492
Amazon Ring Cashes in on Techno-Authoritarianism and Mass Surveillance (www.eff.org)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
92 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Ring founder Jamie Siminoff is back at the helm of the surveillance doorbell company, and with him is the surveillance-first-privacy-last approach that made Ring one of the most maligned tech devices. Not only is the company reintroducing new versions of old features which would allow police to request footage directly from Ring users, it is also introducing a new feature that would allow police to request live-st

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 25 points 1 year ago (12 children)

I mean, people are not being forced to buy this shit. So it’s on the idiots who think they have nothing to hide. Just Google something like “why are people ok with cameras inside their house “ and you’ll see many many people basically saying “don’t care, I have nothing to hide, everyone has a pussy/dick”

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 30 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    We still need to protect the idiots. Thats why we're banning asbestos and have safety codes. How is this any different?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

    How is this any different?

    IT and privacy is too abstract for non-tech people. Bring examples with people instead of the tech devices to make an impact.

    Things like this:

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 11 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Isn't roofing too abstract either? 100% majority of people dont know how prevalent asbestos was in roofing material and what even asbestos does but yet if you tell anyone thay their shit has asbestos in it they'll be quick to rush to alternatives. Sometimes people just need to be told what to do.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    That's right. But how detrimental asbestos is took time to be made abundantly clear and known, plus "authorities" got involved, so the sheep listened. With surveillance, the same "authorities" want the public to be ignorant so that they can keep it going without us countering it.

    Similar situations, but certainly not equal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    This is the right approach. Normies won't pay attention to any "your privacy is at risk" argument. But showing them examples (plural, as 1 instance won't do shit either and will just be dismissed) of people getting fucked by all the surveillance COULD make some of them take it into consideration (no guarantees).

    I do not agree that people that allow these devices into their homes are idiots. I see them more as "ignorantly lazy".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    People who claim they don't value privacy are simply ignorant of how this can affect them. They don't consider the data falling into the wrong hands. Surely they don't want criminals with unauthorized access at least. It should be obvious that governments don't always have their best interests either.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •