I mean, i love all these tools, i just don't want them to have any form of internet access.

It's why i'm building my home cloud and automation system, but only doing so if the devices don't leave my firewall. I enjoy the tech, i enjoy the complication (to a degree), it's fun gadget stuff, it's nifty. However i do not trust them to keep my information safe, even if i trusted them to not misuse it themselves (which i don't).

>> I mean, i love all these tools, i just don't want them to have any form of internet access.

I've come to the realisation that the only way I will have a 'home of the future' is if I build it myself and keep it offline. I love lots of the IOT products and when they eventually come down in price they would be no brainers. But my privacy isn't worth the benefit they provide.

Outlaw the kind of data collection and abuse that keeps these services alive and plenty of reasonably-priced paid encrypted-cloud and/or locally-hosted options for all kinds of these free spying-enabled services would pop up quickly. The spy-vertising economy, which lives mostly on people not realizing just how bad it is and coordination problems in trying to counter it, makes it impractical to compete using other business models.

$199 device that sends data to some servers elsewhere and gets the job done in seconds

$2000 device that takes up space and electricity to do the same thing, but in minutes

I personally like the second option a lot better, I wish we had an open source version of all the google apps that did it's own ML on your own servers.

Except most of the IoT devices on market would do the same thing for about same price without the cloud. The only problem the clouds solves for users is not having to know how to set up a VPN so that their shitty app can view mostly meaningless pseudo-charts when the user is away from home. But in exchange for that, you give the vendors lots of data to resell, and the ability to brick your devices remotely.

SaaS model being ported to hardware is probably the single most user-hostile development I've seen in recent years in tech.

The home isn't a castle anymore. It's a SCIF.

There's a much more immediately practical reason to keep it in-firewall as well: if the utility company accidentally cuts a fiber line outside my house, I don't want to be suddenly unable to turn off my hallway light.

Maybe building codes could spec that home automation devices must have local controls.

The companies aren't going to do it without regulation.

Wait, so now building codes are going to get involved with what I run in my house after it is built and inspected? That doesn't sound like building codes. If anything, regulation from the FCC or someone else would be more uh, fitting.

Sure, I was thinking of things like lights supporting local control. I guess I'd try to write it so that a phone app talking to the light counted as passing the rule, as long as it worked without an internet connection.

I don't see how it is a problem for simple rules like "Installed lights must always be controllable from inside the premises" to be code.

Or maybe people stop building all this shit in the cloud?

Part of my argument there is that it isn't going to happen without regulation.

Caring that your clothes look good is narcissism (excessive interest in your appearance) now? Have you ever asked a friend if they like the suit you just bought? Do you go to work in a burlap sack?

Knowingly and willingly sending people photos of yourself is an "invasion" of privacy?

> Caring that your clothes look good is narcissism (excessive interest in your appearance) now?

As if caring is a binary thing and not a matter of degree? When you pay $200 to have "fashion experts" (or AI) judge your outfits on a daily basis, have you not crossed a line?

> Knowingly and willingly sending people photos of yourself is an "invasion" of privacy?

Yes, I'm sure this won't be used to collect all kinds of personal data for marketing purposes.

/s

I would pay well more than $200 to hire someone knowledgeable about fashion to design and help me buy a wardrobe. I don't think it's narcissistic at all to want to look nice.

You've never once asked one of your friends or spouse their to help you pick between two shirts?

Not OP but I don't ask anyone for clothing advice beyond asking someone who's been outside whether I need a jumper.

I guess it depends on who you dress for, do you dress to please yourself or to please others [first].

I might pay $200 if I was much, much wealthier.

I mean, for a human-powered service that just consulted me on good looks according to detailed specifications (I under-dress for work because it reads like an asshole power move, House MD style, that has served me well at least a couple times) and in accordance to my wife.

relevant dilbert:

http://dilbert.com/series/34

http://dilbert.com/series/59-Tube-Clothes

The following series, 60, is even more apposite - "emotionally manipulative robot", eg http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-02-09 .

Maybe they'll topple Facebook's leader-status on narcissism, insecurity, and invasion of privacy? This definitely falls into the category of tech designed to make you sad/insecure (in this case, so you'll buy more clothes from Amazon).

I can't help but feel that we're increasingly in one of those movies where the real world becomes mixed up with a fictional one. If you were to take some of the things I've read about over the past month or so and challenged people to tell you whether they were real or a parody they'd be hard-pressed to decide.

> Taking narcissism, insecurity, and invasion of privacy to the next level.

more like, being realistic about them.