CES 2015: FTC Head Warns About Data Grabbed By Smart Gadgets 62
mpicpp sends this quote from the BBC: A "deeply personal" picture of every consumer could be grabbed by futuristic smart gadgets, the chair of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission has warned. Speaking at CES, Edith Ramirez said a future full of smart gadgets that watch what we do posed a threat to privacy. The collated data could create a false impression if given to employers, universities or companies, she said. Ms Ramirez urged tech firms to make sure gadgets gathered the minimum data needed to fulfill their function (PDF). The internet of things (IoT), which will populate homes, cars and bodies with devices that use sophisticated sensors to monitor people, could easily build up a "deeply personal and startlingly complete picture" of a person's lifestyle, said Ms Ramirez."
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a way to disable these collections without disabling the car doing its basic function, driving? I saw something recently about the internet connected car. What if I don't WANT it connected to the internet, don't want it sending information off to God knows where?
Is it easy to disable? The other day I asked a dealer if you could get a Vette without OnStar as an option and he said no. That concerned me.
Re: (Score:2)
The only solution is to drive old cars that aren't infected with this shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not connected to the internet, it makes a cellphone call to the manufacturer to send data.
Blah blah blah (Score:3)
Yet the people who share all their daily activities, without a care in the world for their privacy on Facebook, are safe.........
The "clueless" that use facebook like a diary will also be the "clueless" that use the hardware version. Always will be.
The collated data could create a false impression if given to employers, universities or companies
I used to work for a company that allowed their HR department to investigate candidates on Facebook. Nothing new.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet the people who share all their daily activities, without a care in the world for their privacy on Facebook, are safe.........
I'll reply to this when I'm done pooping. Could be a while...
Re: (Score:2)
I knew you were full of shit.
Or just don't use them ... (Score:4, Interesting)
These things always have had a privacy risk. The only way to win is to not even play.
I don't trust the companies who make these things ... neither to competently implement security, nor to adhere to any restrictions on what they collect.
Most apps already collect far more information than they fess up to.
So, I'm sorry, but me and my tinfoil hat will look at all of these devices (as well as the crap which is the 'smart' home) and just simply not buy them or use them.
As much as anything, they're about gathering analytics information for marketing ... everything else they do is of little value.
Re: (Score:2)
I will never understand this attitude. "Things are already shit, so who cares if they get even shittier?" That's precisely the reason they got shitty in the first place -- as things got incrementally shitty the only frame of reference people used was the previous level of shittiness. If that's the way you look at the world, things can only go in one direction: shittier.
Anyway, although I hate the idea of how much personal data of mine is floating around, it makes more sense for, say, my computer to be c
Re: (Score:2)
Allow it in your home, just be smart enough to thwart it. All my security cameras are the 1080p china units that send video back to china. It was trivial to eliminate that capability with a JTAG interface and then getting in to disable services. They just run an embedded linux.
The muggles that know nothing at all about tech, they are doomed.
Re: (Score:2)
Allow it in your home, just be smart enough to thwart it.
The advice only works as long as it isn't taken.
As soon as enough people "got smart", they'd make it that much harder, and then it wouldn't be trivial to eliminate with a JTAG connector anymore it will as difficult as cracking a PS4... doable, eventually, maybe.
Contradiction? (Score:2)
The collated data could create a false impression
could easily build up a "deeply personal and startlingly complete picture" of a person's lifestyle
Can both of those be true? I'd imagine corporations are going to work really hard to make sure they figure out the real you...
make sure gadgets gathered the minimum data... (Score:2)
.
The tech firms will collect as much data as possible, and sell that data to their "partners".
Start with smartphone apps... (Score:5, Insightful)
I really don't understand why an ereader app needs to check phone call status, read text messages or activate the camera, but whatever, it's free!
In all seriousness before we worry about future smart gadgets, let's focus on the ones we already have. Android needs the functionality of "permissions denied" or similar apps built into the OS. Smart TVs should not be allowed to "anonymously" send information like the filenames of network files viewed on the tv...
Re: (Score:2)
Blame google since it approved the app into its play store. But since google collects unnecessary data from its users, it would be hypocritical for it to stop other companies from doing the same. Maybe govt. regulation may help.
False impression? (Score:2)
The collated data could create a false impression if given to employers, universities or companies, she said.
What's far more worrying than that is giving people a true impression.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, it works two ways.
Someone who knows what data is collected and sent can easily spoof the gadgetry. In fact, I can see a business model for this.
Have people pay you to take their phones, cars, etc. to the library or church while they go to the strip club, bar, brothel, etc.
Then when discovery is done in the divorce case all they can get is "Well ma'am, it looks like your husband spent a lot of time studying and praying when you said he was out whoring."
It just means smart people won't get caught.
...and what they do with that "true impression". (Score:2)
Yeah. I'm less concerned (although still quite concerned) about them getting a "false impression". I'm much more concerned about them getting a true impression of things that are logically, ethically, or legally none of their business, and then taking actions based on those illogically, unethically or illegally-drawn conclusions.
Adult Swim hit the nail on the head (Score:1)
For a glimpse of where we're headed, I give you the Smart Pipe [youtube.com]
Really (Score:3)
Now the Chair of the USFTC comes out and says privacy is a concern with these devices, interesting.
fuck tech (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
A fucking spring? Cool!
Kind of inconvenient way of winding it though , where do you have to strap it when you wind it that way?
Real Automation pros warn against Cloud Based ... (Score:5, Insightful)
All this crap requiring a internet connection is crap. if it can not operate offline then it's junk and you need to avoid it. Net connection required for remote operation? fine, but to require it for any operation is a sign that it is designed by incompetent engineers.
Quirky and Wink for example are 100% junk as their stuff falls on it's face when your internet goes offline. If it can not operate on the local lan on it's own and requires remote processing then it is complete and utter garbage.
Do not buy garbage no matter how shiny it is.
Re: (Score:2)
This is exactly why I dumped Quicken way back when they started requiring users to get online. Loved it as a stand alone app back in the day.
Re: (Score:2)
It's easy to get people to adopt internet connected devices when for most people the internet is the only network they comprehend. People need education in the power capability and security of private networks. We are in an age where consumer devices don't respect security or privacy, the corporate interests pushing these devices are never going to be the ones to say that the user needs to have control over all incoming and outgoing information flows. We have accepted best practices for security in business
Comment removed (Score:3)
Shades of 1984 (Score:3)
Except now people actually go out and pay for the gear used to spy on them....
What privacy? (Score:2)
The one that was banned for most of the world by the US government?
Don't tell your left hand what your right hand does.
Ain't It Awful (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's fine if you can see customer reviews of the sales guy, but you have no need to know that he grunts on the can or that he attends a furry convention every June.
I'll bet you don't want the local 'creative entrepreneurs' to know exactly when you leave the house and when they can expect you home. I'm quite certain you don't want them to know your banking uid and pass.
Required Reading (Score:1)
How many levels of evil? (Score:1)
On the Internet, no one knows that you are a dog (Score:2)
Really people? Your lives are so fascinating that you need to keep the details away from the digital paparazzi? Mine sure isn't.
Here is my take on what is going on here. First, the government doesn't care. Have you heard about the huge number of people arrested for having pictures on Facebook showing drug use? No? Well that is because it's not a threat to the greater good and not worth the time and effort to prosecute. Not even a cursory email saying to clean up your act or we will send you a more st
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.nbc-2.com/story/200... [nbc-2.com]
Re: (Score:2)
First you say there's nothing that interesting about you, then you defeat your argument telling us about your insurance company wanting to snoop and how you prefer not.
TFA is talking about how too many devices don't give you that option. It's happening right now.
It doesn't matter that there's no correlation between sneezing while brushing and employability. If HR gets that kooky idea in their heads (kinda like thinking your fair issac score reflects your driving risk) and your iMirror reports that you have