Amazon outdoing PRISM

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by JD Gumby

If you get *addressed* promos, anyways. Dunno about the US Postal Service, but Canada Post dumps spam (which they get paid to distribute, of course) in everyone's mailboxes 2-3 times a week (at least they're good about respecting "No Flyers" and "No Unaddressed Mail" signs).

Same in the UK.

[DiapDealer]

Privacy has always required effort/initiative and sacrifice on the part of those dedicated to zealously guarding theirs (ever hear of a hermit?). No reason to believe that's ever going to change. Especially when you "leave" the confines of your own mudhut--be that physically or virtually. You can't mingle and expect a third-party to legislate away everyone's ability to "see|notice|remember" you whenever you do so. Not realistically anyway. In order to have privacy, you must BE a private person. Which entails not conducting your affairs in public corridors (or at least limiting your exposure though judicious and knowledgeable use of the tools available to conduct those affairs).

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by JD Gumby

If you get *addressed* promos, anyways. Dunno about the US Postal Service, but Canada Post dumps spam (which they get paid to distribute, of course) in everyone's mailboxes 2-3 times a week (at least they're good about respecting "No Flyers" and "No Unaddressed Mail" signs).

Isn't the current paranoia that companies are getting sneakier? So for example they could distribute to everyone on your street.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Isn't the current paranoia that companies are getting sneakier? So for example they could distribute to everyone on your street.

Companies have always done that kind of thing - it's nothing new. Eg, I quite often get leaflets through my door from local estate agents targeting the street I live on.

[cfrizz]

Originally Posted by TadW

What good are these devices with Internet turned off?

They are plenty good enough for me. When I need to I can call someone or occasionally text them, and I can read and play any game that doesn't require internet access just fine on my tablet & readers.

We all managed to get along just fine before any of these things were invented and survived to talk about. Do they make some things in our lives more convenient absolutely. But all of us can choose how much or how little we utilize them. So long as I have the choice on how I choose to utilize them that is all I care about.

I don't care about companies expectations wanting us to be connected all the time, I will decide when I want to be connected and then turn on those features so that I am, once I've done what I need to do, I turn them right back off.

I don't need or want to utilize some cloud based service to download my music or books, I just make sure I buy machines with plenty of onboard storage space or a card reader on board to expand my space via sd card.

So long as I have the choice and options to do it this way I'm happy.

[cfrizz]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Privacy has always required effort/initiative and sacrifice on the part of those dedicated to zealously guarding theirs (ever hear of a hermit?). No reason to believe that's ever going to change. Especially when you "leave" the confines of your own mudhut--be that physically or virtually. You can't mingle and expect a third-party to legislate away everyone's ability to "see|notice|remember" you whenever you do so. Not realistically anyway. In order to have privacy, you must BE a private person. Which entails not conducting your affairs in public corridors (or at least limiting your exposure though judicious and knowledgeable use of the tools available to conduct those affairs).

Or to put it another way....USE COMMON SENSE! Thank you!

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by cfrizz

Good god, some of you people are simply unbelievable! If you are that worried about your damn privacy, then get the hell off of your pc & throw it out don't go online for anything whatsoever and live in a cave somewhere! Oh and don't use a cellphone or a pc at work or any current technology.

If it was possible, I'd probably would.

Why does everything have to be connected to the internet and to the manufacturer that creates the product? It only provides marginal functionality to me, but it enables the manufacturer to collect huge amounts of data. "Collecting data" is the only thing that actually seems important nowadays. Everybody's giving away free software and cheap devices, with the sole purpose of "collecting data", so that data can be sold to corporations that can make use of it... or maybe be sold or made available to governments.

I disconnect every app and every device from the internet that I don't need to have connected to be able to use it.

Originally Posted by cfrizz

Or to put it another way....USE COMMON SENSE! Thank you!

Since we're on the repeat ourselves bandwagon: that is easy for most of us to say since we are technologically literate. Yet people who are literate in other senses don't always realize that.

Historically, they've seen their phone calls as private. Why should they expect their email to be anything but? Social networking sites (like Facebook) present themselves as groups of "friends". Why should people expect what they post to go beyond that group (unless a member of the group divulges it)? Some people realize that business transactions are recorded and may be sold to third parties (indeed, that's why a lot of people pay cash), but other people don't see that information being resold because they see the transaction as being closed when the the money and goods are handed over. Again, we know this isn't always the case but that is because we care enough about the technology, privacy, or whatever to seek out that knowledge. Other people care more about other things, so they don't seek out that knowledge (or even know that they should).

What you are talking about is common sense for people like us. It is not necessarily common sense to a teenager who doesn't know the ways of the world, nor is it common sense for the senior who knows the ways of the world in decades past. It is not common sense for a harried parent who knows everything about childrearing but little about business and technology. It is not common sense for the artist or writer who knows how to move people at an emotional level, but faulters when it comes down to understanding the world of numbers. Common sense depends far more upon your place in the world as it does upon the world itself. Please try to understand that because I don't entirely disagree with you. I simply disagree with the black-and-white terms with which you speak and I'm trying to see the world as the rich place that it is.

[BoldlyDubious]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I agree that choices are good, but you need government regulations in order to maintain choices. Do you think that companies would have warranties on electronics if they didn't have to?

I would also add that there are people who do not have as many choices as others have.
For instance, elderly people. They're "adults": so is it their own fault if they are liable to make a wrong choice in the absence of regulations that force companies to explain clearly what that choice entails? Should these people avoid the internet at all, just because it came into being when their mind was no more flexible enough to accommodate a radically new way to do things?
Or: what about people who are simply not educated enough to recognize fishy, deliberately obfuscated Terms and Conditions when they read them? Is it their fault if their parents couldn't afford better education for them, of simply were morons and decided not to use money for that?
Most of the times, privacy issues related to computers require at least a basic understanding of how computers, software and internet services work. Not everyone has a grasp on this issues.

Choices, I am afraid, are often available only to strong people (in the widest sense of the word). The weak, the poor, the damaged are frequently deprived of choice, until regulations are set up to restore the balance.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I agree that choices are good, but you need government regulations in order to maintain choices. Do you think that companies would have warranties on electronics if they didn't have to?

If they want repeat business they would.
Well-run companies stand behind their product/service; that is how you earn brand loyalty.

One clear example: a couple years ago there was a debate round these parts on the price of consumer electronics in the US vs Europe and the issue of mandated warranties came up. In the US you could and can buy a $30 DVD player with a 30-day warranty or a $99 name brand model with a year warranty or pay an extra $30 for an extended warranty. With no mandatory warranty, the consumer has a choice. And sometimes a cheap disposable DVD player is all you need, like when you're waiting for BD players to drop in price.

There is no free lunch; protect fools from foolish choices and you deprive somebody who did their homework from the benefits of a fully informed choice.

Everything does not need government action.

Government intervention should come from compelling, broad-based community needs. If somebody is in a trauma center, you treat first and worry about how they got there later; if someone is unemployed and cash strapped through foolish choices you put them on the dole until you teach them to take care of themselves. Those are *serious* community issues.

Somebody worried about their precious privacy over an *optional* commercial install simply does not meet the test of compelling community need required for government action; it sounds more like trying to co-opt government to force personal preference over others' needs.

That is a no-go.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

One clear example: a couple years ago there was a debate round these parts on the price of consumer electronics in the US vs Europe and the issue of mandated warranties came up. In the US you could and can buy a $30 DVD player with a 30-day warranty or a $99 name brand model with a year warranty or pay an extra $30 for an extended warranty. With no mandatory warranty, the consumer has a choice. And sometimes a cheap disposable DVD player is all you need, like when you're waiting for BD players to drop in price.

You can buy a $30 DVD player in the UK, too (eg this one costs about $27) but it will still have the statutory 12 month warranty. Low prices are not an excuse for shoddy goods. Indeed, it's low-priced goods that need the protection that the mandatory warranty offers the purchaser.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You can buy a $30 DVD player in the UK, too (eg this one costs about $27) but it will still have the statutory 12 month warranty. Low prices are not an excuse for shoddy goods. Indeed, it's low-priced goods that need the protection that the mandatory warranty offers the purchaser.

The goods aren't any shoddier. They just don't have the extra warrany cost rolled in.
(The US version of the curtis runs $22.
http://www.amazon.com/Curtis-DVD1046...+DVD1053UK+DVD
The $5 is about the cost of a third-party warranty.)
DVDs are generic tech by now and no-names are about as good as the name brands--tthey're all made in China anyway.
(I was talking a few years back.)

Warranty length is not a reflection of build quality, especially if mandated. All a vendor has to do is contract with an aftermarket warranty service and roll the cost into the price and the product "magically" acquires a longer warranty. No different than the extended warranties retailers love to sell except that consumers don't get a choice.

The point is that the consumer gets to choose what they want and don't have it mandated by a nanny.

There is a difference between addressing predatory practices and mandating a product design and confiuration and in the US producers are given a lot of (non-safety related) leeway. Laws have been overturned over that particular detail.

The way it works in most states, instead of a cookie cutter warranty mandate, manufacturers are required to take back truly shoddy products. (Lemon Laws.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_law

[Ken Maltby]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You can buy a $30 DVD player in the UK, too (eg this one costs about $27) but it will still have the statutory 12 month warranty. Low prices are not an excuse for shoddy goods. Indeed, it's low-priced goods that need the protection that the mandatory warranty offers the purchaser.

The USA, being somewhat larger than your tiny little island, and having different areas of the country develop in a manner that results in a varying view of many things, our separate states have their own laws, regulations and requirements for the conduct of business in their state. Despite federal interstate commerce jurisdiction, you can find where there are products and services that are not available or being offered in some states. Where a state has made requirements that a company finds too onerous, they can and do refuse to do business there. I assume that the same applies to world states.

That said, no company can survive long in the marketplace without complying with a number of non-governmental standards and/or endorsements/ratings organizations requirements. A one year warranty on manufactured goods, is hardly a problem for any company providing goods to today's marketplace.

Luck;
Ken

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The goods aren't any shoddier. They just don't have the extra warrany cost rolled in.
(The US version of the curtis runs $22.
http://www.amazon.com/Curtis-DVD1046...+DVD1053UK+DVD
The $5 is about the cost of a third-party warranty.)
DVDs are generic tech by now and no-names are about as good as the name brands--tthey're all made in China anyway.
(I was talking a few years back.)

Warranty length is not a reflection of build quality, especially if mandated. All a vendor has to do is contract with an aftermarket warranty service and roll the cost into the price and the product "magically" acquires a longer warranty. No different than the extended warranties retailers love to sell except that consumers don't get a choice.

The point is that the consumer gets to choose what they want and don't have it mandated by a nanny.

There is a difference between addressing predatory practices and mandating a product design and confiuration and in the US producers are given a lot of (non-safety related) leeway. Laws have been overturned over that particular detail.

The way it works in most states, instead of a cookie cutter warranty mandate, manufacturers are required to take back truly shoddy products. (Lemon Laws.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_law

The warranty isn't much extra cost to the manufacturer if the products aren't shoddy. Customers still have choices with the warranty because they can get extra warranty.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The goods aren't any shoddier. They just don't have the extra warrany cost rolled in.
(The US version of the curtis runs $22.
http://www.amazon.com/Curtis-DVD1046...+DVD1053UK+DVD
The $5 is about the cost of a third-party warranty.)
DVDs are generic tech by now and no-names are about as good as the name brands--tthey're all made in China anyway.
(I was talking a few years back.)

Same price. The UK price includes VAT. Without VAT it's $21.60.