blah64
About
- Username
- blah64
- Joined
- Visits
- 58
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 248
- Badges
- 0
- Posts
- 993
Reactions
-
Google Glass Enterprise Edition 2 update is faster with better camera & USB-C
gatorguy said:
The OP said "everything going back to (Google)". Of course diagnostic data would be exchanged, and particularly so for a device that's still in the testing stages. The clients private information no unless they've actively and specifically asked for it, and that is what that poster seemed to be warning about.blah64 said:gatorguy said:
Of course companies don't want everything they own turned over to some other company for their own uses. You're introducing a false dilemma since Google Glass Enterprise doesn't do that, obviously. Proof? They're used in medical offices and hospitals. Did you watch the video the AI article linked?jeffythequick said:chasm said:While I am trying to applaud continued research in wearables and enterprise tools, the fundamental problems with Google Glass remain:
1. Big and presumably weighty battery in the back on one side -- not balanced.
2. Aesthetically unbalanced as well.
3. Google camera recording you at all times.
I'm pretty sure that doctor does not start his exams by saying "by the way, these glasses have a video camera in them that is recording you and sending that information to Google," so … I can only speak for myself, but Google's privacy policies (or lack thereof) and medical exams are a gigantic nope for me, and in general I will need to be asked to opt-in and give explicit permission (which will never happen) before looking at or speaking to anyone wearing Google Glasses.Exactly... Most companies I know and have worked at don't really want everything that they own being sent to the mother ship, and that's a huge NFW for corporations that value their data and their intellectual property.When I had a business and installed servers, and was talking about backup plans (they had RAID 1 and 5 arrays in them), they said, "I'm not worried, the failure systems you have are good enough!" to which I said, "OK, what if someone breaks in and steals your server? Do you want all of that data gone? Your insurance will cover the hardware, but how valuable is your data?"No one, from Intel to IBM to anybody that works with Defense will let these things on their property while they call home as part of their firmware. Google makes Huawei look like pikers in this regard.I read the /partners link you posted, and the /glass main page. Nowhere do I see anything that even remotely describes a scenario in which customers (or "partners", does glass even have customers that aren't "partners"?), can take advantage of glass without data being sent back to google.You're very good at finding any and all data related to google, and I'm interested enough to ask if you know how this works. I'm not going to dig through pages and pages of ToS, I already do too much of that every week as it is.
I'll assume you have no issue with Apple collecting "diagnostic" data and I don't see anywhere that Glass Enterprise does anything more than that baring a client's request. I don't think you saw anything different than that did you?LOL. After all these years, you actually think I have no issues with Apple collecting diagnostic data? You definitely haven't been listening, because I am nothing if not consistent. No, I do not give Apple diagnostic data, and in fact I do not let my computers or mobile devices arbitrarily talk to Apple servers; only when there's a specific need, and even then, only in ways that cannot be associated with me personally. But enough on that topic, which I'm pretty sure we've already discussed at length in the past.Nothing you said here actually points to a reference that refutes the OP's assertion that "everything goes back to google", and I was wondering if you could point me to something specifically that does refute that assertion. As a contrary example, when people use something like google docs, not only is diagnostic data sent and analyzed, but the data in the documents themselves is clearly sent back and forth and available for analysis. My question is whether this is different with the latest glass product. One can easily imagine industry scenarios where companies would love to have the AR functionality, but would most definitely not be okay with even diagnostic data being sent back to the home office.The whole issue of what diagnostic data is comprised of is also a concern, and I wonder if you have a reference for that. Crash logs are one thing, but location and directional data, even if not married to the actual camera imagery, is another. There are a lot of fine lines.
-
Unsecured database exposed private information of millions of Instagram influencers
22july2013 said:
I'm not sure if you were suggesting that the model or Facebook needs to refrain from putting too much information about a person online. I think you were saying the former. I may agree perfectly with that but I think you realize I'm strictly talking here about people's rights. I don't think there's anything you can do legally to stop the glamour model you mention from revealing any of the details you mentioned, including bank details. You can't legally enforce intelligence and you can't legally prohibit stupidity, at least when it comes to revealing information about yourself. And you can't blame the agents of people's stupidity (e.g., Facebook) for their client's choices. Just like we don't blame lawyers for defending accused murderers.anome said:
That's valid, but there must also be a right to say where the line is. I can choose what I share and what I keep private. Admittedly some people ride a very fine line between the two, but just because someone is a model who posts risque pictures of themselves online, doesn't mean they should have pictures they'd rather keep private posted online, as well. Likewise, a glamour model doesn't necessarily want their private phone number, bank account details, or the time of their next gynecologist appointment posted online.22july2013 said:There is probably a right (or at least a law) to privacy, but there's most certainly a right to the lack of it. Nobody can force you to keep your privates private. And if Facebook wants to be the middle-man to implement people's right to publicity, that's absolutely their right. In much the same way that some people (usually professional models) like to sell their good looks. Can't stop them either. Facebook is acting like a modelling agency in this respect. Facebook is also collecting data on their models and viewing customers, but I'm sure all modelling agencies have been doing that to some extent forever.The problem that most people are forgetting is that your worst enemies from a privacy standpoint are your friends and family. In today's world, even if YOU don't want YOUR private information being sent to facebook or other data miners, your friends or your family probably are sending everything they've entered in their contact list about you to various other companies and organizations without so much as a second thought.How can we better manage this, moving forward as a society? I'd love to be better connected with more friends, but as long as they insist on having their mobile devices constantly spewing data from their contact apps, I simply say No. If I don't trust that they understand and will abide by my decision to protect my own personal data, then I don't give them anything meaningful information, and that can be stifling.
-
Google Glass Enterprise Edition 2 update is faster with better camera & USB-C
gatorguy said:
Of course companies don't want everything they own turned over to some other company for their own uses. You're introducing a false dilemma since Google Glass Enterprise doesn't do that, obviously. Proof? They're used in medical offices and hospitals. Did you watch the video the AI article linked?jeffythequick said:chasm said:While I am trying to applaud continued research in wearables and enterprise tools, the fundamental problems with Google Glass remain:
1. Big and presumably weighty battery in the back on one side -- not balanced.
2. Aesthetically unbalanced as well.
3. Google camera recording you at all times.
I'm pretty sure that doctor does not start his exams by saying "by the way, these glasses have a video camera in them that is recording you and sending that information to Google," so … I can only speak for myself, but Google's privacy policies (or lack thereof) and medical exams are a gigantic nope for me, and in general I will need to be asked to opt-in and give explicit permission (which will never happen) before looking at or speaking to anyone wearing Google Glasses.Exactly... Most companies I know and have worked at don't really want everything that they own being sent to the mother ship, and that's a huge NFW for corporations that value their data and their intellectual property.When I had a business and installed servers, and was talking about backup plans (they had RAID 1 and 5 arrays in them), they said, "I'm not worried, the failure systems you have are good enough!" to which I said, "OK, what if someone breaks in and steals your server? Do you want all of that data gone? Your insurance will cover the hardware, but how valuable is your data?"No one, from Intel to IBM to anybody that works with Defense will let these things on their property while they call home as part of their firmware. Google makes Huawei look like pikers in this regard.I read the /partners link you posted, and the /glass main page. Nowhere do I see anything that even remotely describes a scenario in which customers (or "partners", does glass even have customers that aren't "partners"?), can take advantage of glass without data being sent back to google.You're very good at finding any and all data related to google, and I'm interested enough to ask if you know how this works. I'm not going to dig through pages and pages of ToS, I already do too much of that every week as it is.
-
US Justice Department likely to block Sprint & T-Mobile merger
SpamSandwich said:Monopolies form BECAUSE of government protections and market interference. When markets are working, monopolies don’t form. This merger should go through.Sorry Spam, but that's old-school thinking. I'm actually a strong supporter of free-markets in most contexts, but there are areas in which that clearly doesn't work. Look at something like facebook, for example. There's simply no way for a competitor to sweep in, do a better job, and start taking away market share. The network effects are too big to overcome, and every time someone else has posed a threat fb "merged" (bought them) and consolidated that power even further. The result is a concentration of power that is literally affecting the freedoms that our forefathers fought so hard to build, maintain, and in theory promise in perpetuity.With telcos and ISPs, there are different problems. If not for regulation, prices would be based on the ability to recover costs and generate profits, right? That means that for the past 20 years people living in smaller towns would have paid substantially more than larger cities, and people living rural probably wouldn't have had any service at all, or the price would be so outrageous as to essentially be out of reach. I suppose it's possible to make a case that if people make a decision to live outside the city that they don't deserve to have internet access, or they need to pay $10,000 in setup fees, but I'm not quite on board with that. It's not perfect as it is, but at least it's semi-palatable.As for this merger, I think I'd only be okay with it if Sprint were indeed going to fold without it. That may end up being the story they present in order to make it fly.
-
Thousands of Amazon workers are listening in on Echo audio, report says [u]
Not super-germane to the article, but this isn't strictly true. You can always (nicely) ask the operator on the other end to not record the call, and guess what, it works sometimes. You may need to bump up a level, because it's not a request first-level support people get every day, and you may need to be persistent, but (in most cases) there are no laws that require companies to record conversations, it's merely what happens by default. I'm sure it varies highly by company, and of course YMMV.lorin schultz said:
Okay. So what? Once you give permission, that's what happens. If you refuse, you don't get your banking done. I don't understand your point.riverko said:
Yes, but in my country everyone who is recording the call needs to inform you and ask everytime you speak with them for your consent. Otherwise the call cannot continuelorin schultz said:I'm trying to decide whether I care about this or not. My bank records our telephone conversations, and those are much more detailed than an Alexa or Siri request, and are directly associated with my personal information. This seems pretty benign.
The only real risk to me is embarrassment, but it's not likely someone I know personally is ever going to hear me saying or doing something I'd wish they hadn't. It's true that I don't want an Amazon contractor hearing my passwords or financial codes, but in the absence of a way for them to determine exactly who I am, even that information is essentially useless to them.
