[jveld]

Enough with the 'woe humanity the machines are coming' pieces. After ten years of facebook, and three years of snowden leaks, I have a hard time finding sympathy for people who purchase 'smart' (read data gathering) devices from large conglomerates before considering the privacy implications. The cards are on the table; we all know what the terms of this kind of convenience are. If you're concerned for your privacy, then stop opting in for fucks sake. You've just voted with your dollars for a future of ubiquitous, autonomous surveillance. Again. Knowingly. The ignorance card is utter bullshit at this point.

The 'inevitable' future bewailed by these types of articles is only inevitable because this kind of 'shiny! buynow thinklater' mentality. To paraphrase Sartre, "we have the surveillance state we deserve."

If you're comfortable with the tradeoffs, I have no beef. I'm not saying that people shouldn't buy these things if they want them. And they are cool, wantable things. But it's 2016. You can have your thing or your soapbox. Both are respectable choices. But you can only have one.

[pdkl95]

You seem to believe that everybody somehow knows the consequences of "opting in". Does everyone have a CS degree in your universe?

> we all know what the terms of this kind of convenience are

Most people have no idea whatsoever what those terms are. Even among technical crowds I still find people assuming that humans are required for various tasks that have been automated for a long time. I seriously don't understand why you think people understand the "terms" of what big data and machine learning are doing to their data. Even simple things like the fact that cell phones give away your location can be a new concept for people that have only considered them telephones.

And why should most people have a realistic understanding of this stuff? The computer industry has been over-promising and dressing up their products since the transistor was invented. We have decades of services that dissemble as their business model, convincing people that their data is "private".

> 'smart' (read data gathering) devices

Why should anybody think that their TV is surveilling them. It wasn't long ago that saying your TV was spying on you could lead to a schizophrenia diagnosis. Nobody reads the legalese and manual for a TV before they bought it, understood it, and choose to trade their data. They bought a TV that advertised voice activation or some other feature. There is no reason for most people to think surveillance would be involved.

> stop opting in

While some people have started to realized how this stuff really works, the common response is to feel trapped without options. It will take time - decades - to properly educate the general public.

> The ignorance card is utter bullshit at this point.

Look at how many people here on HN that still think "anonymized" data cannot be correlated back to real their real identity. If people that understand terms like "hashing" and "INNER JOIN" are still figuring this out, the general public doesn't have a chance.

[hinkley]

Hell, I'm the biggest cynic in most rooms, I border on diabolically clever when the mood grabs me, and I don't have the slightest clue what the actual consequences of opting in are.

But if the deal is too good to be true, it's only because you don't have all the facts. Information asymmetry is the very basis for capitalism.

[massysett]

I agree with you on the people who buy these things, but I think a more interesting question is how they affect the people who do not buy them.

Facebook is similar. I don't care one whit about Facebook users who complain that the company is using their information and that they have no privacy. That's what you signed up for, duh. More interesting is that Facebook amasses a lot of information even about people who do not use the service.

Right now the Echo is only listening inside of homes, so logically you can figure there's not much risk of third-party harm here. But this gets more tricky if these things start listening in public spaces, or if they're on phones...suppose the pizza delivery guy gets a cell phone that listens all the time, and it hears something interesting while the pizza man is at your door.

[greenyoda]

"Right now the Echo is only listening inside of homes, so logically you can figure there's not much risk of third-party harm here."

If I visit a friend who has an Echo in their home, I'm having my conversation listened to without my consent.

[Godel_unicode]

I wonder if we're going to start seeing a new norm (similar to "I have you on speaker, Jane is here too") around devices with always-on voice recognition?

You head over to your friends house and they hit the mute button on their way to the door, or ask Alexa to say hi.

[massysett]

If you're in someone else's home you have to assume he has listening devices. He controls his house.