Senator Al Franken Takes On Oculus Over VR Data Mining (engadget.com) 70
An anonymous reader writes: Oculus says in its privacy policy it will track information about your location, physical movements, and how you're using the Oculus Rift headset. Senator Al Franken, a consumer advocate who has made a point of pushing back against invasive privacy policies like Uber's, wrote a letter to Oculus CEO Brendan Iribe, pushing for more information about how, exactly, Oculus is using all of the data it collects. "I believe Americans have a fundamental right to privacy," Franken wrote. "And that right includes an individual's access to information about what data are being collected about them, how the data are being treated, and with whom the data are being shared." Oculus has not yet commented on the letter. As a result from Franken's letter, Oculus may offer a more detailed privacy policy, like what HTC has done for its Vive headset. Though, it's worth mentioning Oculus isn't collecting much more information than most technology companies. The biggest concern stems around what kind of information Facebook is collecting when the headset is not being used -- there's no off button, so it's always sitting in a semi-ready state.
Do we own the device in the first place? (Score:1)
Like that Revolv thing that those who already did the purchase thought they own, only to be shut down by Google/Nest --- we need to know if this VR device, once sold, is owned by the users, or, can it be shut down (or somehow rendered useless) by Facebook?
Re: (Score:1)
Almost anything connected that you buy today, from most models of automobile to a Nest thermostat, can be remotely disabled at any time by the company you bought them from. I would be absolutely astonished if that were not also the case here.
The ownership era is almost over now. Why? Because everyone kept buying things that transferred ownership from the buyer to the company who made the stuff. Without market pressure not to do that, of course they will do it.
Basically, it happened because almost nobody
Re: (Score:2)
That's a great idea with just one flaw: I doubt it will work without power.
The real answer is for companies to stop collecting data. There is no legitimate reason that Facebook should have data collection in the Oculus Rift just as there is no legitimate reason that Microsoft or Google should have data collection in their respective OSes.
Re: (Score:1)
What reasons would those be?
There's NO reason for a company to collect data, period. If I buy a VR headset, it's to play VR games or watch VR porn or design something in VR. Not to send my "usage data" upstream for some computer to fap to. Fuck that. I'm not installing spyware, I'm not running a spy OS, and I definitely don't need a spybot hardware piece. It's useless bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
This sentence is only true of the Samsung Gear VR, not the Oculus Rift, which contains its own screen. This is why the specifications for the Rift include a resolution:
http://www.digitaltrends.com/v... [digitaltrends.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I have to admit, I somewhat do agree with GP. If you are developing a program it is useful to know how many of your users are using a certain feature, in order to know whether you still want to support it, or whether you want to support something else. But generally, there should be a simple check box which you tick, and the software should stop with that statistics collection.
Re: (Score:2)
> There's NO reason for a company to collect data, period.
That's right! They should just blindly develop stuff without any user feedback at all. No data, at all, should be collected. They shouldn't collect your billing address, they should just send 'em out to random people! They shouldn't find out what features you use more, they should just disable all the features - including the start button.
Wait, what?
Are you daft or did you mean to say that it should be opt-in?
Re: (Score:2)
There's NO reason for a company to collect data, period.
If that is true then why are they doing it?
I'm not installing spyware, I'm not running a spy OS, and I definitely don't need a spybot hardware piece. It's useless bullshit.
But you likely use a phone, go in places that have CCTV and right now you're using the public net.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, fuck it since you can't have 100% privacy then you shouldn't have any at all.
No I'm saying your privacy is far more erroded by the things you do that track your location around the world and capture the information you send than your VR toy that captures usage info. But the paranoid social retards have no concept of the difference between telemetry data and accessing everything on your computer.
Even if you believe that this is some conspiracy to get at your files then simply only install it under a "gaming" user account that doesn't have access to your files, or on a dedicated gamin
Re: (Score:2)
That's a great idea with just one flaw: I doubt it will work without power.
The real answer is for companies to stop collecting data. There is no legitimate reason that Facebook should have data collection in the Oculus Rift just as there is no legitimate reason that Microsoft or Google should have data collection in their respective OSes.
Or you could just...not buy one? Seriously, if you don't like the way it works, don't buy it. Some people don't mind being spied on, and if that's fine with them, then let them have their cake.
Re:Power? (Score:4, Insightful)
> Or you could just...not buy one?
Sure, and we're all on board with that. The problem is that each and every piece of new technology is going to be saddled with this unless we solve it legislatively.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, and we're all on board with that. The problem is that each and every piece of new technology is going to be saddled with this unless we solve it legislatively.
So why don't you invest in open source? You don't need to have the newest shiny all the time, yes you'll be a bit behind but support those technologies that allow you to modify them and turn off things you don't like instead of funding the companies doing exactly the things you don't like to you. You're paying them to abuse you and then complaining about it. Stop being a submissive and start actively supporting the projects set out to empower you.
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, but that strategy does not work when EVERY product on the shelf with a damn internet connection does it so the companies can get that juicy Big Data money. It's also the reason why they won't stop doing it. (At least until there's no money left to be made doing so.)
The idea that the invisible hand in the free market will fix things, fails when the problem is about a product / service where said product / service is operated in a monopoly like fashion.
Re: Power? (Score:1)
yeah right (Score:1, Interesting)
That's rich, this is the same Al Franken that voted to extend the Patriot Act, and is on record defending the NSA's Stazi practices. This is also the same guy that worships groups like the RIAA and MPAA and has supported SOPA/PIPA legislation.
Franken is a hack, I don't believe for a second he gives a shit about privacy rights, so there must be another reason he's going after the Rift/Facebook
Re: (Score:1)
He is infinitely funnier than you.
Re: (Score:3)
It's probably best that he returns to being a comedian. He's been in favor of virtually all of the worst intellectual property bills that have gone through the senate.
Re: Mod parent RETARDED. (Score:2)
It's hypocratic to consistently ask for less regulation? I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Erh... yes? When has an Oculus become mandatory? (Score:1)
Yes, everyone has a right to privacy. And I fail to see the problem, it's not like we have government mandated Oculus Rifts that we have to wear all the time and can't take off. We have the choice to NOT get that shit and tell them where to stick it.
I don't really see the need for politics to get involved. If anything, it should be required to say that they will do so before you buy it... wait, that's what's already happening, that's what started the whole shit.
Don't get me wrong, I'm as much pro-privacy as
Re: (Score:2)
Are smartphones mandatory? No they aren't. But if you don't have a smartphone you might have issues to get friends if you are younger than a certain age, because most of the communication happens over smartphones/smartphone apps.
Is the pebble watch mandatory by the government? No, it isn't. But if you don't wear it, you won't get insured by some employers. So simply don't take the job, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Then this is where the law makers should get active and outlaw requiring certain technology for insurance or employment, or enforce privacy protection for youths.
Re: (Score:2)
This "social only over apps" issue will continue to affect this generation as it gets older. It has nothing to do with youths, just with the availability of technology and youths adapting to new things far more easily.
Re: (Score:2)
Are smartphones mandatory? No they aren't. But if you don't have a smartphone you might have issues to get friends if you are younger than a certain age, because most of the communication happens over smartphones/smartphone apps.
Then your prospective "friends" don't much care about the doom-and-gloom pontificating of these privacy violations. You see it as a big deal, sure, but why? I have an oculus at my house, now if they can get this information from it what is the scenario you offer that would convince me to get rid of it?
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest, my data aren't *this* important for me. The main reason why I prefer open source is control. I don't like software that does what its manufacturer told it, and not what I tell it to do.
Think of a chat app. What if I want to use it via a desktop application? Should I be required to wait for the manufacturer to write a browser version of it that can be used on the desktop?
Yes, I admit, I'm not the kind of guy who changes and recompiles some piece of open source software just to scratch some itch
Re: (Score:2)
It's open ended (Score:4, Interesting)
Mr Franken's question will need to be repeated every month. And that still doesn't necessarily stop the bad behaviour.
The point of the policy is it's a disclaimer of "You give us permission to take anything we see fit". That means the data gathered and uses of and distribution of change with time.
I think Mr Zuckerberg is intentionally trying to trigger new laws that set defined limits.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't normally do this and, in fact, I'm pretty sure this is the first time I've ever done this...
I think Mr Zuckerberg is intentionally trying to trigger new laws that set NO limits.
FTFY
I thought about it and yeah, limits would mean he could go so far and no further and would know where his liability would begin as well as present a clear limit for civil actions that may happen at some point. But, I should think his wish for those new laws would be no limits, no limits at all. If he can get that codified then he'd be all set.
I'm not really sure that I've time to vocalize all of my thoughts on the subject. I also don't really have time for a novella right now.
I'd like to see them make up-front notification mandatory. I want to say that it should be opt-in and never opt-out. I want to say that you should have a choice. But, doing so means that I take the freedom from the vendor away. I think a vendor should be allowed to track users all they want - so long as the user consents to it. It should be in clear text that is easy to understand. If the vendor wants to make use contingent on that tracking then the vendor should be free to do so. However... The client/customer/user should be aware of this beforehand and be able to make an informed decision. With that, I suppose, we should probably also make notification mandatory that it is optional when it is, factually, optional.
If Party A wants to buy Product Z and Party A is fully aware that it will track them then Party A should be allowed to do so. Vendor of Product Z should be free to provision that product so long as they have made it clear that data is being collected, why it is being collected, and who will have access to that data as well as how long they'll retain that data. Such information should be clear, factual, and not subject to change by either party without consent by both parties. If Party A transfers the product or service to another then it is Party A's responsibility to inform the new Party prior to the transfer.
There's a whole lotta party up in there. That's also about as clear as mud. Hopefully it makes sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Most intelligent people realize that there is no such thing as a free lunch, so the question is: "how is this getting paid for?" Any service that is promoting itself as "free" is misrepresenting itself, and that needs to be addressed.
Corporations should be required to reveal all the data being collected and how it is used, and consumers should have an option to decline data collection. Furthermore, refusal to offer service to someone that has declined data collection should be considered discrimination an
what kind of information Facebook is collecting... (Score:2)
Well yo will have to ask them about that but I do know what is possible, http://www.wired.com/2014/08/g... [wired.com]
isnt' collecting much more than others? (Score:2)
You know that's *all* the data, right?
Re: (Score:1)
#GoodEnoughSmartEnoughAndDoggonnitPeopleLikeHim!
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, "similar what HTC has done..." makes even less sense!
Managed smart monitors as a service (Score:5, Insightful)
Wouldn't it be swell if you couldn't buy a normal monitor anymore? If all monitors were "smart" requiring Internet connectivity, call home to their respective manufacturer periodically uploading samples of displayed image to "improve" quality of product, assist with "troubleshooting" and proactive "diagnostics". Information so critical to continuously supporting and improving the product.
For your safety your smart monitor wouldn't install without an Internet connection, monitor vendor reserves the right to change terms or discontinue your use of monitor "service" at any time. If we change terms you will be given 30 days advanced notice to agree with new terms or lose all access to your monitor service.
Examples of changes we may make include requiring you to pay a small one time or monthly fee, offering direct advertising to your monitor at no cost to you and mirroring your display to our partners. You agree to provide us with a non revocable royalty free license to use any content associated with our monitor service.
Re: (Score:2)
"Meraki"is that you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You do realise that MS require Secure Boot be able to be disabled on any motherboard or system targeting an x86 (32bit or 64bit) Windows certification program?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, ability to disable secure boot is required for windows 8, but for windows 10 it is not required anymore [arstechnica.com].
Either way, makes no big difference, as there are Microsoft signed secure boot loaders for Linux. But you get more hassles though.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, ability to disable secure boot is required for windows 8, but for windows 10 it is not required anymore [arstechnica.com].
Right, that is a decision for the manufacturer of the hardware to make. Just like Google doesn't force all handset manufacturers to have rooted systems and unlocked bootloaders.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if the manufacturer decides to enforce secure boot, the situation is still better than on the mobile world where you can't even write a separate ROM that's not signed by the manufacturer in some cases.
Microsoft enforces hardware manufacturers to allow all microsoft signed bootloaders, and microsoft has signed bootloaders that can boot linux. Thats basically microsoft "forcing" manufacturers to allow people to "root" their systems, to use terms from the mobile world.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft enforces hardware manufacturers to allow all microsoft signed bootloaders, and microsoft has signed bootloaders that can boot linux. Thats basically microsoft "forcing" manufacturers to allow people to "root" their systems, to use terms from the mobile world.
If by "forcing" you mean they want to leverage Microsoft's marketing and have that little "designed for Windows 10" sticker on the systems they ship then sure, but that's a pretty contrived definition of "forcing". They aren't "forced" to do that, in fact they don't even need to do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Please tell me (Score:2, Funny)
Please tell me he posted that as his Facebook update from his Android tablet via the ISP that was retaining all the metadata about his connection while sitting at a coffee house with a local government CCTV camera pointed at him.
FUD for fun and profit (Score:1)
If you don't like the TOS, then don't buy the gadget! Geez, is that so hard?
Every surveillance camera on the street or in a local mall "can collect information about how you move and how you're
Re: (Score:1)
"Don't like conditions - don't buy it" could apply to pretty much any condition, right?
Yet there are numerous laws that prohibit this and that in TOC.(e.g. warranty conditions in EU, see Apple's woes in Italy)
Now, do you think that thas laws are useless/evil/etc or do you think that "don't like - don't buy" might not cut it in some situations?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and have you looked at the European economy, European customer service, or European innovation? They suck. And the more we adopt European style laws, the more the US will suck just like Europe. In the US, restrictions on the ability to enter contracts more freely already hurts people badly; we shouldn't let it get any worse.
And the VR headset is a simple illustration why: you will