Slashdot Mirror


Vibrator Maker To Pay Millions Over Claims It Secretly Tracked Use (npr.org)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from NPR: The makers of the We-Vibe, a line of vibrators that can be paired with an app for remote-controlled use, have reached a $3.75 million class action settlement with users following allegations that the company was collecting data on when and how the sex toy was used. The We-Vibe product line includes a number of Bluetooth-enabled vibrators that, when linked to the "We-Connect" app, can be controlled from a smartphone. It allows a user to vary rhythms, patterns and settings -- or give a partner, in the room or anywhere in the world, control of the device. Since the app was released in 2014, some observers have raised concerns that Internet-connected sex toys could be vulnerable to hacking. But the lawsuit doesn't involve any outside meddling -- instead, it centers on concerns that the company itself was tracking users' sex lives. The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Illinois in September. It alleges that -- without customers' knowledge -- the app was designed to collect information about how often, and with what settings, the vibrator was used. The lawyers for the anonymous plaintiffs contended that the app, "incredibly," collected users' email addresses, allowing the company "to link the usage information to specific customer accounts." Customers' email addresses and usage data were transmitted to the company's Canadian servers, the lawsuit alleges. When a We-Vibe was remotely linked to a partner, the connection was described as "secure," but some information was also routed through We-Connect and collected, the lawsuit says.

71 of 113 comments (clear)

  1. Huh by war4peace · · Score: 5, Funny

    There's a bad vibe about all this...

    --
    ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    1. Re:Huh by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      You're probably using the wrong setting. Or at least, someone is.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:Huh by s.petry · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh yes it is, oh yes it, oh yes, ohhhhhhh

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    3. Re:Huh by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      You're probably using the wrong setting. Or at least, someone is.

      So it wasn't on medium high then?

    4. Re:Huh by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 2

      A little to the left now, yeeeeeessssss, ohhhh god! That's it......

      --
      Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
    5. Re:Huh by haruchai · · Score: 1

      "Customers' email addresses and usage data were transmitted to the company's Canadian servers, the lawsuit alleges"
      Oh, Oh, CANADA!!

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    6. Re:Huh by Dangerous_Minds · · Score: 1

      Relax, the maker won't be getting off on this one.

      --
      Daily read for tech news: Freezenet.ca
  2. Wat? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

    Does anyone think that a person who would use a Internet of things Dildo would are about being tracked? Might even be a form of exhibitionism.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    1. Re:Wat? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Husband's and crazy stalkers and shady adult cam site operators.

    2. Re: Wat? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      That's 'cause people expect shit to leave tracks. ;)

    3. Re:Wat? by Sir+Holo · · Score: 2

      Does anyone think that a person who would use a Internet of things Dildo would are about being tracked? Might even be a form of exhibitionism.

      Yes. People who believe that they have privacy through a privately-owned pair of devices should not have to think about the technological perspectives.

      Everyone needs to get off, but not everyone has a deep understanding of tech.

    4. Re:Wat? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Says someone who's clearly never had Facetime sex.

      Very, very, clearly.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    5. Re:Wat? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's not actually an IoT device. The vibrator itself doesn't have any internet connectivity. It connects to your phone via Bluetooth and an app. It was the app that was sending data back to the manufacturer.

      That may seem obvious to us, but remember that the average person doesn't think of it that way. There still isn't much realization that all apps get internet access and many of them spy on you with it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Wat? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      No matter how many times people repeat this nonsense on Slashdot, it does not change the simple fact the average people do not understand this. Average people do not realize yet that "internet connected" means "spyware." They still think that they can buy an IoT device, like a vibrator, and use the features in honest privacy. It's a big problem. If we wanted to make the world a better place, we would push for a boycott WeVibe and anyone else caught doing this shit.

      The idea that humans are entitled to wander around in blissful ignorance of every damn thing in the universe, that someone else is responsible and that learning about things is somehow the worst possible thing tht anyone can do, is as our friends across the ocean say - utter shite and bollocks.

      We've been seeing this sort of inanity where people try to invalidate the laws of physics. Every time there is a snowstorm here in the Northeast, a whole shitload of Einsteins learn but do not learn that you cannot go 85 miles per hour, 3 feet from the person in front of you, on snowy roads in a whiteout. We had a fine 40 some car pileup a week or so ago.

      Then after these, one of these geniuses can be found on Television, blaming the weather people, and the road maintenence crews for not knowing exactly where that whiteout would occur. Bullshit in the extreme.

      Ignorance is never ever an excuse, except for stupid people who would rather blame all their problems on someone else. The internet was never designed to be secure. If people don't know by now that anything you put there is open, and people will do what they will with that data.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    7. Re:Wat? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      That may seem obvious to us, but remember that the average person doesn't think of it that way. There still isn't much realization that all apps get internet access and many of them spy on you with it.

      If people don't understand by this time that "apps" send data to someplace. That if there is data, it must be there for some reason. Then they simply never will. Shall we kill the internet because decades after it's inception that some folks don't and I postulate either can't understand, or just don't care.

      People managed to masturbate since there were people, long before the internet. If they think that a special "app" is now needed to jill off, they need to get a grip.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    8. Re:Wat? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Not all apps send stuff. My firewall confirms it. And the ones that do, you might reasonably expect to keep your masturbatory habits private.

      It's not the consumer that is wrong here, it's the manufacturer.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:Wat? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The idea that humans can keep up with all new threats is utter shite and bollocks. I assume from your attitude that you test all your food to make sure it isn't poisoned and check your car for car bombs whenever you get in it. If not, you're relying on others to either do their jobs or not be actively malicious. To have a functioning society, we need some level of trust in each other.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    10. Re:Wat? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      The idea that humans can keep up with all new threats is utter shite and bollocks. I assume from your attitude that you test all your food to make sure it isn't poisoned and check your car for car bombs whenever you get in it. If not, you're relying on others to either do their jobs or not be actively malicious. To have a functioning society, we need some level of trust in each other.

      Trust? Exactly. But trust works both ways. I have great trust that applications on my smartphone are getting data, and that someone is interested in that data. I trust that if I put personal and or private information on that application, that it is possible for it to escape into the wild, either via the manufacturer of the application, or various actors or groups of actors who enjoy or are paid fof their activities.

      For most of us, it will be the former.

      I don't even disagree with the fine these assholes are paying. Good for them.

      Now that being said, I'm not willing to say that the users never ever had any knowledge that putting personal information into such an application might get out. Unless these are people who never watch the news, never installed any other Application with a screen where they have to acknowledge that the program they are installing collects data about them, they simply have to know.

      Unless you are saying that people are specifically not supposed to read the information before they accept the install, that it is somehow teh intelligent thing to do.

      The ascendency of stupidity, where all of the victims are vindicated because they can't be bothered to read and understand.

      As for your questions that seem to want to invalidate my argument, I do have a tendency to look at my food before I eat it. You can tell a lot of things about it from looking at it. As well, if I take a taste, and something is wrong with the taste - I won't eat it. How odd that you would promote the opposite.

      And nope - I don't check the car for explodey things. But it's interesting you would use that analogy.

      Because if I were engaging in activities that might get me a pipe atteched to the ignition switch - you're damn right I'd check it.

      Just the same way if I put a wanktracker on my smartphone. If you don't want it out there, don't put it out there.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    11. Re:Wat? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Exactly what information was available before the install? It seems to be easier to assume rather than to find out. In specific, did the vibrator app notify its users that it collected enough information for personally identifiable vibrator use? Or did it emphasize the link between phone and vibrator?

      Android app permission screens suck big-time. There's no penalty for asking for more permissions than the app actually needs, because users typically just click through because there's not much they can do. The permissions are per app, rather than in iOS, where some permissions are granted as the need comes up. There's no way to tell, in Android, what a given app is going to do with its permissions. It's as if it were designed to blame the users rather than to assist them.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  3. Didn't see that cumming by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

    IOT vibrators, what could go wrong?

    1. Re:Didn't see that cumming by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      Thankfully, a whole lot less than you'd see with using IOT for a pacemaker or implantable defibrilator.

      Somebody needs to make it a plot point in a sitcom...

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    2. Re: Didn't see that cumming by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

      sssh, the poster deserves to find out the hard way

    3. Re:Didn't see that cumming by s.petry · · Score: 4, Funny

      IOT vibrators, what could go wrong?

      A chipped blue tooth?

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    4. Re:Didn't see that cumming by omnichad · · Score: 1

      neologism happens from time to time.

    5. Re:Didn't see that cumming by quenda · · Score: 1

      Neologisms are generally new words or new meanings. We stopped mucking about with spelling since dictionaries became popular.

      Possibly "come" as a noun is a neologism? I've noticed that Americans love turning nouns (e.g. action) into verbs and vice versa. That can be good. Sometimes.

    6. Re:Didn't see that cumming by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Slang getting an alternate spelling (often due to poor/lazy pronunciation) and becoming a word in its own right is how a lot of new words make it into the dictionary lately (including the abominable "bae").

    7. Re:Didn't see that cumming by quenda · · Score: 1

      Slang getting an alternate spelling

      Surely you mean "alternative" :-) Alternate used to be a perfectly good word with its own meaning - alternating current, alternate Tuesdays, etc.

      (including the abominable "bae").

      I had to google that one.

    8. Re:Didn't see that cumming by thomn8r · · Score: 1

      neolojism happens from time to time.

      FTFY

    9. Re:Didn't see that cumming by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Oh the hilarity. I'm really mad at him... wait until I see him!!! Guy comes in... OK Buster, I'm whoa....Maa... MMMMMMMMMMMM OMG I feel wonderful! Yes, yes yes yes....

    10. Re:Didn't see that cumming by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Surely you mean "alternative"

      Another example right there.

      From Google:

      2. NORTH AMERICAN
      taking the place of; alternative.
      "the rerouted traffic takes a variety of alternate routes"

    11. Re:Didn't see that cumming by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      That's still okay. Try using the USB option. Tried missionary, and it didn't fit. Tried doggy style and it didn't fit. Tried missionary again and it slide right in. It doesn't make any sense.

    12. Re:Didn't see that cumming by quenda · · Score: 1

      Yes. Well spotted.

  4. Kelly Anne Conway by Billly+Gates · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ah so it wasn't the microwave. She must of got her appliances confused and left the wrong one out. Doh

    1. Re:Kelly Anne Conway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      one of the most accomplished women on the planet

      You are one seriously confused individual.

  5. What was the basis of the suit? by BitterOak · · Score: 1

    I get that it's creepy and all that they would be collecting this stuff, but precisely what law was being broken? Is there a statute about sex toy usage privacy?

    --
    If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    1. Re: What was the basis of the suit? by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      PIPEDA. Companies in Canada must disclose what information is collected and why and only use it for the intended purpose.

      According to the summary the lawsuit was filed in Illinois, so I doubt Canadian law would apply.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    2. Re: What was the basis of the suit? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2

      The summary also says (emphasis added):

      Customers' email addresses and usage data were transmitted to the company's Canadian servers, the lawsuit alleges.

      /sarcasm Isn't international law fun?

    3. Re:What was the basis of the suit? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      This shows you shouldn't even be worrying about what law, because your understanding of the legal system is too oversimplified for you to get into details.

      What does a "tort claim" even mean? That's what a lawsuit generally is. If you know even what the legal basis of going to Court to ask them to order somebody to give you money, then you would not ask a stupid question like "precisely what law was being broken?"

    4. Re:What was the basis of the suit? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      From what I recall it was specifics about collecting the data in an identifiable way while saying it was actually just anonymous collection in the EULA or something like that. Can't remember right now, but all in all it was a technicality. This isn't some win for users over data gathering.

    5. Re: What was the basis of the suit? by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      The summary also says (emphasis added):

      Customers' email addresses and usage data were transmitted to the company's Canadian servers, the lawsuit alleges.

      /sarcasm Isn't international law fun?

      I'm aware of that, but the post I was responding to was talking about a Canadian law. Last time I checked, you can't bring suit in a U.S. federal court over a Canadian law.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    6. Re: What was the basis of the suit? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Last time I checked, you can't bring suit in a U.S. federal court over a Canadian law."

      There are these magical things we have called treaties, which quite often allow for such behaviors to be tried regardless of jurisdiction.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  6. Unexpected? Shouldn't be. by AlanObject · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In ages past, people had to learn not to stand where a mule might kick or step, then don't picnic on railroad tracks, then look both ways before crossing the street, then obey traffic lights. At some point it became common knowledge that electricity was dangerous if you came in contact with it, and radiation could cook you. Did you know not all TV ads are trustworthy? I knew that 50 years ago. There are simple steps you can take to make sure nobody steals your money out of the bank.

    I don't think you could name a decade in the past century or even two where some nugget of knowledge about the world passes into common knowledge. Things that people would be considered stupid or illiterate if they didn't know them.

    Today people should know that anything plugged into the Internet and sends data into it is subject hacked and its data stolen. Sometimes by exploit and sometimes by design. Actually people should have known that 20 years ago if not 30. Longer than that I made the decision to never ever write something in an e-mail or post to a message board (no web then) that I would be upset if it were published on the front page of next day's paper.

    This lawsuit strikes me as akin to someone suing an auto maker because they didn't look both ways before crossing the street. If you don't want someone to know how often you masturbate and how, just don't put it over the 'net. M'kay?

  7. Well at least share the stats by swb · · Score: 1

    Usage frequency broken down by demographics.

  8. Interesting by mewsenews · · Score: 1

    I wonder how this case relates to the "diagnostics and usage" option that many software packages ask you to enable. Did they settle just because they never presented the user with that deliberately opaque checkbox?

    1. Re:Interesting by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      No I think it was more to do with collecting information that identifies specific people along with the data.

  9. Re:Unexpected? Shouldn't be. by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 2

    I recall in a reading textbook some 55 years or so ago, a plot point in a story was some kids singing a song about someone whose idea of lighting was kerosene lanterns or candles, who checked into a boarding house, got ready for bed, "... and then he blew out the gas."

    Oh poor Mr. Jones, oh poor Mr. Jones
    We'll never see him more,
    Until we meet again some day
    On that far-away beautiful shore

    Point being, any environment you're not familiar with can have unfamiliar hazards, that the people living in that environment know well to avoid.

  10. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Seriously, collecting email addresses and connecting the data with that is madness. They deserve everything they get now.

    But still: collecting such data in a way that does not allow to identify users is of course a treasure trove of empiric data you would NEVER get by asking people or by just thinking about the problem at hand (ha!). There is some real knowledge to gain here. It's really down-to-the-ground empiric facts that you can learn here to better serve your customers.

    I fear that too often the privacy problems with this kind of data are a reason people throw this out of the window. Companies that fuck up the privacy implications here are doing things just wrong. Being able to get your feet on the ground when it comes to real usage data can be useful for everyone. It's a kind of empiric grounding that is almost impossible to get in any other way. I think we can learn an awful lot from broad data gathering, but we really need to make sure that people are not exploited personally while doing so. There's so much out there to learn and to understand and broad empiric real-world data is the best way to understand things. Just make sure that people can trust you. I fear it's almost too late for that. And I really hate that. Empiric data is the foundation of all knowledge.

  11. Same reason not to... by s.petry · · Score: 1

    Become a gynecologist. A family friend when I was a teen luckily saved me from long contemplation of that career.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Same reason not to... by Evtim · · Score: 1

      Let's burn some karma...long ago, when I considered medicine as career someone told the following joke:

      Court case - gynecologist sued for homicide. The judge asks the accused to explain himself. " Well, your honor, in my line of work [sorry for the french] I see pussies every day, all day long. I go home and it continues - the wife has some pains, the daughter needs spiral adjustment, it never stops! So that night I was going home after particular heavy day and this woman stops me and says - mister, give me five bucks and I'll show you what a pussy is! - I could not resists myself!"

    2. Re:Same reason not to... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Let's burn some karma...long ago, when I considered medicine as career someone told the following joke:

      Court case - gynecologist sued for homicide. The judge asks the accused to explain himself. " Well, your honor, in my line of work [sorry for the french] I see pussies every day, all day long. I go home and it continues - the wife has some pains, the daughter needs spiral adjustment, it never stops! So that night I was going home after particular heavy day and this woman stops me and says - mister, give me five bucks and I'll show you what a pussy is! - I could not resists myself!"

      You appear to have forgotten to include the promised joke in your post.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  12. What's the big deal? by wickerprints · · Score: 2

    I for one, welcome our new teledildonic overlords. Make America Vibrate Again!

  13. When it comes to the IoT by DatbeDank · · Score: 1

    Always assume that they're connected to the internet and spying on you.

    1. Re:When it comes to the IoT by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Always assume that they're connected to the internet and spying on you.

      And even if they aren't, that they have backdoors that can and will enable that at a whim. If a thing has a remote upgrade capability, assume that it one day will start spying on you, even if it doesn't now.

    2. Re:When it comes to the IoT by Dripdry · · Score: 1

      Spying? Putting it in that light isn't helpful.

      If that's spying, then the anonymous usage statistics that nearly every application for the last 20 years has been collecting and sending home on the internet is spying.

      --
      -
    3. Re:When it comes to the IoT by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      RTFS. The plaintiffs claimed that the data was collected with email addresses attached. This isn't anonymous data collection.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  14. No Longer Just Searching For Dick Pics? by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

    Who put the NSA in a Christian summer camp?

  15. The fine seems a little stiff. by jasonbrown · · Score: 2

    Just kidding! Actually a crime of this magnitude shouldn't be taken lying down.

    --

    "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
  16. DDOS by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

    Someone had to say it.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  17. Quite a deal by hajile · · Score: 2

    Paying 3.75 million for what is probably the most detailed study the industry has ever had. A team of market researchers would cost far more and yield far inferior results (even in anonymous studies, people lie and/or forget).

    1. Re:Quite a deal by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      It's quite expensive when they could have instead collected a hashed number and buried the tracking in 40 pages of EULA like every other company. I'm sure that would have saved 3.749million dollars.

  18. Re:Unexpected? Shouldn't be. by buss_error · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Today people should know that anything plugged into the Internet and sends data into it is subject hacked and its data stolen.

    Granted. However, the issue here isn't that it was "hacked and stolen" - the data were used without informed consent. Was it buried in the EULA, contract, written in invisible ink? The key here is the concept in contract law that a meeting of the minds has to occur. Obviously, if people knew their masturbatory habits would be put up for sale to the highest bidder, they would have avoided this product.

    I find extremely objectionable your arrogant and superior attitude vis-a-vi "what people should know", not that you'll give a single whit about that. I object to it because when you get caught with "your finger off your number" and goof up, my experience is that you're going to be screaming in supersonic frequencies about how "unfair" it all is. A little imagination and empathy isn't too much to ask of someone. And yes, I'm aware you will be indignant and angry with my observations. Not that I'll give one whit about that, either.

    --
    Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
  19. Re:Unexpected? Shouldn't be. by Waccoon · · Score: 1

    If you don't want someone to know how often you masturbate and how, just don't put it over the 'net. M'kay?

    It's quickly coming to the point where if I don't want to be tracked, I have to give up 99% of everything.

  20. Hah! Fooled them! by PPH · · Score: 1

    Registered my We-Vibe with the e-mail alias Wayne Tracker

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Hah! Fooled them! by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      I initially read that as Wang Tracker.

      I think I may have found a new disposable e-mail address with Wayne Tracker.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  21. ubiquitous surveillance by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

    Your phone is ALWAYS spying on you.

    Welcome to 1984. War is peace. Lies are facts. Hate is love. Freedom is slavery. Surveillance is privacy. Ignorance is strength.

    Thank you, please drive thru.

  22. Re:Unexpected? Shouldn't be. by buss_error · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Take some freaking responsibility for your choices and stop pretending like you weren't informed about what would happen, when it says it right on the box.

    Except, wait for it - it doesn't say that on the box or anywhere else

    So should we expect that anytime we do anything simi-private (make a phone call, kiss your SO, talk to your doctor) that we have no reasonable expectation of having it, you know - private? Such may be a utopia for you, but I find it distressing, alarming, unconscionable and un-American.

    --
    Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
  23. Re:Unexpected? Shouldn't be. by houghi · · Score: 1

    Obviously, if people knew their masturbatory habits would be put up for sale to the highest bidder, they would have avoided this product.

    Obviously you have no idea what obviously means.
    This is just one device where people are tracked and the data sold. It has happened in the past and will happen in the future over and over again, till law will take action that is.

    John Olliver had it right that when he did the Interview in Russia with Edward Snowed that people would not mind to be spied on, untill it was about looking at their dick pics.

    This goes a bit deeper (see what I did there) than just a dic pic and that is why there aws an outrage.

    Almost everything you have and that has data transfered will sell its data at one point or another if that is allowed.

    People where upset when Mucrosoft was tracking everybody and everything, but no real outrage and no lawsuits. The same for every other situation till now.

    So the people who decide politics (companies are people too) will change the law so it will become legal.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  24. Re:Unexpected? Shouldn't be. by AlanObject · · Score: 1

    hey, Asshat, the internet didn't exist 30 years ago.

    So explain to me how something could be "plugged into the Internet "???

    It was called the ARPAnet then. And yes I had access to a PDP8 and other systems that were "plugged into" it. And we sent messages over it. And it was realized almost instantly by many that private information could be exposed that way.

    And others chose to ignore the blindingly obvious and sometimes got in trouble over it.

    Pro tip: please realize that something can exist sooner than the first time you were aware of it.

  25. Re:Unexpected? Shouldn't be. by Dripdry · · Score: 1

    It was anonymized data. All it collected was stuff like time of day and settings; the vibrator didn't ask for your social security number, date of birth, bank account number, and names of friends!

    No, this class action suit is a troubling and CLASSIC version of Americans getting all worked up about sex as well as getting money because litigation.
    They collect anonymous usage stats on software and hardware constantly. his just happens to refer to sex.

    Grow up, America.

    --
    -
  26. Re:Unexpected? Shouldn't be. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    Today people should know that anything plugged into the Internet and sends data into it is subject hacked and its data stolen

    In which case no one would ever do online shopping, banking, etc.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  27. Re:Unexpected? Shouldn't be. by AlanObject · · Score: 1

    In which case no one would ever do online shopping, banking, etc.

    I do all those things and more. Like doing this posting behind a pseudonym.

    Unlike some, I have no illusion that my privacy with regard to those actions is absolute or in some cases not protected by law. So I always keep awareness what the consequences would be if my activities were made public with my real name. Then assess the risk of exposure at different levels.

    With that awareness you can do a quick risk/benefit analysis. Then make a rational decision based on personal values. Not just charge ahead heedlessly and expect a settlement when it turns out Zuckerberg wanted marketing data on you all along.

    P.S. now that you made be write the above I confess I am having difficulty as to determining what the "benefit" to me was in writing the above.