Breaking news: Water is wet, study finds

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Apache

I own a single jewelry store. I do use a POS System to keep track of my inventory, employees and customers. I do not sell their information nor use it except for store use. Warranties and purchase history mostly. I only use word of mouth for advertising and that keeps me extremely busy.

And keeping this kind of information is expected in business. But it's not the same as recording your customers' private conversations at home.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Before the Internet, you had to give your info to the bank to get an account. You had to give your info to get a credit card. You had to give your info to your employer. You had to give your info to your doctor You had to give your info to the library to get a library card. You've had to give your info to lots of businesses to be able to live your life.

Not the same thing. And even before the Internet, when I worked at Radio Shack for a summer, we were supposed to get customer information so we could send them flyers. Often the customers would respond to the question, "Your name?" with "C-A-S-H." In other words, "none of your business."

Originally Posted by JSWolf

How is giving your info to Amazon, Apple, Google, and other big companies any different?

It's different in that they have devices that record your private conversations in your home. Completely different. I have an Amazon account, with my address and payment options on file (traditional information for businesses). I don't have an Echo device that listens in and records my conversations. Not necessary when buying from Amazon and definitely not the same thing.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Personally, I've never had a problem with my info being out there. Once my bank contacted me and told me that one site where I used my card was hacked and they sent me a new card overnight. I was not inconvenienced at all.

Well, personally I do. I believe in privacy.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I don't want to live in a cave. I just want to live my life and I do. If I was to be that paranoid about privacy, I may as well stop living.

"Living in a cave" is a far cry from having your conversations recorded in the privacy of your own home. Few people realize what having your privacy violated really means, until it is abused.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

You can expect whatever you’d like until the cows come home. It’s logical that Amazon et al would have stronger safeguards against that data being breached because they’re under more scrutiny and pressure than your local corner store, further they’ve got the resources and don’t keep your data on a computer protected by a door lock.

In utopia, maybe. In the real world it's a pipe dream. In case you haven't noticed, private information is constantly being "leaked" to the press these days (even in high government offices with classified information). Expecting corporations to "do the right thing" with your private information is optimism on steroids. Amazon even has a "Law Enforcement Portal" that allows police agencies to request specific information about Amazon's customers. This obviously means that this data is stored and available on request — and that means that it can be leaked or stolen by a hacker.

Originally Posted by MGlitch

Interesting that you cling to your choice of doing business with those small businesses yet criticize others for making a choice to do business with Amazon et al. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and if you insist on holding your right to choose to give your information away to certain businesses so to should others be free to do so without you decrying their choices and demeaning them.

And once again you defend Amazon by conflating normal information collected by businesses (collecting addresses, phone numbers, payment methods) with recording private conversations in the customers' own homes.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by rcentros

In utopia, maybe. In the real world it's a pipe dream. In case you haven't noticed, private information is constantly being "leaked" to the press these days (even in high government offices with classified information). Expecting corporations to "do the right thing" with your private information is optimism on steroids. Amazon even has a "Law Enforcement Portal" that allows police agencies to request specific information about Amazon's customers. This obviously means that this data is stored and available on request — and that means that it can be leaked or stolen by a hacker.

Did I ever say Amazon were unhackable? No. But the barrier for entry is higher for them than it is for a mom and pop shop. To believe otherwise is foolish. Especially as more of the mom and pop shops opt in to using various cashier apps running on tablets potentially sending your data who knows where on to who knows how secure a system.

And once again you defend Amazon by conflating normal information collected by businesses (collecting addresses, phone numbers, payment methods) with recording private conversations in the customers' own homes.

Both are personal choices, which was the point. It’s hardly a defense of Amazon and much more a defense of individuals right to decide what they are comfortable with, you and GMW for example aren’t comfortable with having an echo device in your home. Bully for you, no one is going to force you to and no one has demeaned you or those who agree with you for your opinion. GMW however had on several posts in this thread stated or implied those who disagree with him to be at best nieve, or intentionally ignorant. Ignoring several people pointing out they were aware of the potential risks and considered the convenience to outweigh those risks.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

Where did I ever say Amazon were unhackable? No. But the barrier for entry is higher for them than it is for a mom and pop shop. To believe otherwise is foolish. Especially as more of the mom and pop shops opt in to using various cashier apps running on tablets potentially sending your data who knows where on to who knows how secure a system.

It depends on who wants to get through the barrier. It seems like the gate is easily opened for government entities.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/custo...SDRGWQ2C2CRYEF

And here's the latest bi-annual report...

https://d1.awsstatic.com/Information...r_2021_bia.pdf

Note that the data does not include "national security requests" (whether foreign or domestic). Also note that data requests are "mainly" (not exclusively) for information stored on the AWS cloud (pictures, etc.). So we have no idea how often "national security requests" have been made or how often Amazon has supplied the information — or what information Amazon has supplied and whether it was obtained by recordings from Echo devices. And, as domestic "national security laws" (which is used to spy on Americans) are changed, the compliance levels by Amazon can change. For example, after Republicans swept Virginia's statewide elections (mostly on concerns about what the schools were teaching children) the Federal government started surveilling parents at school board meetings (labeling these parents who opposed boys in girl's bathroom and CRT as potential, so-called "terrorist threats"). Has this agency requested information on any of these parents via the "national security" portal at Amazon? We don't know. That information is not released to the public. Just one example of how corporate data gathering and government overreach (to punish political enemies) can easily result in abuse of privacy.

Originally Posted by MGlitch

are personal choices, which was the point. It’s hardly a defense of Amazon and much more a defense of individuals right to decide what they are comfortable with, you and GMW for example aren’t comfortable with having an echo device in your home. Bully for you, no one is going to force you to and no one has demeaned you or those who agree with you for your opinion. GMW however had on several posts in this thread stated or implied those who disagree with him to be at best nieve, or intentionally ignorant. Ignoring several people pointing out they were aware of the potential risks and considered the convenience to outweigh those risks.

I understand that it's a choice. I just don't think most people fully understand exactly what they are choosing. Full consent can only be obtained when full information is provided.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by rcentros

As I usually respond to (what I consider) the vacuous "what do you have to hide?" argument — would you have written your love letters on postcards? (For those who still remember what letters and postcards were.)

Sure. I wrote plenty of sappy love notes on postcards. Why not?

And for the record: I believe in privacy too. It's a real thing. I just don't value it that highly. It's not that I have "nothing to hide". It's more that I have zero ****'* to give.

[ZodWallop]

So the attached showed up in my Google feed. I haven't searched for this on any browser, but I did talk about this there's in front of Google's ever listening ears.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

So the attached showed up in my Google feed. I haven't searched for this on any browser, but I did talk about this there's in front of Google's ever listening ears.

I talk in front of Alexa all the time, but with the mic turned off.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

So the attached showed up in my Google feed. I haven't searched for this on any browser, but I did talk about this there's in front of Google's ever listening ears.

Meanwhile Facebook is serving me adds for rings, bracelets, necklaces, and (I kid you not) Japanese style pants.

I generally wear jeans bought from a local mom and pop shop. I don’t wear jewelry unless you count an Apple Watch with a silicone band as jewelry.

Twitter serves me up sports news, and gambling sites. I don’t care about sports beyond a very basic yay home team, and I don’t gamble legally or otherwise.

Google does serve me up some relevant ads on occasion though generally Google.com is more often just the generic Google logo with empty search under it. All the ads are for things I’ve spent a decent amount of time searching and looking at online.

Amazon emails me reconditions for items after I’ve purchased them or if I’ve spent a good chunk of time searching and looking at specific results.

I don’t have any of the various smart speakers, but I do use Siri on my iPhone from time to time. I’d presume this operates under a similar enough fashion that I should see some results if they’re using it to spy on me. If they are I guess they’re not interested in selling me anything or can’t figure out what they can sell me based on what they might have captured.

I’m not exactly quivering in my boots here, if there’s some grand conspiracy its left arm doesn’t know what its right arm is doing, it’s got two left feet, and it’s blindfolded and gagged.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

Ironic that you're calling people who are concerned with their security weird while agreeing with those railing against companies to protect their security. These are people who, were they here, would very much be in the security over convenience camp. For the record, I'm not saying your reasons aren't valid, but then again I'm in the convenience over security camp.

I think they are weird for giving me false information rather than telling me they do not wish to give me that information.
Apache

[gmw]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

[...] GMW however had on several posts in this thread stated or implied those who disagree with him to be at best nieve, or intentionally ignorant. Ignoring several people pointing out they were aware of the potential risks and considered the convenience to outweigh those risks.

I think that's an unfair characterisation, for example my very first post on this thread started:

Originally Posted by gmw

On a personal, it's all about me level, I can appreciate the argument, and even agree that too often the opposing arguments assume too much. Not everyone is ignorant of their lack of privacy. [...]

Yes, I have been guilty of a few gross generalisations ... although as generalisations go I think they hold up pretty well. It's not a huge surprise that some people are making a reasonably well informed choice, but what do you suppose the percentage is? If I ignored some posts it's mostly been to try and avoid repeating myself.

With some security situations any failure is a complete failure, but this need not be the case with privacy. This is not an all-or-nothing situation. Doing better, without necessarily offering a panacea, is possible, to which end I've offered examples that do just that. If the demand existed then the situation would improve - but as I've already noted, it seems apparent that the demand does not exist, and whether that's through ignorance or not caring is largely irrelevant.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

Amazon emails me reconditions for items after I’ve purchased them

[...]
I’m not exactly quivering in my boots here, if there’s some grand conspiracy its left arm doesn’t know what its right arm is doing, it’s got two left feet, and it’s blindfolded and gagged.

Indeed, I am baffled by the logic of pitching me ads for things I've already bought.

Does the algorithm assume I'm starting a collection of coffee machines?

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by gmw

I think that's an unfair characterisation, for example my very first post on this thread started:

I never said all your posts, and to be fair once you were called out you did walk back what you'd said.

And perhaps you drew more of my attention on this than you really deserved, I've just seen one side insist the other must have ignorant members. While the other side has not demeaned the other at all.

I'm sure that in gross general terms there are people who are unaware of the situation, but I'm equally sure that there are people who are overly paranoid. However until those who are actually engaged in the debate demonstrate either of these qualities neither is worth bandying about.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Sure. I wrote plenty of sappy love notes on postcards. Why not?

Good question.

Postal workers are forbidden to read U.S. mail addressed to others. Googling, it seems to have been forbidden as long ago as 1877.

What about our landline? Is there now a law against the carrier listening in as part of, say, a sincere effort to monitor call quality? I'm guessing yes, but don't know for sure. It was commonplace for operators to listen in on calls long after 1877.

In the 1970's. I had a party line. It wasn't mandatory, but you had to pay extra for private service. This was another reason why post cards were more private than telephones.

[jhowell]

Originally Posted by ApK

Indeed, I am baffled by the logic of pitching me ads for things I've already bought.

Does the algorithm assume I'm starting a collection of coffee machines?

I believe those ads are placed by others selling that product through Amazon. They are probably hoping you won’t like the coffee maker that you already bought and will return it and try another brand.