[CaptArmchair]

> Don't want to be the devil's advocate here but just because camera is on doesn't mean anything is being recorded.

This is about consumer trust.

To the vast majority of consumers, a smartphone is a magic box with a lens and a display. What happens inside - how data is stored and processed, how the OS functions, how apps work,... - has been abstracted away behind those "UX optimized" interfaces you just mentioned.

Consumer don't buy black box devices because they trust the few big companies that manufacture the hardware and software: they buy them because there aren't any alternatives that provide the same level of convenience, and can solidly guarantee a due level of privacy as to what happens behind the screens.

When consumers buy a smartphone or download an app, they have to blindly put their trust in manufacturers acting in good faith. And just that has been damaged by plenty of scandals in the past decade.

So, next time you're in public, try to pay attention to this: how many people have taped off the camera of their devices? And why is this product a thing? [1]

[1] https://www.amazon.com/s?k=webcam+cover

It's because there's a fundamental trust issue. Consumers tape those things on their devices because they don't feel in control of what a device does or doesn't record. Covering the camera is literally the only way they feel they are 100% in control.

So, that should leave you with two questions here. (a) If there's a fundamental trust issue about "magic" technology, do you think people will remotely accept any rationalization about "UX optimization" and "not recording" (e.g. your asking them to trust them on your word)? and (b) If people go so far as to tape off their camera lenses because of a deep trust issue, how much sense does it even make to implement such an UX optimization in the first place? Isn't that a tone deaf act of sorts?

I totally understand why this happens, and I can see the convenience of having a snappy camera. It's just that the technical solution to enable this, flies against what people perceive as acceptable.

[yoz-y]

> So, next time you're in public, try to pay attention to this: how many people have taped off the camera of their devices?

I usually do pay attention and so far I have seen one person with a camera taped over. This is just not a thing, no matter how the media wants it to be.

[reaperducer]

My company's health insurance company spiffed everyone camera covers for their computers and phones. When we were in the office, I saw them everywhere, on both company-owned equipment, and on people's personal gear.

They had the health insurance company's logo on them, so when I saw one on a barista's laptop at the Starbucks down the street, I assume she got it from one of our employees and thought it was a good idea. Maybe people just don't know they're available, or cheap.

[CaptArmchair]

You're talking about this person, right?

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10102910644965951&se...

[heartbeats]

> Consumer don't buy black box devices because they trust the few big companies that manufacture the hardware and software: they buy them because there aren't any alternatives that provide the same level of convenience, and can solidly guarantee a due level of privacy as to what happens behind the screens.

They still consent to it, though. People do perceive it as acceptable, and use it to share their private information. If they don't want to use smartphones, they're free to move to another country.

[hkai]

It looks to me like the media are still bitter about Facebook allegedly helping Russians elect Trump, and so they make up this non-news and instill panic and fear into people.

Pretty sure that now most people will be convinced that Facebook is recording them secretly.

[orestarod]

Russians did not elect Trump. Americans did. It seems astonishing to me, how Facebook is credited with putting Trump in office, merely by being a means to communicate ads, like it's _supposed_ to be in the first place. If propaganda and ads targeted at swaying the voters one way or another are considered illegal, the whole of election campaigns, ads and party propaganda - because it's propaganda, from both parties - should be banned. Plus, American voters are implied to be, through these accusations, stupid kids that have no judgement on their own, and will fall off a cliff if an ad tells them to. What is true of all this? Can you, if you have first hand experience from the US, enlighten me?