Re:Google Glass sales halted
by unclebucknasty on Thursday January 15, 2015 @10:10PM
(#8897058)
>Technological progress doesn't necessarily have to work against privacy.
This is true, but it seems that rather than acknowledge this, many technology producers are purposely pushing the needle the other way. That is, they frequently opt for the least privacy-oriented approach, even when more privacy-oriented approaches are available at the same or lower cost.
Take FitBit. I am opposed to the tracking it does on so many fronts. But, I received one as a gift, so thought I would investigate further. Here's the short: It only syncs my data to the cloud, and doesn't even provide the option to keep it locally. This, even though it requires a desktop app and USB dongle to wirelessly sync my data from the watch to my laptop. So, it could very easily provide a local dashboard, but, it's not an option. They want my data.
Then, I look at their privacy policy. The usual stuff about not selling my personally identifiable data, but the right to sell it in aggregate form, give it up if compelled by subpoena, etc.
But, why do I want even them to know when my heart beats or when I sleep? And, do I really want to take the risk that my information can be used against me in some insurance claim that goes to court one day?
Point being, that it truly is unnecessary for their product to work against privacy, but they've opted for a longer view that sacrifices my privacy for their future profits. This erosion of privacy for commercial gain is part of the ethos that is being foisted on consumers at so many turns that it is normalizing the approach, and leaving us with fewer options where this is not the case.
This is true, but it seems that rather than acknowledge this, many technology producers are purposely pushing the needle the other way. That is, they frequently opt for the least privacy-oriented approach, even when more privacy-oriented approaches are available at the same or lower cost.
Take FitBit. I am opposed to the tracking it does on so many fronts. But, I received one as a gift, so thought I would investigate further. Here's the short: It only syncs my data to the cloud, and doesn't even provide the option to keep it locally. This, even though it requires a desktop app and USB dongle to wirelessly sync my data from the watch to my laptop. So, it could very easily provide a local dashboard, but, it's not an option. They want my data.
Then, I look at their privacy policy. The usual stuff about not selling my personally identifiable data, but the right to sell it in aggregate form, give it up if compelled by subpoena, etc.
But, why do I want even them to know when my heart beats or when I sleep? And, do I really want to take the risk that my information can be used against me in some insurance claim that goes to court one day?
Point being, that it truly is unnecessary for their product to work against privacy, but they've opted for a longer view that sacrifices my privacy for their future profits. This erosion of privacy for commercial gain is part of the ethos that is being foisted on consumers at so many turns that it is normalizing the approach, and leaving us with fewer options where this is not the case.