red_throwaway

> There exists marketing data which does not identify individuals.

As these datasets grow (and they only grow), it becomes trivial to tie anonymized profiles to a specific person. They leave off names and it's expected that the final consumer of the data do the "last mile" work of tying it to the name. The easy part.

Maybe but I'm not certain I have the technical capability of preventing these things. Not while the camera has a wifi radio and closed source firmware. I suppose one could build their own custom camera module which features a network stack, constantly de-authing every wifi channel as long as the camera is powered on. Not super practical but it might be a fun weekend project.

I appreciate the input but do you have any sources for your claim? I think you're right but I'd feel a lot safer seeing proof.

> Also, based on the size of the videos that thing must make, I don't see any feasible way they could or would exfiltrate the video content you're shooting.

They don't need the whole clip. They can easily grab a single frame, encoded and compressed to minimize the filesize. The camera also has a wifi radio in it which does who knows what behind the scenes. Since the firmware is very much not open source, I have no way to tell what it's doing. It could be constantly trying to phone home over open wireless networks (or partner hotspots). Hell for all I know the thing could have a 3g radio in it, constantly talking to home.

This is great advice!

I'm pretty sure I would be granted a refund if I asked for one. That being said, I'm not left with a lot of options after returning it because there aren't many comparable alternatives for this class of camera.

In fact, I don't know of even one camera that's as high quality without also being almost double the price. RED has a lot of leverage here.

Good point on them taking a loss having to sell it as open box. It's not much but it's probably the best option I have that actually reprimands them for this.

> I get the feeling that you want more than that (like a custom license agreement, or some punishment for the sales person for not mentioning the EULA), and I don't think you're going to get that.

I do want more. I want to have peace of mind that it's safe to use my camera. I don't think that's an unreasonable request. Especially considering the price tag.

I definitely don't want the sales people to be punished. It's not their fault. It's possible that they've never even seen this since you'd only have seen it if you set one up straight out of the box.

Yes, this! The sales person made absolutely no mention of any licensing terms or agreements that I would need to sign off on before my camera became usable as a camera.

If it means what I think it means, I'd rather return it and invest in a company that doesn't abuse their users.

But that sentence continues with

> including but not limited to information about your RED Camera, Camera Module, computer, system and application software, usage, content, and peripherals

Should I be reading the "content" part as "information about your content" ? As in, metadata about the content? Lens focal lengths, recording quality, codecs, etc? That would make more sense.

That's what I suspect too but the terms don't read like that in my opinion. I'm hoping someone can chime in and explain why the terms don't allow for the content itself to be mined.

> Probably every product has some objectionable clause in their EULA which no one reads, so you're better off not reading it and moving on with your life. If you want to be a freedom fighter, go work for the EFF; if you want to make video, make video.

Maybe a bit naive but definitely practical advice. I hear you.