[matthewmacleod]

I don't really agree – I'm very nervous about the idea of government banning technologies.

If I want to provide a real-time audio feed from my home to Samsung, then that is my choice to make.

If government is to do anything here, it's to make sure that there's a minimum standard of notification which is required for these devices. Maybe something like an explicit opt-in for any feature which transmits data to third parties. That's something I could get behind.

But banning it? No way.

[aragot]

In Europe we don't really believe in "it is your choice you make" (on other topics) because there are so many factors which prevent you from making this choice freely.

For example the choice of accepting Samsung's TOS could be bundled with the choice of flatsharing with someone. Or being a guest of someone. If you need to refuse attending a party because you've made the choice of disagreeing with Samsung's TOS, you're forced.

It is a classic feature of commercial products: Bundle the choice with something much bigger (such as: socializing) so people don't really have the choice of saying no. Worth saying that if phones were invented under a European jurisdiction, they'd be full of infinite more or less relevant option lists. Ironically that's probably why they weren't born there.

[matthewmacleod]

That's just unconscionability, which is a common legal concept.

You can solve this problem by making consumers being informed – by forcing manufacturers to provide clear information about the services which are being given, and any privacy risks. That's something I thoroughly support.

But I absolutely reject the idea of outright banning technologies. It's not even a slippery slope – it's a vertical cliff.

[gglitch]

Not sure why this was downvoted, I kind of agree. We're supposed to be defending rational choices made by informed consumers, but I too question whether current regulation adequately safeguards either one of those principles.

[DSingularity]

Yeah sure I agree. But this is a problem. Pretending like it isn't is basically cognitive dissonance. Why? These companies consistently refuse to secure their sevices to maximize profit.

The problem is they live in a completely self centered world where profit must be maximized. This is why this results in less secure devices by design. This is why you need regulation.

You leave it to the companies, they will almost always decide based on profit. Even if it results in a totally insecure product. See:http://iss.oy.ne.ro/Aether