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


#1

[Read the post]


#2

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


#3

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


#4

Bohren & der Club of Gore.


#5

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.


#6

“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.


#7

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.


#8

Two words: Fear less.

Attacks are inevitable.

The erosion of American rights are not.

Freedom over security.

O, Franklins.


#9

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


#10

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.


#11

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


#12

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!


#13

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:


#14

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