> If you read the article you'll also find the owners were specifically aware that these units are special in that they upload all data

Well, you'll find a Roomba spokesperson saying that, anyway.

I don't mean to imply that the spokesperson was lying and these were plain old roomba's instead of special R&D Roomba's.

I do mean to imply that I think a roomba spokesperson would describe "included in paragraph 12 of a 23 paragraph terms of service that they clicked through" as "specifically aware", but I would not consider that any kind of "proof" that the people actually were "specifically aware". At best it is an argument they ought to have been, which is a different thing (and it's an argument).

As well as the spokesperson from Scale. The evidence provided to the author also strongly cooborates this fact. Seeing reviews of their commercial devices, they're pretty clear about what is and is not uploaded, with nothing visual uploaded be default.

Therefore I don't agree with your implication as I just don't see any evidence to support it. Even the article's author, with the evidence they were given doesn't push this point.

I don't understand what you're suggesting or pointing me to about what evidence there is about what the people who had these Roomba's knew.

You are making claims about what the owners "specifically knew". What is the evidence about what the roomba owners (or, uh, holders) did or did not know, "specifically" or otherwise?

Re-quoting the GP's quote,

> They were given to “paid collectors and employees” who signed written agreements acknowledging that they were sending data streams, including video, back to the company for training purposes.

So it hardly seems likely that they would not be aware of this.

The owner who said ok probably was not the girl with her pants down.

But as a guy, I don't know if girls pull them down farther if they think they're not being watched. She might be the one who agreed to it.

Still, the owner of a space is making the decision for all people who come into that space.

> James Baussmann, iRobot’s spokesperson, said in an email the company had “taken every precaution to ensure that personal data is processed securely and in accordance with applicable law,” and that the images shared with MIT Technology Review were “shared in violation of a written non-disclosure agreement between iRobot and an image annotation service provider.” In an emailed statement a few weeks after we shared the images with the company, iRobot CEO Colin Angle said that “iRobot is terminating its relationship with the service provider who leaked the images, is actively investigating the matter, and [is] taking measures to help prevent a similar leak by any service provider in the future.”