The value of the product is undermined by what we now know the Agencies do. Before Snowden we all thought it was an idiotic idea we'd have pervasive surveillance, now we know it happens. Before Snowden we'd buy nice to have, harmless gadgets, or use easy Google speech recognition (your reference), now we shoot them down. As an investor i'd be thinking about this kind of reaction to a product. Maybe a table-stakes feature would be privacy in a way our community had some confidence it was well thought through.

Yes, I got the part where there's an entire group of people on HN who have a problem with these types of products.

Did you get the part where there's an entirely different group of people who get tired of listening to you whine about it? I simply want to discuss the product itself.

Thanks for dragging me in to this. This is an even better example of the point I was trying to make, yet you're still doing this bland dismissal. You should really stop and think about the privacy implications of this technology for a few minutes.

Thanks, I didn't realize there were privacy implications. How did I miss that. I think I slept through the hundreds of Snowden posts to HN.

Now would it be possible not to turn every post like this into an NSA warning? I'll make my own choices from here.

> Now would it be possible not to turn every post like this into an NSA warning?

Sure, right after the need for an NSA warning on all of these things stops being necessary.

> idiots > paranoid

I don't see much difference between calling someone an "idiot", and calling them "paranoid" and dismissing their concerns to an FAQ.

> Our time is probably better spent discussing the value of the product itself.

Confidentiality has a large impact on the product's value, at least for many people. I don't see them as independent issues. If you feel, like many, that confidentiality is necessary to its value then the focus of the discussion makes sense (if it wasn't so redundant).

I didn't call anyone an idiot. I said the general HN population is treated like idiots because there's always "that guy" who feels the need to sound the alarm every time something gets sent to Google/Apple/Amazon. I got it the first 10 times it was discussed. I've been warned.

> I didn't call anyone an idiot.

I know; sorry I didn't write more clearly. I meant that them calling you "idiot" and you calling them "paranoid" is roughly equivalent.

I said "our paranoia". I wasn't trying to dismiss it but these types of conversations tend to devolve into mainly discussing our paranoia. I don't need to be warned every week. And it's my choice to decide to allow Google or Apple, for example, to get my data.

> I said "our paranoia".

Hmmm ... that's not what I see above.

Generally I can understand frustration with any issue getting too much attention and drowning out others.

> it's my choice to decide to allow Google or Apple, for example, to get my data.

It's not your choice really. It's hard to function in this society otherwise, and I don't just mean having phone service or traveling. For example, my electricity vendor insisted on installing a 'smart meter', which allows them to record what and when electrical devices are used, giving them a good view of my activities in the privacy of my home. My choice was to let them install it, get my own generator, or go without electricity.