming existing ones and defaulting them to on.
App updates on my phone sometimes silently revert permissions back to defaults.
I just turned auto-updates off after that, and stopped downloading apps for stuff that has a perfectly serviceable website.
I just turned auto-updates off after that, and stopped downloading apps for stuff that has a perfectly serviceable website.
I have a similar experience with iOS. I have disabled every settings I could find related to iCloud. It is pretty clear that I don't want my data stored there, and yet every new app or service enables the iCloud integration.
I love to find out that iCloud got turned on/enabled for something only when I get a notification that my storage is near full. I didn't want to use you in the first place, fuck off already!
The problem is inability to enforce law when it comes to big corporations. They have enough money to buy entire WH so there is nothing you can do about it apart from just not giving them more money.
I wonder if you have the setting to 3 months or none, then later change it to forever, do old recordings suddenly show back up?
I know HN is supposed to give the benefit of the doubt, but this is exactly what I would expect from Amazon at this point: an illusion of choice.
I mean, they are under investigation for lying to Congress, right? If true, what possible reason can we believe that they would not also lie to their customers?
I mean, they are under investigation for lying to Congress, right? If true, what possible reason can we believe that they would not also lie to their customers?
I'm constantly amazed that anyone would willing have an Alexa or Google Home device inside their home. Or anywhere else for that matter.
Your phone also has a microphone.
This line of reasoning is akin to someone giving up on their diet entirely because they ate a single cookie.
Might as well open the floodgates! There’s no point anymore.
Might as well open the floodgates! There’s no point anymore.
That's overly reductionist. It's more like saying that there's no point in raising the drawbridge because there's an open window the enemy can shoot arrows through.
Yours is certainly a more fitting metaphor. But either way the point is that it’s ridiculous to assert that one must be 100% perfect in all their endeavors in order to criticize or critique an action.
In iPhones when you lay down your phone screen down the mic is physically cut off. That's why you can't call "Hey Siri" with a phone laying like that.
Thank you, hadn't realised. I also don't have Amazon or Google apps on my phone so have never worried about it.
"One sec, I'll just turn my house off, I don't want it listening."
Theirs an age old saying in Hindi which basically means "walls have ears".
Now it's literally true.
Now it's literally true.
There is an old saying in Persian which says "Walls have mice, and mice have ears".
دیوار موش داره و موش گوش داره Divar Moosh Dareh, Moosh Goosh Dareh.
دیوار موش داره و موش گوش داره Divar Moosh Dareh, Moosh Goosh Dareh.
Might as well buy all the devices you can then of course!
Yes, but I tried to say "ok google" to my phone, and if I don't press anything, it doesn't switch on.
Not to say it couldn't, but by default, it's not supposed to be listening.
While alexi is.
My intent is different.
Not to say it couldn't, but by default, it's not supposed to be listening.
While alexi is.
My intent is different.
I know someone who is head of critical SRE for a major wall street trading firm (you've definitely heard of them), who has these devices all over their house running everything from window blinds to outdoor accent lighting.
They know very well Amazon is probably listening to and recording every last work spoken in their home, but just cannot see what the big concern is, arguing that Amazon risks massive legal and PR damage if it's ever found out they acted on any information gleaned from his (or anyone's) household audio. I don't understand this risk calculation at all.
They know very well Amazon is probably listening to and recording every last work spoken in their home, but just cannot see what the big concern is, arguing that Amazon risks massive legal and PR damage if it's ever found out they acted on any information gleaned from his (or anyone's) household audio. I don't understand this risk calculation at all.
I tend to agree Amazon probably isn't using the information in untoward ways. Yes, the pr hit alone would be devastating.
But I think you have to calculate in the risk of a leak or hack, which is definitely non-zero. The files exist, so they are a privacy and security risk.
But I think you have to calculate in the risk of a leak or hack, which is definitely non-zero. The files exist, so they are a privacy and security risk.
> I don't understand this risk calculation at all
Either a) they are not using it, or b) if they do use against the terms then a 7-9 figure cheque will be arriving in your letterbox.
If it an 50-50 chance that Jeff is sitting there listening to your friend all day, then risk calculation wise buying a device has a net present value to the buyer of $5mil.
Either a) they are not using it, or b) if they do use against the terms then a 7-9 figure cheque will be arriving in your letterbox.
If it an 50-50 chance that Jeff is sitting there listening to your friend all day, then risk calculation wise buying a device has a net present value to the buyer of $5mil.
[deleted]
Quoting from the article:
> ... another joked: “Can someone explain to me why this is ‘scary’? I’m not interesting enough to care if they have my contacts or audio.”
I used to try to explain to people why they should care about companies and governments vacuuming up vast amounts of data indiscriminately, and I get back "It improves my search results ... why should I care?"
I've given up.
> ... another joked: “Can someone explain to me why this is ‘scary’? I’m not interesting enough to care if they have my contacts or audio.”
I used to try to explain to people why they should care about companies and governments vacuuming up vast amounts of data indiscriminately, and I get back "It improves my search results ... why should I care?"
I've given up.
There’s a large number of people who only care about immediate perceived convenience, and don’t think about the implications of a continual slow eroding of privacy/freedom. Privacy really is freedom. They just don’t think anything bad will happen to them personally to have zero privacy, so why should they care? It’s like the race to the bottom type thing with product quality (and more) when people just want the cheapest product
In all honesty why should I care? It makes things easier for me. Does my life become somehow worse there are recording aromatically stored. I am not looking for a theoretical scenario. At this moment why should I care?
Are you only asking about effects on just you yourself personally or are effects on others also something you are weighing?
For myself, why should I care about other peoples use case. That's irrelevant
The entire reply to my question at this time:
>” For myself, why should I care about other peoples use case. That's irrelevant”
I didn’t actually expect them to be so blunt and honest about the impact on anyone aside from themselves being irrelevant. That reply really speaks for itself and needs no response.
>” For myself, why should I care about other peoples use case. That's irrelevant”
I didn’t actually expect them to be so blunt and honest about the impact on anyone aside from themselves being irrelevant. That reply really speaks for itself and needs no response.
Nobody put it better than Snowden:
"Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say."
"Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say."
There's also a huge difference between keeping something secret and keeping something private.
People close and lock the door when they go to the bathroom, but it's not like the rest of us don't know what you do in there. It's just private.
Just because there's nothing secret in what I do, doesn't mean that I necessarily comfortable with other people knowing.
People close and lock the door when they go to the bathroom, but it's not like the rest of us don't know what you do in there. It's just private.
Just because there's nothing secret in what I do, doesn't mean that I necessarily comfortable with other people knowing.
I'm fairly sympathetic to the "I don't have anything to hide" argument simply because in most cases it's probably true.
The reality is that most people don't have much information worth keeping private (beyond authentication information). Nor do most people have a strong use case for free speech protections. I mean, let's be honest, most folks have boring lives and aren't really saying anything interesting.
That said, some people do have secrets that could be used against them. And some people do have speech/ideas that are dangerous to entrenched authority. Those things are worth protecting and that's why we must be vigilant. You can't protect the good stuff without also protecting all the banal drivel that the rest of us traffic in.
The reality is that most people don't have much information worth keeping private (beyond authentication information). Nor do most people have a strong use case for free speech protections. I mean, let's be honest, most folks have boring lives and aren't really saying anything interesting.
That said, some people do have secrets that could be used against them. And some people do have speech/ideas that are dangerous to entrenched authority. Those things are worth protecting and that's why we must be vigilant. You can't protect the good stuff without also protecting all the banal drivel that the rest of us traffic in.
Most people do have some things to hide.
I think people would be extremely upset if police started buying real time access to GPS data from your phone in order to more efficiently locate speeding cars (instead of setting up post somewhere and wait for a car they feel is speeding "enough to be worth it", or eventually get board of the spot, and just go after one of random cars that is speeding slightly.)
People sometimes do things like planning a surprise for a loved one. sure you might not really care about hiding this from the government, but hiding it from some corporations can be important. Imagine planning a surprise party for your spouse, only to have the surprise ruined by all devices in the house starting to show ads for something you searched for. (I've literally seen this sort of thing happen. I've even had things my parents who live multiple states away look up start showing up in my advertisements, because ad-tech companies correlated a unique identifier for one of my devices with unique identifiers from their devices, because both shared a public IP address for a while when I was visiting a month or so previously.)
People generally have many things they would not be comfortable being generally known. Exactly how much money you make. How much debt you have. How many things you bought out of state that you failed to declare use tax on. The fact they they sometimes use piracy sites or torrents to watch movies or shows from services they don't subscribe to. What type of porn they watch. The list goes on.
Once again, many (but not all) of those are things people don't really care if the government knows. They may only want to keep this information from people who know them, or even specific individuals. But these are still things to hide.
I think people would be extremely upset if police started buying real time access to GPS data from your phone in order to more efficiently locate speeding cars (instead of setting up post somewhere and wait for a car they feel is speeding "enough to be worth it", or eventually get board of the spot, and just go after one of random cars that is speeding slightly.)
People sometimes do things like planning a surprise for a loved one. sure you might not really care about hiding this from the government, but hiding it from some corporations can be important. Imagine planning a surprise party for your spouse, only to have the surprise ruined by all devices in the house starting to show ads for something you searched for. (I've literally seen this sort of thing happen. I've even had things my parents who live multiple states away look up start showing up in my advertisements, because ad-tech companies correlated a unique identifier for one of my devices with unique identifiers from their devices, because both shared a public IP address for a while when I was visiting a month or so previously.)
People generally have many things they would not be comfortable being generally known. Exactly how much money you make. How much debt you have. How many things you bought out of state that you failed to declare use tax on. The fact they they sometimes use piracy sites or torrents to watch movies or shows from services they don't subscribe to. What type of porn they watch. The list goes on.
Once again, many (but not all) of those are things people don't really care if the government knows. They may only want to keep this information from people who know them, or even specific individuals. But these are still things to hide.
It’s a matter of the individual vs collective perspective. In America at least it seems like we have to always find some tie tot he individual because reasoning about collective issues doesn’t gain traction.
I may not have anything to hide, but we have something to fear about an all encompassing surveillance society.
I may not have anything to hide, but we have something to fear about an all encompassing surveillance society.
Nobody knows what will happen in the future.
A fascist leader can be voted in at any moment. And his government has access to all this data...
… which might be the least of your concerns under a fascist regime.
I mean that it doesn’t take an authoritarian regime change for surveillance capabilities to become scary.
It could be your neighbor democracy tapping into your national systems, the national company entrusted with public information to misuse them for profit…
I mean that it doesn’t take an authoritarian regime change for surveillance capabilities to become scary.
It could be your neighbor democracy tapping into your national systems, the national company entrusted with public information to misuse them for profit…
To be fair dictatorial regimes are terrible even without advanced technology.
Ask someone who lived in the USSR, East Germany, Lybia, Syria, et...
Maybe your phone does not snitch on you but your neighbors can
That being true, there is a radical difference in scalability and speed of implementation of an old-fashioned dictatorial regime and the potential that could be achieved with the current ubiquitous technical oligopoly of devices with potential access to voice recordings.
Getting a significant proportion of the population loyal or scared enough to snitch on their neighbours takes time and effort, and that's without counting the infrastructure needed to handle and process the reports. Do the snitches phone a government snitchline, write an email, talk to the officer in charge of their sector? How is the specific identity of the people they are snitching on determined? Which bureaucratic level makes the decision to act on a report, are the reports triaged, can you coalesce the data?
Now compare that with how comparably fast an authoritarian regime with unlimited access to home recordings could keep control of a population, together with the power of large scale voice recognition and data analysis. What's more, under the right circumstances, it could even be implemented with plausible deniability that the regime is even using this data, in the same way that the British Government (if you forgive the unfortunate analogy) was able to make use of the intelligence gathered by Bletchley Park without the Germans ever suspecting their cryptography was being cracked.
Getting a significant proportion of the population loyal or scared enough to snitch on their neighbours takes time and effort, and that's without counting the infrastructure needed to handle and process the reports. Do the snitches phone a government snitchline, write an email, talk to the officer in charge of their sector? How is the specific identity of the people they are snitching on determined? Which bureaucratic level makes the decision to act on a report, are the reports triaged, can you coalesce the data?
Now compare that with how comparably fast an authoritarian regime with unlimited access to home recordings could keep control of a population, together with the power of large scale voice recognition and data analysis. What's more, under the right circumstances, it could even be implemented with plausible deniability that the regime is even using this data, in the same way that the British Government (if you forgive the unfortunate analogy) was able to make use of the intelligence gathered by Bletchley Park without the Germans ever suspecting their cryptography was being cracked.
Exactly. Saddam ruled Iraq with an iron fist and that took a ~20% minority on his side.
Now imagine how small that minority needs to be with modern tech.
Now imagine how small that minority needs to be with modern tech.
Yes, but technology makes the dictatorial regimes more efficient, and increases their reach. Now just imagine a slightly different timeline than our own, in which the coup in January succeeded. Now President for Life Trump takes all Alexa files (and similar from Google and Apple) in existence and scan them for people calling him an asshole. Those people will never get a government job again. If you happened to have called his regime illegal, you get some people in uniform knocking on your door.
And now thanks to vaccine passports they have an easy mechanism to block access to services for wide groups of people. I am 'sure' no government will abuse them to restrict the people they find undesirable, whether those would be an ethnic minority, people of different religion or with opposing political views.
Protests against the thing you are doing? Just find a single infected person in that group, then claim that the entire group must quarantine for two weeks for their safety. Protests over.
Protests against the thing you are doing? Just find a single infected person in that group, then claim that the entire group must quarantine for two weeks for their safety. Protests over.
Agreed.
I liken it to the census in Germany prior to World War II which asked religion, people gave it thinking they were doing nothing wrong. 1939 came around and it was used as a register for genocide.
"Oh that would never happen today..."
https://www.businessinsider.nl/genocides-still-going-on-toda...
It's still happening. Anything you say or do no matter how trivial or meaningless could become a vehicle for your annihilation sometime in the future. Those that don't care about their privacy because they have nothing to hide, clearly haven't given enough thought to the repercussions of loss of privacy.
I liken it to the census in Germany prior to World War II which asked religion, people gave it thinking they were doing nothing wrong. 1939 came around and it was used as a register for genocide.
"Oh that would never happen today..."
https://www.businessinsider.nl/genocides-still-going-on-toda...
It's still happening. Anything you say or do no matter how trivial or meaningless could become a vehicle for your annihilation sometime in the future. Those that don't care about their privacy because they have nothing to hide, clearly haven't given enough thought to the repercussions of loss of privacy.
This. A thousand times this. Unfortunately very few seem to believe that this scenario is possible, even after pointing out that’s exactly how the Nazis operated. The response is almost always a variation of “It will never happen here.” At which point, I lose a little more hope for the future of humanity.
> I liken it to the census in Germany prior to World War II which asked religion, people gave it thinking they were doing nothing wrong. 1939 came around and it was used as a register for genocide.
Do you have a source for this? I remember reading about similar things, but I can't for the life of me remember the sources to give to others.
Do you have a source for this? I remember reading about similar things, but I can't for the life of me remember the sources to give to others.
An interesting Wikipedia read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
Interesting in this instance is also somewhat sickening.
Personally I prefer: "Oh, you say you have nothing to hide? In this case, how about you lend me your smartphone/laptop for a day, unlocked."
This seems simple enough for most people to understand the crazyness of the idea.
This seems simple enough for most people to understand the crazyness of the idea.
I really dislike this comparison. I see it everywhere in privacy communities and I think it should die. That comparison doesn't give anything to the other person. Amazon provides a service whilst violating privacy. The person gets something out from having their privacy violated. Hence the reply "it improves my search results". Your comparison would mean they have their privacy violated, they lose access to their phone for a day, and they get nothing to compensate. Change the comparison to give me your phone for a day and I'll give you £1000 and suddenly you'll get far more different answers.
You can just change to the the following experiment:
You walk into your local grocery store. A store employee, stops you at the door and asks, 'If you hand over your phone for a second, I will quickly copy over its contents onto my computer. Then, while you shop, I will read through your recent your messages, your emails, your browsing history. Based on that, I will recommend a product or two I think you will find useful. Do we have a deal?'
I don't think many people would actually go through with this (rather than just say they would), if we actually did this experiment. Remember, someone got beaten up for wearing google glasses in public and not taking them off when requested. Humans are really bad at thinking in the abstract, but when things are there in the flesh, is when real preferences are revealed.
You walk into your local grocery store. A store employee, stops you at the door and asks, 'If you hand over your phone for a second, I will quickly copy over its contents onto my computer. Then, while you shop, I will read through your recent your messages, your emails, your browsing history. Based on that, I will recommend a product or two I think you will find useful. Do we have a deal?'
I don't think many people would actually go through with this (rather than just say they would), if we actually did this experiment. Remember, someone got beaten up for wearing google glasses in public and not taking them off when requested. Humans are really bad at thinking in the abstract, but when things are there in the flesh, is when real preferences are revealed.
Actually, it sounds awesome, provided they recommend a great product I would not otherwise notice, don't spend too much time copying, etc. Not sure what your problem is with that offer.
> That comparison doesn't give anything to the other person
Hm, you are correct - I haven't looked at it in this way. I guess it's time for another round of questions around my family and workplace!
Hm, you are correct - I haven't looked at it in this way. I guess it's time for another round of questions around my family and workplace!
Give me access to your phone and your email for a couple of days - it will improve our conversations, so many topics suddenly! Effectively this is what search and advertising does - probes on the intimate side of things and exposes them via tuned search or as ad themes.
> Change the comparison to give me your phone for a day and I'll give you £1000 and suddenly you'll get far more different answers.
That may be a better comparison, but with one caveat. If you offer the money in exchange for the phone's data now, the user will balance out the privacy value of what they intuitively believe is on their phone at this very moment.
Instead, the offer should be "I'll give you £1000 now in exchange for the right to access all of your phone's data for a day at the time of my choosing, and without you knowing it beforehand or after the fact".
That may be a better comparison, but with one caveat. If you offer the money in exchange for the phone's data now, the user will balance out the privacy value of what they intuitively believe is on their phone at this very moment.
Instead, the offer should be "I'll give you £1000 now in exchange for the right to access all of your phone's data for a day at the time of my choosing, and without you knowing it beforehand or after the fact".
That way of arguing is too clever for the majority of people. Sadly.
Some people value convenience more over privacy and that is okay. Lots of companies make that way money.
To be fair to Amazon, you can get to this page with just two clicks from the home page: https://www.amazon.com/alexa-privacy/apd/home
From there you can get to all the recordings and control how long to retain them for.
From there you can get to all the recordings and control how long to retain them for.
The fact that this user and and everyone reacting to the news and TikTok video are shocked, it shows that simply having a page is not acceptable and that the average person does not expect this to happen even though they agreed to it in the ToS
> everyone reacting to the news and TikTok video are shocked
reacting to tiktok videos in an overly exagerated shocked manner is exactly the point of tiktok videos, it is not really a reflection of the content.
reacting to tiktok videos in an overly exagerated shocked manner is exactly the point of tiktok videos, it is not really a reflection of the content.
Here are the last entries in mine: https://hsto.org/getpro/habr/upload_files/e55/14c/903/e5514c...
How do you like it, extreme privacy advocates?
How do you like it, extreme privacy advocates?
If I visit someone at home who owns Amazon gear, where do I control my privacy settings?
You don't have an expectation of privacy outside your own property.
So if I have sex at my place I have privacy, whereas at her place she has privacy?
Perhaps wait until we are married and live together?
Sounds not very reasonable.
Perhaps wait until we are married and live together?
Sounds not very reasonable.
If you trust her to maintain your privacy, you can relax. If not, why are you at her place?
And for the UK: https://www.amazon.co.uk/alexa-privacy/apd/home
It's a GDPR and CCPA/CPRA requirement, they are not doing this out of the goodness and transparency of their heart.
So, this person is surprised about the amount of data that Amazon collects on her and posts a video about this on _TikTok_? Oh, the irony :)
I do find it praiseworthy that privacy advocates are present on all channels though.
I do find it praiseworthy that privacy advocates are present on all channels though.
Am I the only one laughing that this person is trying to advocate for privacy and security on TikTok of all places?
That's where the audience is. Not the HN audience obviously, but regular people that see Alexa ads and buy the accursed products.
If she were distributing pamphlets, should she avoid doing so in a public square because it has CCTV cameras everywhere?
If she were distributing pamphlets, should she avoid doing so in a public square because it has CCTV cameras everywhere?
I understand the irony but you have to admit that TikTok has insane reach, especially to younger people.
You need to go where you audience is. There's not much point telling people on HN that Amazon stores your data, most of us already know
There are plenty of good points regarding issues like defaults that you set getting changed and the fact that you are using a device that has to be aware of you speech to function. I agree that we should be aware that we are giving up something in exchange for using any device with a microphone that listens for prompts. Personally I'd rather have an Amazon device on the basis that Amazon doesn't view me as a product (mostly), they view me as a customer and they cherish their customers. It is very deep in the culture they built. Any notion that you might bust the trust of your customers would quickly get squashed within Amazon. This is based on having worked there and having seen this firsthand at the highest levels of the company. The reason I hesitate is that advertising as a business is growing rapidly in Amazon. Advertising puts me in the "product" role which creates a conflict between me as customer and me as product. I sure hope the leadership at Amazon sticks to their guns on the leadership principals. I am also a chrome, android, and gmail user. I'd never use a google voice assistant. This is a bit irrational because the privacy leaking from my browser and email is probably way worse than anything else.
I've never understood the Alexas and Google homes. People complain about the "1984"cation of our society and houses, and then they literally PAY to have an always on microphone in their homes.
You either dont care about it and buy that stuff, or you care and dont put those devices in your private spaces.
You either dont care about it and buy that stuff, or you care and dont put those devices in your private spaces.
> People complain about the "1984"cation of our society and houses, and then they literally PAY to have an always on microphone in their homes.
These are mostly separate groups of people.
These are mostly separate groups of people.
> People complain about the "1984"cation of our society and houses, and then they literally PAY to have an always on microphone in their homes.
They are doing it because they are deep in "Brave New World"ification process and are enjoying it.
They are doing it because they are deep in "Brave New World"ification process and are enjoying it.
People buy it because it's advertised constantly by two of the biggest corporations on earth.
It's also cheap enough that it gets added to shopping carts, then distributed to friends as gifts.
It's also cheap enough that it gets added to shopping carts, then distributed to friends as gifts.
Wow, did they send her wav files? Havn't seen these in a while, thought that if you were to collect millions of audio clips from your customers you would use some compression algorithm, but apparently Amazon does not have to care about such details.
They probably use their own compression internally (not a suitable format for users).
But I'm surprised they didn't send these wav files in extremely high samplerate, to annoy those who request the data.
But I'm surprised they didn't send these wav files in extremely high samplerate, to annoy those who request the data.
My first thought when I saw this video was that I already knew that this was happening. I suppose the only real answer to this type of problem would be regulation about what information can be stored about a user, and for how long. Make everything more Blunt, as well as put limits in place for how long things like audio clips could be stored, I would vote for 24 hours. I don't reckon that they are being actively used for anything beyond that point anyway.
Buy three smart speakers with microphones and several light bulbs and then you get shocked that someone is listening to what you're saying. This is the really shocking part. People need to get educated.
amazon really is the king of dark patterns
Wow, they installed Amazon smart speaker devices and didn't delete the data nor make changes to collection in settings and then is surprised that it exist.
Why do you believe a common user/customer of Amazon's Alexa would know about any of that?
Ignorance only gets you so far. It takes a descent amount of ignorance to not know.
No, ignorance is ingrained. You are very likely ignorant about a lot of non-tech (or work) related stuff. It's impossible to be reasonably informed about every aspect of things in your life.
Ignorance about tech is real, normal mainstream users suffer from it and victim-blaming is a non-solution. People, normal general people, aren't yet understanding privacy implications and the ways you can control those on the products they use. Mass adoption of these technologies will, by default, imply that a large parcel of the customer base is ignorant about its potentially harmful (or morally disputed) sides.
Your point of view is completely unempathetic, being ignorant about tech is the default state in our world, expecting that the solution to dark patterns designed to confuse normal people is to blame the ignorant victims is ultimately pointless.
Ignorance about tech is real, normal mainstream users suffer from it and victim-blaming is a non-solution. People, normal general people, aren't yet understanding privacy implications and the ways you can control those on the products they use. Mass adoption of these technologies will, by default, imply that a large parcel of the customer base is ignorant about its potentially harmful (or morally disputed) sides.
Your point of view is completely unempathetic, being ignorant about tech is the default state in our world, expecting that the solution to dark patterns designed to confuse normal people is to blame the ignorant victims is ultimately pointless.
It isn't just an ignorance of tech, it is an ignorance to things in general. It would be like bringing a stranger into your house where you also have children. Ignorance with tech isn't just an issue with people being ignorant to technology, but overly naive and ignorant in general. Yes, they can claim ignorance but if you bring a stranger into your house and something happens to your child I don't think a judge is going to be all that sympathetic and say... oh, poor you, how could you have known that is a bad idea?!? If you want to enable that, then that is on you but it simply isn't based in reality where that would be a good idea. Buying tech and bringing it into your house that listens to you and is connected to the Internet, and then acting surprised to find out that they keep recordings is on the same level of ignorance. So, yes if you are the type to bring strangers into your house and are surprised when something bad happens, then I can see how you'd be sympathetic.
Your analogy completely breaks down when you, again, fly past the empathetic and pragmatic part of "how things actually are" to "how I think things should be".
Again, people aren't educated about the risks of bringing a tech item into their daily lives, you are taught since a kid to be aware and cautious of strangers. The ignorance is ingrained because our daily/life education hasn't caught up to the reality. Diminishing that reality to fit into your worldview filled with judgment helps nothing, doesn't help to educate anyone and doesn't help the issue at hand.
You're basically soap-boxing, it's quite exhausting to be honest.
Again, people aren't educated about the risks of bringing a tech item into their daily lives, you are taught since a kid to be aware and cautious of strangers. The ignorance is ingrained because our daily/life education hasn't caught up to the reality. Diminishing that reality to fit into your worldview filled with judgment helps nothing, doesn't help to educate anyone and doesn't help the issue at hand.
You're basically soap-boxing, it's quite exhausting to be honest.
> She said: “When I downloaded the ZIP file these are all the folders it came with.”
> The TikToker then ...
And just like that I am out.
> The TikToker then ...
And just like that I am out.
Reviewing the settings today I see Amazon added several new classifications of history (e.g. Smart Home Device History, Recorded Sounds History). Rather than respecting / extrapolating my existing choice, they all defaulted to Forever.
These kind of dark patterns are depressing, but I catch a glimmer of hope when I see people like this raising awareness of them.
To me, it's more than just privacy. It's about simple decency. As a developer I've always felt a strong sense of stewardship for the trust my users have placed in me.