Apple vs FBI: The privacy disaster is inevitable, but we can prevent the catastrophe

[Read the post]

1 Like

Well I’m stocking up on stupid light bulbs, and my refrigerator doesn’t do anything but be cold.


That’s picture’s pretty great. I propose Pink Floyd’s Empty Spaces as a backing soundtrack.

1 Like

Bohren & der Club of Gore.

1 Like

If it makes you feel any better, the smart home is not expected to be a very fruitful area of IoT development. (No one needs a smart fridge. Everyone knows that. But it’s low-hanging fruit. All the money is expected to go in the first decade to shipping and warehouse management.) That being said, anything voice-controlled is spying on you incidentally.

“and now the tech firms who gathered our data are trying to make money out of privacy”.

Thus proving that no good deed goes unpunished.

Two words. Preventive maintenance.

I for one like when the equipment tells me when it fails, or, even better, when it is about to fail. Simple things like power consumption/efficiency tracking and vibrations monitoring can do wonders here.

1 Like

Two words: Fear less.

Attacks are inevitable.

The erosion of American rights are not.

Freedom over security.

O, Franklins.

1 Like

But what if the part failing is the part responsible for telling you about failures?

1 Like

Then you have several possibilities.

A sensor starts giving different data, in comparison with the old data. (E.g. sensor fails, or falls off…) The failure is visible.

The collection/processing/communication unit fails. You stop receiving data. The failure is visible. (It’s good to have alerts on “device did not send data for [time period]”.)

The evaluation of the data fails (off-device, the control panel). May include an operator not looking at the data. Then you are screwed.

1 Like

HAL 9000: I’ve just picked up a fault in the AE-35 unit.


We have GOT to come up with a witty, zingy rejoinder to the old “If you aren’t doing anything wrong, why are you worried about privacy?” At a dinner party recently, this came up and I just couldn’t give the longer, sensible rejoinders. I could say that privacy-breaking tools quickly migrate to the black market and to organized crime; I could say that lack of privacy is desperately dangerous to people in other repressive countries that don’t have free speech rights; I could say that ubiquitous surveillance results in far more many lives destroyed by false positives than by missing crime; I could talk about presumption of innocence, and I could talk about information overload.
But what I really need is something that is quick and pithy to shut this old argument down. Help!

1 Like

Reaching across the table: “Can I see your phone for a second? Thanks. What’s your passcode?”

This was on the Twitters recently, it makes the same point another way:


This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.