The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’ • Hacker News Board

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#201

Post by vineyardmike » Fri, Oct 21, 2022, 5:20 PM UTC

Havoc wrote: post #182

vineyardmike wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ..not the Amazon overlord part. If anything the really successful implementations of this generally are overlord free. You can quibble about how trustworthy apple should be, but people generally consider them more trustworthy. Especially due to their "on device only" stance. They're also the most successful smart-watch and biometric tracker. They're also making great progress on the voice assistant front too. > mor…

> Matter just isn't there yet, and doesn't mandate local only I was under the impression that it does make ability to do only mandatory?

It doesn’t mandate only local networking. It does mandate at least local networking. You shouldn’t assume there is no cloud abilities for matter devices.

Eg a lightbulb will have to talk over lan to a hub/controller for on/off/etc, but for non-matter features (eg sync to music) it can still talk to the cloud. Yes you should be able to ignore these features, but in many cases you’re still putting it on your network so it’s free to talk to whoever (by default).

In fact, several companies (Philips hue, SmartThings) have already stated that their matter devices will still have non-matter features that are tied to proprietary cloud APIs.

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#202

Post by dinvlad » Sat, Oct 22, 2022, 6:04 PM UTC

Gigachad wrote: post #136

dinvlad wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly, Apple Watch was initially designed to compete with Rolex, but then Apple found out that folks who can afford Rolex don’t want to change it for anything else. Hence, the mass-market pivoted Watch was born.

There is also the fact that a Rolex lasts for ages so the high price is made up by the fact you aren’t burning the cash, you are just converting it in to an asset you can sell later. The Apple Watch will be worthless ewaste in 10 years so they can never charge luxury watch prices.

Good point!

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#203

Post by __d » Sun, Oct 23, 2022, 11:00 PM UTC

code_duck wrote: post #135

__d wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm ok with it being legal to photograph, video, or record audio of public spaces without people . I'm pretty sure I'd prefer that photographing, filming, or audio recording me in an identifiable way was illegal without my explicit consent. I think public officials should be subject to recording while performing their duties . I think celebrities should not, unless they explicitly consent. Security cameras might need…

So if someone is visiting a town and desires to take a photo of a landmark, they can't take it unless nobody is visible in the photo? How would anyone ever take photos of the Great Wall or the US Capitol or the like?

Perhaps the camera software should automatically blur faces unless instructed otherwise?

I don't know the right solution. I do know I hate been photographed or videoed in public though.

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#204

Post by wnoise » Tue, Oct 25, 2022, 1:22 AM UTC

christophilus wrote: post #186

wnoise wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see a feasible way to ensure individual sovereignty over data you generate, without more regulation.

My data is on my SSD managed by an operating system whose source code I can read whenever I want. If I’m feeling extra paranoid, I can monitor my network traffic to make sure my machine hasn’t been compromised. Nothing goes to the cloud. Nothing leaves my home without my consent. If you really want sovereignty over your data, you keep it non digital. My main problem is the crappy medical software complex that you hav…

> My data is on my SSD managed by an operating system whose source code I can read whenever I want.

These days what we normally call an OS is really just another guest OS to the embedded OSes that are really running the machine. Yes, smuggling things out unnoticed would be hard.

As you say, the problem is largely data on you held by others.

Re: The Rise of ‘Luxury Surveillance’

#205

Post by code_duck » Sat, Oct 29, 2022, 4:04 AM UTC

__d wrote: post #203

code_duck wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if someone is visiting a town and desires to take a photo of a landmark, they can't take it unless nobody is visible in the photo? How would anyone ever take photos of the Great Wall or the US Capitol or the like?

Perhaps the camera software should automatically blur faces unless instructed otherwise? I don't know the right solution. I do know I hate been photographed or videoed in public though.

I guess, but how does the camera know whether you have consent or not?