Senator Proposes Mandatory Labeling For Products With Mics, Cameras (congress.gov) 42
Senator Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) introduced a bill, dubbed the Protecting Privacy in our Homes Act, that would require tech companies to include a label on products disclosing the presence of internet-connected microphones or cameras. "The proposed law does not define what kind of labels would need to be appended but rather would order the Federal Trade Commission to put in place specific regulations 'under which each covered manufacturer shall be required to include on the packaging of each covered device manufactured by the covered manufacturer a notice that a camera or microphone is a component of the covered device,'" reports Ars Technica. From the report: "Consumers face a number of challenges when it comes to their privacy, but they shouldn't have a challenge figuring out if a device they buy has a camera or microphone embedded into it," Gardner said. "This legislation is about consumer information, consumer empowerment, and making sure we're doing everything we can to protect consumer privacy." Most products that ship with cameras or microphones included tout the inclusion of such recording devices as a selling point, which could make this kind of regulation feel redundant at best. That said, there's quite a difference between "most" and "all." A rule such as the regulation Gardner proposes would close the gap that, for example, led owners of Nest Secure devices to the unpleasant discovery earlier this year that the products had shipped with undisclosed microphones.
Almost as telling as... (Score:1)
when the GOP outlawed hotels revealing what pay per view movies were watched, AFTER Baptist Convention attendees were outed for watching a LOT of porn
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, somebody important got nailed.
Well, this is a good thing. If we can make all the spy tech backfire on the politician, you won't see it used against the rest of us.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I'm glad it happened; and I don't care who or why. It's nobody's business and it is unfortunate you can't support it without partizan jabs (pun intended).
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'm glad it happened; and I don't care who or why. It's nobody's business and it is unfortunate you can't support it without partizan jabs (pun intended).
I'd like to live in your perfect world. But in this one, after the rental lists are protected we're going to need to get some other protection passed. It would be nice to know what's actually important to those who pass the laws. If they're not susceptible to principled argument, we can stop wasting time trying to reason with them.
This is a good idea (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This is a good idea (Score:5, Informative)
I am normally against regulation, but I have no issue with this. Minimal impact to manufactures, with huge privacy concerns/rewards. If you have the slightest desire for privacy or even the illusion of it, you should support this too!
And note that it's NOT always obvious -- e.g. multiple Google Nest products shipped with hardware microphone present without being listed, only to be enabled later through a software update: https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not so sure that people fully understand what privacy is, much less what it means to give it up. Take facebook for instance. Facebook is basically used like a psychiatric ward, but it's decorated like a bar. In this psychiatric ward, the people are tested, and all data gathered will be used against them, in any way imaginable, provided there's a profit. Since the people give the data away for free, it's all profit. And to top it all off, this is all well-known and understood, yet people continue to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would argue that these two things are mutually exclusive. If the folks that wrote the law had good intentions, they wouldnt have so poorly thought it out.
Re: (Score:2)
Never heard the phrase "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" have you?
Re: Almost a good idea. (Score:2)
Perhaps those warnings are everywhere because we live in a world full of carcinogenic products. Just a thought...
This is the most glorious comment I've ever read (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There should be a "last use" date too, which is the earliest date that they can switch off the mandatory internet service that it needs to work.
Re: (Score:2)
Naaa, that would make the broken business-model behind these things far too obvious. A similar idea would be to force them to state how long a device will get updates and security fixes.
Re: (Score:2)
In essence, this is just forcing the manufacturer to tell the customer about the critical ingredients. The one form of regulation that is wholly beneficial for the customer.
This does not go far enough! (Score:2)
Re:This does not go far enough! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they should all be required to have user-accessible, on/off switches that physically break power and data circuits without otherwise inhibiting the device.
Re: (Score:2)
Pliers work wonders for this.
Re: (Score:2)
On/off switches AND indicator lights showing when they are active.
Off-On (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Are they going to read your fingerprints to make sure it's you?
What we need is not identity verification, it's physical switches. Not just a GPIO to toggle, but running the signal through the switch (for mics) or the power (for cameras.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And they need to work too. It's easy to physically cover cameras, but microphones require physical disconnections like a wire/cable. :/
Re: (Score:2)
I would rather not have mandatory, physical on/off toggles for the mics and cameras on my phone. I get why others might want them, and I’m fine with the market addressing that feature request, but suggesting a mandate that all of us be stuck with them is a step too far.
Enough is enough (Score:2)
"It's not a big hole! It's a series of lenses!" (Score:3)
Is what he was heard yelling, later.
Then he went on, to print out his newest "electronic letters".
All I can do, is laugh. Like that would change anything.
Here in Germany, it's illegal to record anyone without his consent. But there is also freedom of the press. So judges have to decide on a case by case basis. (Unlike in the US, judges can't set precedents here.)
Also, there is a law that makes it legal, if people (presumably accidentially) are visible on your "panorama".
And every surveillance camera HAS to have a sign *outside* of the recorded area, telling you what is done with the data. Except traffic cops somehow get a free pass. *cough*more equal*cough*
Not that your greasy spoon down the road would care, as long as nobody sues.
In daily life, people run around with their smartphones every day anyway. Even though those could record everything at any time. (E.g. if I yell "Hey Siri!" in a public place, I might create a recording and a leak.)
And if somebody is obviously recording, most people will say nothing, but won't exactly be happy about it. Somebody (like me) can tell you to stop and delete it at any time though. Not that he could check.
Also, the latest trick is, to make it look like you are just using the "selfie" cam, e.g. as a mirror. As long as nobody sees your screen, you can record all you want. (Just make sure to mute the activation sound.)
(For the record: Public nudity is not illegal in Germany!)
You see ... big mess ... where signs would be useless.
So please tread carefully when going down the public privacy rabbit hole.
And never forget that it is all about the permanence of the recording. As in: It still tainting your reputation, 30 years later, halfway around the world. Not about a remote guy behind a (non-leaky) camera seeing the same thing everybody can see publicly *at that moment* anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't go quite far enough. (Score:2)
That doesn't quite go far enough. If the device can be internet connected (or otherwise remotely accessed, for instance by bluetooth) but the stock software doesn't feed the microphone or camera streams or snaps to the internet, it's still possible for a cracker to install the missing piece and access them.
It should be "disclosing the presence of microphones or cameras" on an
Internet Connected Camera's and Microphones? (Score:2)
I have never seen an "Internet Connected" camera or microphone. Usually the camera or microphone is connected to other electronics. Sometimes those other electronics are connected to a network that comprises part of the Internet. I do not think you can take any camera or microphone and connect it to the Internet -- you need a whole lot of stuff in between.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a d-link camera from 18 or so years ago that plugged into ethernet and set up a web site that you could hit to see pictures from the camera. I used it for security for a few years. I'm pretty sure it'd be hacked in 2 minutes now. But, yes, there are plenty of cameras that still plug straight in to the network and have the ability to send pictures or video.
Re: (Score:2)
I work in physical security, in part managing 43,000 networked IP cameras. Remove the corporate firewall and you have 43,000 "Internet Connected" cameras.
The dumbest thing of all? There are a lot of security "professionals" who think nothing of dropping IP cameras on the outside of their customers' firewalls so that they can be remotely accessed, for the most part because they have no idea how to set up a VPN and/or their customers are too stupid/lazy to know how to use one. A lot of them have been hijac
Many things (Score:2)
in an electronic device can be rigged to be a audio frequency detector, if you really want. Accelerometers are just low-frequency mics. A speaker is also a mic. Intensity or polarization variations in imagers can be used to interpret sound. Where do we stop with the labels?
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. An accelerometer cannot detect anything like speech. A speaker is only a mic if there is an input that can use it as a mic connected directly to it.
So good (Score:2)
I'd like to see a soft glow light that is on any time a mic or camera is powered, and it is hooked in at a hardware level and cannot be shut off independently of the mic or camera.
Won't really fix the problem (Score:2)
You need to require a hardwired disable switch on all products with a microphone. Software disable is useless as we know.
When everything in existence has the microphone included sticker on it the sticker will accomplish nothing.
This does nothing (Score:1)
Please vote for your cat next time (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
wrong focus (Score:2)
there is nothing wrong with a device that has a camera and/or a mic.
the problem is when they send that data to the 'cloud' for 'processing/analysing'.
there should be a warning on the box of such devices, and not only for video/audio, but for all personal data, including gps data etc.