Who's worse? NSA or Google?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| notbob Jan 22, 2014 11:43 AM EDT |
I can't afford a Nest, but now that Google has acquired it, I wouldn't take one even as a gift. This is a truly scary trend. 1984/THX1138 will not exist via video cameras, but EDRs (event data recorders) and everyone from municipal agencies to medical, insurance, energy companies, etc, will have access to your data. Were you acting responsibly when that fire started in your home? Your explanation won't be worth spit compared to an insurance company's paid professionals interpreting your hard data. I hope this may launch a very necessary trend, one that pointedly eschews the acquisition of "smart" (read networked) devices. I know I certainly have no desire of being ratted out by my toaster. More than ever, I'm reminded of that saying: "Am I paranoid? Not nearly enough". Excuse me while go put a .45 hardball thru my Nook. ;) |
| Bob_Robertson Jan 22, 2014 1:41 PM EDT |
Well, it's not illegal to use the Disconnect add-on, or to choose not to use Gmail, or to use StartPage.com or DuckDuckGo. So, so far, I'd say it's on the NSA side for explicit evil. |
| jdixon Jan 22, 2014 2:44 PM EDT |
> so far, I'd say it's on the NSA side for explicit evil. In addition, you can choose not to finance Google. If you pay taxes, you have no such choice with the NSA in the US. |
| notbob Jan 22, 2014 5:31 PM EDT |
> taxes, you have no such choice with the NSA in the US. Do you honestly believe you have a choice with current products? That the new cage yer driving is not crawling with EDRs, already? You think the insurance industry is not lobbying like crazy to make it mandatory they insinuate tattle-tale devices into every potential litigation application available to them? Sure, courts ruled in favor of secreted GPS units in rental cars, but how long do you think that will last in this "for national security" climate? I'm jes saying if it can happen, it probably will. One should be damn cynical about what the reasons are for imbedding networking devices in common appliances. That it's "for your benefit" sounds damn suspect, to me. |
| jdixon Jan 22, 2014 5:52 PM EDT |
> That the new cage yer driving is not crawling with EDRs, already? Mine, Probably not. It's a fairly low end model. They couldn't afford to put that many into it. > You think the insurance industry is not lobbying like crazy to make it mandatory they insinuate tattle-tale devices into every potential litigation application available to them? Of course. But auto insurance, since it is required by law, is simply another tax. > Sure, courts ruled in favor of secreted GPS units in rental cars, but how long do you think that will last in this "for national security" climate? Until the Feds need it to change. We no longer live under the rule of law, and haven't for some time. But none of this has anything to do with Google. They sell targeted advertising. Simply block or ignore their ads, and you're not funding them. |
| notbob Jan 22, 2014 6:21 PM EDT |
> But none of this has anything to do with Google Oh, so dirtbag insurance company A cannot subpoena duces tecum Google to produce Nest data. Well, if you say so! Heck, I'll buy three, cuz jd sez it's OK. ;) |
| jdixon Jan 22, 2014 8:22 PM EDT |
> Oh, so dirtbag insurance company A cannot subpoena duces tecum Google to produce Nest data. If you don't trust Google, why are you buying a Nest product? |
| flufferbeer Jan 23, 2014 12:28 AM EDT |
@jdixon, >> But none of this has anything to do with Google. They sell targeted advertising. Simply block or ignore their ads, and you're not funding them. Getting back more specifically than funding to the related issue of legal/illegal surveillance when comparing who's worse, I'm more worried that sometime soon -- if they haven't done so already -- Google will increasingly open the floodgates to spammers and ID thieves for those who merely even ATTEMPT to block both their ads and their surveillance. Let's face it, Google's ALREADY let the genie out of bottle by opening themselves up to the NSA's supposedly "legal" user-info requests!! Why stop now?? My 2c |
| jdixon Jan 23, 2014 7:21 AM EDT |
That''s an understandable concern, flufferbeer. But again, that has nothing to do with funding Google involuntarily. As a taxpaying US citizen, you fund the NSA whether you want to or not. You can do your absolute best to ensure Google never sees a penny of your money, or even that you're a net drain on their coffers fi you want. |
| Bob_Robertson Jan 23, 2014 1:20 PM EDT |
As an aside, auto insurance is not legally required in New Hampshire. It's still a really good idea. As a result, it's much less expensive. Funny thing. |
| flufferbeer Jan 23, 2014 4:06 PM EDT |
@jdixon, >> But again, that has nothing to do with funding Google involuntarily. But I'm primarily judging Google as worse coming from the invariable AFTERFFECTS of legal/illegal surveillance, not so much as much funding involuntarily drawn straight to Google. Although I beg to differ in that Google COULD somehow benefit fund$-wise by allowing spammers and ID thieves more leeway in gaining eventual lucrative acce$$ to more of their wealthier victims. Hah, maybe tinfoil-hat me! 2more c's |
| jdixon Jan 23, 2014 4:50 PM EDT |
> As a result, it's much less expensive. Funny thing. Yeah, funny how that works, isn't it? :) |
| gus3 Jan 23, 2014 7:54 PM EDT |
In answer to the thread's subject line: Yes. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!