[npongratz]

Right, convenient for some, and I empathize with that use case. But why must we all be subjected to Big Brother's unblinking, creepy-as-fuck stare?

And why must all the data enabling the convenience be ripped away from my exclusive control and sent back to some centralized store?

[Agenttin]

Getting a Google home isn't mandatory, at least not yet. I personally use mine almost exclusively as an alarm clock. I have a tendency to wake up several times a night to check if I remembered to set an alarm, it's probably an anxiety thing. So I cast around my room for my glasses or press my face against my alarm clock or cell phone. Now when I wake up I just ask Google and it cheerfully informs me of the time. I also put a smart light bulb in my bedside lamp. In return Google may be able to gain some insight into my sleeping habits, and if I ever get back to having sex they can listen to that too.

[Konnstann]

Don't buy Alexa? I agree with you with regards to facial recognition, but expanding your views to optional smart home tech seems fairly vindictive.

[npongratz]

Obviously I'll avoid purchasing optional "smart" devices that send my data everywhere, outside of my control. The problem is mass acceptance of ubiquitous surveillance, and those promoting and pushing it. I guess that means I will have to do my best to avoid visiting anyone who happens to have an Alexa (or whatever) hiding somewhere.

Even Google's devices chief, Rick Osterloh, says people using his product should warn guests that their conversations are being recorded. To his credit, he even does so(!):

https://www.komando.com/security-privacy/google-exec-warn-yo...

> “Does the owner of a home need to disclose to a guest? I would and do when someone enters into my home, and it’s probably something that the products themselves should try to indicate,” Osterloh said.

Osterloh hits on the truly insidious thing about about microphones -- they never indicate when they are listening and sending your data out of your control. (Camera LEDs also certainly cannot be trusted, but I digress).

To be clear, again, I have full empathy for anyone needing the conveniences this technology promises. I have zero empathy for the companies, "officials", and "authorities" who claim that they must exfiltrate my data so that it can be used for adding convenience, or security, or safety or whatever. It is unnecessary. Smart, creative engineers have proven they can do pretty amazing things with data processed locally, with no exfiltration required. Let them do their job, and let my personal data stay under my exclusive control.

I used to attribute this laziness to incompetence, but the advertising industry has proven over and over and over (decades!) that they are openly and unrepentantly hostile to users. They are malicious. I cannot and will never again trust them.

[0xffff2]

Or have any friends that want to buy one. I have one friend who's pretty in to home automation. Fortunately he doesn't host get togethers very often, but I've seriously considered declining invitations before because I don't want to be in a house with all that crap in it.

[Jamwinner]

I have, and do, decline to attend events, dinners, parties at home where people refuse to depower their devices. Many were taken aback, and took it as a cue to examine their own stance. You start by having a spine, and follow through with action, while explaining your stance in a thoughtful way. The change starts with us.

[magnetic]

> I've seriously considered declining invitations before because I don't want to be in a house with all that crap in it.

Why did you end up not declining them after all? (if I understand your "considered" wording correctly)

[0xffff2]

I'm not really sure how to answer that. I guess it amounts to peer pressure. If you're up against a group that has already decided that these kinds of devices aren't a problem, it's hard to articulate an argument against subjecting yourself to it that they find convincing.

[infinitezest]

And doesn't this perfectly demonstrate the issue with the "just don't buy one" argument? It's still _possible_ to make choices about your privacy (ex. don't get a smart phone, don't buy a smart speaker, etc.) but it requires progressively more conviction as acceptance of this kind of tech becomes mainstream.

[Konnstann]

That's true. I guess I live in a bubble with people who are aware of the surveillance aspects and so choose not to use smart devices.

[justinclift]

> ... as acceptance of this kind of tech becomes mainstream.

It's not a foregone conclusion that will happen.

Recent weeks has shown increased mainstream media covering privacy aspects - often through the lens of creepy Facebook/Google/Amazon.

So it's definitely possible there will be sufficient push back to stop this crap becoming too ubiquitous.

[cheez]

Think back 200,000 years when modern humans first appeared. That is less than 20,000 generations of humans where for a long time, it was kill or be killed.

Think back to about a thousand years ago. That is less than 100 generations where for a long time, slavery and serfdom were common.

"Big Brother" is nothing more than a tool for the apex of the pyramid of human society. This is how "they" are able to get away with molesting hundreds of children while Joe who takes a drunken piss in the park at midnight is classified a sex offender for life.

So if you understand from _that_ perspective, it makes perfect sense. However, in contrast to every other time before, today the commoner "feels" like they are free. This changes the way they think and speak. The commoners don't feel inferior to the apex of humanity's pyramid. I expect if we get too far out of line, we'll be reminded.