Amazon Sidewalk to go Live on 08 Jun

[haertig]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Not absurd at all. To you maybe, but then you're not everyone. *shrug*

Do you work for Amazon perhaps? I'm with catlady. It's not just absurd. It is totally unethical.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by haertig

Do you work for Amazon perhaps? I'm with catlady. It's not just absurd. It is totally unethical.

Yes. I was planted here long ago to proselytize for my employer. Because that's the ONLY way anyone could be OK with this, right? Looks like I have no corner on the absurdity market, here.

[Deskisamess]

I don't see it as unethical. Many companies automatically sign you up for emails etc. and you have to look for the option to disable or disapprove them. I don't like it, but don't see it as unethical.

Apple's "Find My" is very similar, and a great feature IMO.

And how come anytime someone is ok about something, it means they work for that company?

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Not absurd at all. To you maybe, but then you're not everyone. *shrug*

Why not? You did. I did. Everybody in this thread did. Anybody with an ear heard the media blitz about the June 8 start date. Anybody who owns Amazon hardware who hasn't heard about Sidewalk going live (and the cries to disable it) is living under a rock.

Nope. Not at all. That's where all the FUD comes into play. People are so up in arms about nothing that they don't realize that Sidewalk isn't about data collection or storage. So no, I'm not saying "what's a little bit more." Not at all. Because using Sidewalk isn't giving Amazon any more info about me.

Disable Sidewalk if you want. I don't care. Just stop pretending doing so is closing up some sort of massive privacy/security breach.

Wow. So because YOU know something, everyone who's not "living under a rock" must also know it. OK.

For someone who doesn't care, you seem quite invested in pooh-poohing any and all concerns. Why bother?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Wow. So because YOU know something, everyone who's not "living under a rock" must also know it. OK.

Yes. Because that's exactly what I said, right?

Originally Posted by Catlady

For someone who doesn't care, you seem quite invested in pooh-poohing any and all concerns. Why bother?

Because I hate FUD. I have no problem with someone concerned with data caps. I have no problem with someone who doesn't want to share any amount of their bandwidth with anyone for any reason. I have no problem with anyone who doesn't like the opt-out approach that Amazon chose for the new feature (though I think the bluster about illegality and immorality is just that--bluster). I think those reasons are still wrong-headed, but at least reasonable. But I draw the line at people spreading utterly uniformed FUD about the privacy/security (not to mention the non-existent data gathering aspects) of Sidewalk. It's all just one big knee-jerk.

Why are you (and others) so invested in perpetuating uninformed FUD?

[haertig]

Originally Posted by Deskisamess

I don't see it as unethical. Many companies automatically sign you up for emails etc. and you have to look for the option to disable or disapprove them. I don't like it, but don't see it as unethical.

Would you be OK with some company plugging into your electrical outlets and giving away power to anybody near your house? Or tap into your water mater to give a bit to the neighbors? How about siphoning off a bit of gas out of your cars and giving it to anybody driving by? Maybe they could come into your garage and take a bit of dog food to feed other pets in the neighborhood?

Asking you, and having you grant them permission is one thing. Just doing it without even asking is another.

[haertig]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I've given them my express permission by not disabling it.

You need to look up the difference between "express consent", "implied consent", and "no consent".

Anybody who cares, and who hasn't disabled it yet, is either OK with it, or clearly living under a rock

Living under a rock does not give anyone permission to take something you have paid for - bandwidth - and give it to somebody else. They still have to ask, rock or not. Plus, the majority of Amazon's customers probably do not have the technical background to understand what Amazon is doing here, even if they had previously heard of "Amazon Sidewalk". And like "living under a rock", "being ignorant" does not give anyone permission to take service you have paid for and give it to someone else. Not even a tiny little fraction of that service. It is not theirs to take. Period.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by haertig

You need to look up the difference between "express consent", "implied consent", and "no consent".

No, I don't.

I (meaning me and no one else), being well informed and completely aware of the consequences and risks well before the Jan 8th live date, give Amazon my express permission to use a portion of my bandwidth for their new Sidewalk feature by choosing NOT to easily and quickly disable it before the aforementioned live date using the instructions and warnings posted virtually everywhere.

And as I already said countless times: I have no beef with people being miffed about the opt-out method, or not wanting to share their bandwidth. My beef is people inventing new security/privacy risks associated with Sidewalk based on uninformed FUD.

[Deskisamess]

Originally Posted by haertig

Would you be OK with some company plugging into your electrical outlets and giving away power to anybody near your house? Or tap into your water mater to give a bit to the neighbors? How about siphoning off a bit of gas out of your cars and giving it to anybody driving by? Maybe they could come into your garage and take a bit of dog food to feed other pets in the neighborhood?

Asking you, and having you grant them permission is one thing. Just doing it without even asking is another.

It doesn't "share" my internet connection in that way. No one is going to hopping on my WiFi and surfing the web, if I leave that option enabled.

Lots of options are "on" by default, in many apps. Part of using internet devices is learning about them, and being aware of settings and options. Just because some users don't do that, isn't the fault of the company.

[haertig]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

My beef is people inventing new security/privacy risks associated with Sidewalk based on uninformed FUD.

What experience with, and/or special knowledge of, the security/privacy risks do you have other than what Amazon has published?

You consider yourself more informed than the rest of us. Tell us, specifically, how did you get informed? Hands on research and testing? Code reviews? What?

Or are you just parroting what Amazon published? "Amazon said it is secure. Therefore it is secure. Anyone questioning that is spreading FUD." Is that your point?

[haertig]

Originally Posted by Deskisamess

It doesn't "share" my internet connection in that way.

It most certainly does. It is taking part of your bandwidth and giving that to others. Nobody said anything about "surfing the web", as if that were the only thing that uses bandwidth.

[DiapDealer]

Does everybody get all up in arms if a program uses a portion of their bandwidth to periodically check for new versions of itself by default? Are we asked if this is OK when installing, or do we have to disable it later if we don't want it? Perhaps a mixture of both?

Are we asked by Windows 10 if we want to enable automatic updates, or do we have to jump through considerable (not to mention technical) hoops to disable the behavior that's enabled by default?

Have we given express permission for every packet that every piece of hardware we've ever hung on our networks sends to other pieces of hardware (local or remote) by default (even though not all of it is actually necessary)?

Were we explicitly asked if we wanted to pass all ipsec traffic through our router's firewall when setting up our broadband connection? Or was it enabled by default?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by haertig

"Amazon said it is secure. Therefore it is secure. Anyone questioning that is spreading FUD." Is that your point?

Which brings us full circle to: if you don't trust Amazon to be telling you the truth on matters of privacy and security, then why on earth would you buy their hardware and install it on your network in the first place? You don't knowingly invite the devil into your home and then complain when he pokes you with his pitchfork.

And with that, I leave you to your illogical arguments and unfounded fears.

[jhowell]

Originally Posted by Deskisamess

Apple's "Find My" is very similar, and a great feature IMO.

If you own an iPhone then Apple is using some of your cellular data to send the location other people's Apple devices. I haven't seen Apple's customers complaining about this, probably because most of them don't know that it is happening and wouldn't care even if they did. I know that I am happy that feature exists.

[haertig]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Does everybody get all up in arms if a program uses a portion of their bandwidth to periodically check for new versions of itself by default?

You are confusing doing something FOR YOU, vs. doing something FOR OTHERS.

Amazon is doing something to benefit OTHERS, using YOUR resources, without asking you. Now, helping others is all well and good, but it is not Amazon's place to do so with YOUR RESOURCES without asking.

What if Amazon decides to take "just a little"? Then Apple takes just a little. Google gets in on it next and takes a bit more. Then Microsoft. Then Samsung. Facebook is next up to take another chunk. Then Twitter, then untold others. They all do this now. But it is to provide a service to YOU (plus a bunch of spying and other crap that provides benefit to THEM). Now we're hitting the slippery slope where they want to take a little more from you and provide service to OTHERS with it. These OTHERS are no party to the contact between YOU and the SERVICE that you are using.