[klyrs]

>>> Your phone can do all the same things as those devices, and it's a better target for attackers because it's always on you.

>> "privacy is dead"

>>> In reality, bugging my residence isn't going to result in very interesting data.

>> "nothing to hide"

> I'm not arguing "privacy is dead" or "nothing to hide".

Really?

[anon9001]

You don't have to have a phone on you all the time. But if you do, it should be considered bugged because you have no way to audit it.

Also, bugging my residence isn't going to result in very interesting data by design. I could have plenty to hide, but I'm not reading my evil plans for world domination aloud.

If you do need to talk about something private, nobody is preventing you from disconnecting all the microphones.

Know what you're trying to prevent, then take actionable steps. Privacy is hard, but not dead.

[ferdbold]

Most privacy advocates don't defend it because it allows you to scheme against the government, they do it because it protects people from falling too deep in the net of actors that would try to influence their behaviour.

I agree that you're most likely not doing anything interesting in the eyes of the authorities in your home, most people aren't. But advertisers and content creators definitely care, and that's where the true problem is. They shouldn't have the power to anonymously collect all of this data, and then decide through the power of their far-reaching services which products are accessible to you or not, what information is presented to you through means that appear transparent, and so on and so on.

The "I have nothing to hide" argument has never been what today's privacy debate was about.