Should Parents Shun Toys That Track Their Kids? (cbsnews.com)

An anonymous reader quotes CBS News: Parents are realizing that it's not just Santa who's keeping tabs on their kids. Many popular high-tech gadgets that may end up being given as holiday presents can actually track, monitor and record children. Because of that, there are some gifts Felicity and Alden Eute won't have under their Christmas tree. Their mother, Emily, has banned all tech gifts this season. "My husband and I both agree kids don't really need to be on technology or on social media," Emily said. "None of these extra gadgets that just expose you to things kids shouldn't be exposed to at their age."

While federal law requires a parent's permission to track and collect data on children under 13, a Federal Trade Commission complaint filed this week alleges widespread violations through apps that "send persistent identifiers to third parties without giving direct notice to parents." That means things like location data, phone numbers and contact information could be exposed, according to Serge Engleman of the International Computer Science Institute. The institute's surveillance system, under the direction of Engleman, collected evidence that is now before the Federal Trade Commission.... It's not only apps where there are potential violations. "Any kind of interconnected robot-type toys...interactive games that you may play online are collecting data," said Scott Pink, a privacy and cybersecurity specialist.

Comments

Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

You haven't learned to like Big Brother yet... you likely use a cellphone, right? Why care about other toys?

Re:Obviously

[jellomizer]

It isn't liking big brother, but the gene is out of the bottle. The problem is these devices which do wonderful things but collect your data, and sell it to anyone willing to pay for it, are cheap. vs. having to pay high prices for a device that may not be as smart (because it can't process off so much data) and more expensive because you are paying for the full device.

If we wanted to fight against privacy parents should had stood up 20 years ago. But then computers were these scary things that were too advance for them to touch. And technology policy was only in the domain of geeky nerds who didn't have anything better to do with their lives.

Re:Obviously

[DoktorSeven]

I don't use a cellphone. Exactly because I haven't accepted Big Brother as my lord and savior like everyone else has.

This invasion of privacy in modern society is a huge problem we need to stop, now.

Re: Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

Since there is not, there has never been, and there will never be anything you or anyone can do about it, by not owning a cellphone you're just cutting yourself out. Grow up, you're not a rebel. You're not a hero. You're not the Chosen One. Embrace reality. You will not stop anything.

Re: Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

Give up! IT'S ALL SHIT!!! Resistance is futile

Re:Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously the only possible answer is a loud and resounding YES! The collecting, buying and selling of people's private data is one of the biggest businesses in the world, and one that needs to be shut down!Not only should children not have a "samrt" phone, their parents should not either! And EVERYONE needs to avoid data mining sites like Fakebook, TWITter, Instagram, snap-chat, etc... There is NO SUCH THING as "social media", these sites and services only exist to collect what should be private data on everyone that they can! Anyone that says otherwise is either stupid or lying!!

Re:Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

I am glad there is another person who stopped using their cellphone, sometimes I wonder if I'm the only one. I have a cellphone which stays powered off, battery disconnected, in the trunk of the car. If my car breaks down, I get lost, or am in accident, the convenience will outweigh the temporary loss of privacy. I power it up every few months to verify the battery is still charged and the service is still working. I also use cash for almost all non-reoccurring bills. I've not used a debit card in a bricks-and-mortar store in a very long time.

Re: Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh... Well isn't it just that simple! I'll get rid of this cell phone and my freedoms will be restored!

Just kidding... I appreciate your sentiment but obviously even if you don't use a cell phone, you still attend their church, if you ask them...

So......

Re: Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting rid of your cell phone doesn't solve much. Symptom versus cause....... But more power to you anyhow...

Re: Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

Resistance after the status quo has been not only accepted but embraced by the overwhelming majority of the population is not resistance. It is at best delusion and at worst terrorism.

Re:Obviously

[sjames]

They did stand up, and a law was passed. Now it needs to be enforced. The parents in TFA are standing up as well.

They make a profit on every unit sold. They just want to make even more.

If the device needs more computing power than it can fit onboard (a lot less of a problem not than it was just a few years ago thanks to ARM), let it talk to software loaded on a PC.

Re: Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

I call bullshit on the smarts - most toys and apps are just mechanisms to exfiltrate your info, some barely work for their supposed purpose and others are straight up malware. Very few do something useful for *you* with the info they take.

Re: Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

Found the goth. Go back to Rome, we don't need your kind at all.

Re: Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

"We" who? You and a sorry bunch of socially inept nerds who harbor delusions of grandeur as a sort of compensation for being ostracized and derided all your lives? Can you hear me laughing at you? Because you should. I'm laughing at you. You are a nobody. You are not "fighting" in a "rebellion". You are simply something that does not fit in a society. Grow up, child.

Depends on your values.

[Gravis Zero]

If you think it's okay for a soulless corporation to have as much information as possible about your child (which they will sell and exploit to the fullest extent) then go ahead and buy them the spy toys. If you think this is abhorrent behavior that should not be supported in any way shape or form then you should not only shun them but condemn them and ensure your friends and relatives understand the problems with these toys.

Re:Depends on your values.

[inking]

You must be one of those really popular people at family gatherings. One can already feel the condescending, self-righteous glance seeping through the letters of your post. It is that IT guy who uses DuckDuckGo and must absolutely tell everyone with a broken power supply why they should stop using Google, whether they asked for advice or not.

Re:Depends on your values.

[jellomizer]

Part of the problem is these spying toys, offer so many features because they are spying. Alexa knows your voice and your buying habits, Netflix can make good suggestions. The more information you give it the better you are at.

Guys like us to try to keep private, we need to suffer via bad suggestions and annoying adds. For some reason YouTube thinks I am a die hard republican. And keeps on showing me adds to support hurting and excluding people, because now that seems to be the popular republican thing

Re:Depends on your values.

[JaredOfEuropa]

Trust me, the "targeted" ads are not a whole lot better.

I'm not against such information being collected per se, if it benefits me directly. That most certainly doesn't include better ads, but things like better suggestions from Netflix and Siri or Alexa understanding me and perhaps anticipating some of my habits. That's all fine. What I do have issues with:
- How that information is being used for other purposes (ads)
- To whom that information is being sold
- How well that information is protected
- What laws are in place to safeguard against misuse, and what penalties apply

The problem with many companies who are after my data is not that they collect the data, or that they might be tempted to misuse it. If they say they collect the data for benign purpose X, and the law says they can't use it for anything else or the CEO ends up in prison, then I am willing to extend some trust towards their good intentions. But there are no such laws and no such promises, and for most companies, abusing my data is the core of their business model.

Re:Depends on your values.

[Anonymous Coward]

Netflix can make good suggestions.

It can? Why doesn't it then?

It is true that I do find programmes I enjoy watching on Netflix, but given that amount of crap I have to wade through, that seems to be in spite of its recommendations rather than because of it.

Re: Depends on your values.

[Anonymous Coward]

A fair complaint and one I have made myself on many an occasion. Either way, I guess they want their 15 minutes of fame just like everyone on Facebook. If you want the other services for the whole family wait until they get cheaper. But the services of tomorrow are here today. Hahahahaha

Re: Depends on your values.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do so many people assume that this surveillance is for consumers' benefit? What are corporations most driven by? Profit, right? So don't they simply want to take more of your money and provide you with less? Why would we want to help them with that?

Re: Depends on your values.

[Anonymous Coward]

Pot, meet kettle.

Re: Depends on your values.

[Cochonou]

Ads are always annoying, whether you allowed tracking or not.

Re: Depends on your values.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the cliche pops, thanks for the cliche, pops, Have a nice day. What are you people even doing trolling slashdot on the Sunday before Christmas? :P

Re: Depends on your values.

[Anonymous Coward]

Trolling Slashdot IS my Christmas, you insensitive clod!

Re: Depends on your values.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pots and kettles all the way down

Re:Depends on your values.

[thegarbz]

Trust me, the "targeted" ads are not a whole lot better.

Indeed. Targeted ads are horrible.

Regards
Your local penis enlargement company.
Why punch the monkey when you can spank the big one instead.

Re:Depends on your values.

[Rick Schumann]

You know I thought you were okay then you turn around and chastise someone for sharing their opinion that might just inform someone who has been so thoroughly indoctrinated by nosy corporations and nosy governments that they aren't even thinking about whether their privacy is being invaded. Of course people aren't going to ask about things like this because if they can ask the question themselves then they're going to have the answer themselves without anyone elses' help, so when we talk about things like this it's to spark conversation about it, making people who otherwise wouldn't think about it consider what's being said. "Be quiet and mind your own business" only serves the nosy, over-reaching corporations and governments, not the interests of average citizens; these corporations and governments don't want you talking about subjects like privacy at all. Or are you a government/corporation operative, and are deliberately trying to quash conversation and thought about subjects like this? If so then YOU are the one that needs to be silenced.

Re:Depends on your values.

[Rick Schumann]

If someone I know asked my advice on the subject, I'd tell them "If you must have these 'personal assistant' devices in your house for whatever reasons, unplug them when you're not actively using them, don't leave them turned on 24 hours a day, because they do listen to everything, and no one can guarantee the microphone 'mute' button actually means it's not listening at all anymore." But I'd also recommend they not buy them in the first place.

Re:Depends on your values.

[Rick Schumann]

RE: 'Targeted ads':
As anyone who reads the news daily can now see, so-called 'targeted ads' could just be 'targeting' you for purposes of trying to subvert you or even radicalize you, and the way things are structured, there's no way of telling for sure anymore what the true source of any advertising actually is. Therefore it is my contention that ALL 'targeted ads' should be considered bad and avoided at all costs.

Re: Depends on your values.

[Rick Schumann]

Why do so many people assume that this surveillance is for consumers' benefit?
Because they've been indoctrinated to believe that by the corporations and governments that are performing the surveillance. There's an entire generation of young people out there who were raised to believe that sharing everything is normal and good and that people who want 'privacy' have something to hide and are probably criminals or terrorists or at least 'bad people' to be avoided. I do see some small signs that that's turning around, though.

Re:Depends on your values.

[sjames]

Sure, but we're adults. We have the ability to find out what's up and decide if the trade-off works for us or not (but note how often corporations deny how much data they collect because they suspect we would object). Kids aren't there yet. Many think when they tall their doll a secret, she keeps it. That was true for for all previous generations, dolls didn't betray trust, ever.

So much so that dolls that betray are a significant sub-genre of horror.

Re:Depends on your values.

[Anonymous Coward]

For some reason YouTube thinks I am a die hard republican. And keeps on showing me adds

Ever heard of uBlock Origin and NoScript? No JavaScript == no problem. Throw in Decentraleyes for a good measure. May be privacy Badger and Disconnect for extra level of paranoia.

Currently nobody needs to give a flying fuck what ads Google is trying to show.

Re:Depends on your values.

[b0s0z0ku]

"Nice" people make the best followers, the best apologists for evil. The average Nazi was "nice" and popular at parties. You know who wasn't "nice" and who was shunned and hated? People like Stauffenberg and Sophie Scholl, who dared speak the truth.

Get over yourself -- better to be "that guy" at a family gathering than to remain silent in the face of evil.

Re: Depends on your values.

[b0s0z0ku]

Personally. I think the criminals and terrorists are often better people than the average nice person, and especially than people in power. Put it this way, if I saw a drunk driver, a cop, and a politician's limo all collide at an intersection and end up on fire, I'd help the drunk first -- more likely to be a decent human being than the other two.

Re:Depends on your values.

[b0s0z0ku]

Have a 2-way switch feeding the microphone. Either feed it ambient sound when you actually need it, or feed it a loop of a pr0n audio track. OH! ALEXA! HARDER! YESSSSSSS! SIRI! WOW! HARDER!

Re: Depends on your values.

[mapkinase]

Well, thank you for the pathos, but besides the function you described do not forget the function written on the box.

Of all the things that spy on you the thing where spying actually does some good is certainly not the worst

Re:Depends on your values.

[Lord_Jeremy]

Much of advertising is trying to subvert your better judgement of keeping your precious dollars in your pocket and radicalize you into a rabid fanboy showing off your new fashion accessory/tech toy/luxury car to all of your friends. The problem is that targeted advertising works so much better than the age range & gender categories of yesterday.

Re: Depends on your values.

[Anonymous Coward]

After helping the drunk go for the cop next, lift his piece and pop two rounds in his head, then do the same for the politician.

Re:Depends on your values.

[Rick Schumann]

I think targeted ads have made you go buy rose-colored glasses and/or blinders.

Re: Depends on your values.

[Gravis Zero]

do not forget the function written on the box.

It's irrelevant because it's merely a toy. There are lots of toys that don't spy on you.

Of all the things that spy on you

Unlike many, I do not subscribe to the idea that things that spy on you are a good even if they do nice things. I'm not dumb enough to own a smartphone or use social media. I aggressively disable all the bullshit that advertisers use to spy and while I may not stop everything, I'm no longer interesting to them with so little data.

Re:Depends on your values.

[Anonymous Coward]

Found Pajama Boy!

Re: Depends on your values.

[mapkinase]

Actually, when I wrote my comment, I did not realize we are not talking about special toys that spy on kids for parents to make sure kids are saved.

They are just plain vanilla creepy spy toys for kids.

Re:Depends on your values.

[dcw3]

The targeted ads are bad enough without the hyperbole of "subvert" and "radicalize". Use of that kind of language needs evidence of such extremes.

Re:Depends on your values.

[rtb61]

OK, how about this. Consider your children as adults, do you think they will be happy that their entire life from birth to their current adult age, has been monitored and analysed and they have been subject to targeted manipulative advertising and many corporations know exactly how to manipulate them. As adults knowing their deepest fears will have been exposed to corporate manipulations, the most vulnerable psychological weakness spread open to be raped by corporate greed. Seriously what kind of individual are you. Do you know how much power corporations can have over the psychology of adults if they have been monitoring and analysing them from birth and manipulating their development to suit that control, this is a sick as fuck and honestly those people should be locked up, seriously and just for you https://duckduckgo.com/?q=duck.... Yes, you should stop using Google, they seemingly have become as evil as fuck and at every opportunity, you should switch away, won't be long before people are blocking all gmail addresses because you have no right to give away someone else's privacy and you should tell other's to do the same.

Yes, it is as sick as fuck to monitor people's psychology from birth to adulthood so that you can manipulate their choices and yes, obviously that will include knowing their greatest fears and greatest psychological weakness, this is as fucking evil as it gets. If it was my parent that did that to me, I would be tempted to punch them in the face because I can never get it back, not ever, stolen and given away by the stupidity of truly ignorant moronic parents.

Re:Depends on your values.

[inking]

Rick, I am truly hurt that I went from being “okay” in your book to being some kind of Slashdot saboteur working for the Bilderbergers. Clearly, the one thing people always want at a social gathering of any kind is a fucking preacher, whether it is some loony uncle who can’t stop yapping about Jesus, the Japanese whale hunting or how the corporations are spying on you. Everybody just loves those people at a party. Thank you for your service.

Re:Depends on your values.

[inking]

I think you may want to read up a bit more on Stauffenberg if you think that he was trying to courageously face some evil, bud. Also great example of naming two idiots who got themselves killed, whereas a large number of “nice” people lived into the postwar and spent their summers shagging Italian girls on the beach.

Re:Depends on your values.

[inking]

OK, how about this. Consider your children as adults, do you think they will be happy that their entire life from birth to their current adult age, has been monitored and analysed and they have been subject to targeted manipulative advertising and many corporations know exactly how to manipulate them.

Unless they are age 18-25 and are going through the Che T-shirt phase, yeah, most likely. I assume that was a question, even though there was no question mark. Don’t worry, I’ll make sure not to raise to by a socially dysfunctional nut either.

Both data collection and advertisements have been getting better and better at their tasks since the beginning of mankind. Any historian will tell you that it is a lot easier to research about a man or note living in 1800 than about one living in 1700. This is a continuous process and it really only seem to bother two groups: old people and people who are not in the work force. You seem to be under this impression that the status quo you were born into and thus your normal is the same for the people a generation before and a generation after you.

Re: Depends on your values.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol. Do you seriously believe Slashdot constitutes a threat to Bilderberg interests to the point they would go to the trouble of planting 'saboteurs"? You're nothing more than a sorry bunch of socially maladjusted geeks. No threat. Slashdot would have long been bought out otherwise. You are in no position to threaten any big interest. You are nothing.

Re:Depends on your values.

[Anonymous Coward]

> The more information you give it the better you are at.

Their party line is BULLSHIT.

I run full ad and tracker blocking and my experience is fantastic. Because I have a wide range of interests and hobbies when I allow tracking the shit they think I want is absurd.

I used to agree with this concept of increasing usefulness but not anymore. Privacy outweighs the small benefits to such a degree it's not even a debate.

Re:Depends on your values.

[Anonymous Coward]

What metrics do you need aside from its rampant use in industry and sales numbers to back it up? If it wasn't effective at manipulating people, they wouldn't sink money into it.

The moral question here is: is it okay to manipulate (sorry, influence) someone into buying your product or service?

I think if a product or service cannot stand on its own merit and needs ads to see success, it's not a good product or service. Good buys speak for themselves.

I even read TFA

[Harlequin80]

and there is not one actual example. Not one.

I mean, fear mongering is fine. But seriously could you not find even ONE example of the abuse of privacy for a kids tech toy?!?!?!?!?! FFS.

Pick up your game click bait shite.

Re:I even read TFA

[wierd_w]

I do not know of any direct physical toys either, but there are plenty of phone apps geared quite clearly at children, that do extensive tracking and advertising.

As a blanket that also includes this latter category, I would whole heartedly assert that "Yes, parents should snub such things." with an additional "People in GENERAL should snub such things."

So, that fitness tracker? Yeah... You shouldn't use that. There is no justifiable reason for it to report your use data to some mothership. The exact same functionality (to the end user) could be accomplished by the device logging GPS pings, then that data being given to and parsed by an offline application, which then reconstructs the jogging path. The potential perk of "I dont have to worry about data backup!" of this "clearly critical" /s data is not suitably wondrous as to make it trump the major bad of advertisers knowing where you jog, how often, and what stores you pass every day.

Similar story with nearly all such "Oh yes, our tracking is 'essential' to the function of the device!" bullshit devices. As such, people should shun the ones that report to a mothership.

Of course, that will never happen, because in the real world convenience is king. (doubly so to idiots that refuse to learn better.)

Re:I even read TFA

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

I mean, fear mongering is fine. But seriously could you not find even ONE example of the abuse of privacy for a kids tech toy?

That's the problem with big data: the threat is so massive and so diffuse that it's both very hard to find clear-cut evidence for it, and it's often too big to believe.

With "localized" dangers, it's simple: for example the pervert neighbor watching your child with a pair of binoculars. Easy problem to identify. Catch the perv in the act, problem solved.

With surveillance IoT toys, it's a lot harder to identify the problem. The toy maker could be building a database on your child's habits and behaviors in good faith. But what tells you they won't sell it to Facebook who'll get to "open a file" on your kid early? If the toymaker's database gets stolen and sold on the dark net, pervs can buy it and use it. And gee, do you want even a benevolent company virtually living with your child?

The problem is, there hasn't been a clear-cut crime committed. If there was, you can't tell because database owners are totally opaque and unaccountable. How do you do about proving something illegal is, or will be going on?

You only get to see the effects of corporate surveillance in the news when it goes spectacularly wrong. But in reality, it goes on all the time and there's nothing you or the law can do about it.

Re:I even read TFA

[wierd_w]

Agreed, which is why the consumer is the one on the line, as the one and only line of defense.

If the device communicates with a mothership, you should not use, nor buy it.

I would go on a limb, and say 90% (or more) of the use cases for IoT devices, DO NOT actually require a mothership; The user's home computer, with a local app, with local map data, would be MORE than sufficient to handle whatever "connected" services the satellite device offers. (Fitness trackers, etc.)

The reason the use a mothership for the communication is because a big corporation finds that data use^^ I mean PROFITABLE.

Remember when people were horrified at the idea of giving corporations personal information? I do. I want those days back.

Re:I even read TFA

[Harlequin80]

My thought is you always need to show me how that data is can be used in a manner that causes risk or harm.

One reply above talked about a fitness tracked for a kid. If that data was sold to an insurance company and that then affected an individuals premium then I can absolutely see an issue.

Or if there was an app that would upload photos to a general database, timestamped and with a location.

But I am trying to understand how a physical toy, which is what the article referred to, that might potentially report usage stats or even potentially location could be an issue.

For example I've bought my eldest daughter a Sphero Bolt for Xmas. It's a programmable robotic ball thing. She can control it via an app and it contains a raft of various sensors. I absolutely assume that if will be sending usage stats back to base. I really need to know what outcome I need to be concerned about here, because I'm struggling to come up with them.

Re:I even read TFA

[Harlequin80]

Fitness tracked I can get. As it could potentially impact future insurance or medical aspects.

Apps on a phone that report clicks or usage time to better target ads. They get a pretty big meh from me. My kids have no purchasing power, and they nag me to buy them shit constantly. So a change in what shit they are nagging me for is a pretty nominal outcome tbh.

Re:I even read TFA

[wierd_w]

I take the pessimist view;

If the company does not have a truly legitimate* (as in, the operation of the device cannot be accomplish reasonably in any other fashion) reason to collect the data, they should not collect it.

Again, say a fitness tracker. This thing just needs lots of inexpensive, slow ram inside it. It just needs to log accelerometer and GPS data over time. It can store this internally in whatever encoded form it wants. It has no real need to be in constant contact with the internet. (Dont try to tell me that a complex bit of SoC like an antenna is inexpensive, compared with very slow, mass produced RAM chips.) It can communicate over a wired USB port (which is likely to be there for charging anyway), and deliver its data to an offline only application. At no point in the device's operation is it unavoidably necessary to communicate with the internet. As such, I feel such devices SHOULD NOT communicate with the internet.

By that line of reasoning, nearly everything that is IoT, should not actually BE "IoT". I am perfectly fine with that pronouncement.

Re:I even read TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Your thought is wrong. Grasping evil humans use every method to do evil to others. Any evil. Any others. Any time any place any way. Getit? Now your thinking right !

Re:I even read TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

article may be shit, but there are a LOT of documented examples if you'd exercise the ol' noggin and google fu instead of whine about slashdot and tfa site's editorial practices.

Re:I even read TFA

[Dr. Evil]

"If the device communicates with a mothership, you should not use, nor buy it."

What does this mean for G-suite for Education?

Re:I even read TFA

[inking]

Explain to me why insurance companies knowing less about those who they insure is a good thing? Do you think the industry isn’t competitive enough to drive down costs?

I take care of my health: get checkups, stay active, don’t do drugs, don’t smoke and drink about one drink a month for business purposes. As a matter of fact, my insurance actually provides me with a discount if I can prove at least some of those things by providing dentists’ receipts and taking part in a weekly jogging session with a group that checks for attendance. I don’t do the latter, because it would mean that I would have to go somewhere by car for thirty minutes instead of just running around the river close to my home. I also don’t want to do group yoga and would much rather just give them access privs to my fitness tracker so they can see that I am not sitting on my ass all day.

So, again, explain to me why I should pay more for insurance so that somebody can sit on his ass and eat candy all day? If you want coverage for genetic illnesses that you have no control over, sure, let’s socialize health care for genetic illnesses. It is not the same thing as socializing being a fat disgusting sloth by making me pay for someone’s Hershey’s-induced diabetes meds.

Re:I even read TFA

[wierd_w]

Before I answer this question, I will ask you a rhetorical one of my own:

Which is more valuable to society-- Shareholder value, or social stability and cohesion?

From a "Shareholder value trumps all things!" viewpoint, there is NOTHING that should stand between an insurer, and having the absolute most accurate and up to the millisecond data about those they insure, allowing them to rescind a policy the very nanosecond that the insured violates the terms of their insurance agreement, (but continues to pay in up until that very nanosecond).

From a "Social stability and cohesion is more important that some rich fuck's pocket book" perspective, the ability of an insurer to make such decisions, with such perfect knowledge, is NOT in the public interest, because it means many many people who believed in true earnestness that they have purchased assurance of coverage for healthcare/damage/loss, will in fact-- NOT have that assurance, and will thus NOT be prepared, and this will cause a significant burden to the society.

So, which position do you personally feel is more important? It will greatly affect how I should answer your question.

Re:I even read TFA

[inking]

Or, you know, because collecting data actually allows you to improve the service. Do you even for a minute think that Google’s search would be anywhere even near as good as it is now if they didn’t collect data for the past twenty years? The same thing is happening with (home) assistants now, which are kind of the center piece of IoT. You need usage data to make those things better.

Re:I even read TFA

[wierd_w]

It means that the chromebooks should not talk to Google, and should be managed completely offline by the management suite installed by the school's IT coordinator, on the IT Coordinator's designated hardware.

While technically true that such a dedicated machine is in fact a mothership, it is not an internet facing mothership with serious privacy risks associated with that. It is something that parents have some measure of direct control over, and has significantly more oversight. The data the machine contains is significantly reduced from what is on an internet facing mothership, and so a data breach is significantly less destructive as well.

Yes, I know this is against Google's VISION!(tm) of how the office should be conducted. That is kinda the fucking point.

Re:I even read TFA

[wierd_w]

That's what customer surveys, with OPT-IN is for.

What you really mean, is that those services would be significantly less accessible for vertical integration, and thus far less lucrative, without the NO CHOICE collection.

But you already knew that before you wrote anything. Didn't you? :P

Re:I even read TFA

[inking]

First of all, I didn’t ask you, so it is really not your place to ask questions in return.

Secondly, the entire premise of your question is laughable at best. There is no improvement to shareholders of the insurance sector in general if the insurance companies in aggregate have a greater ability to correctly price individual clients. It will be an aggregate, because adoption of such superior information about one’s clients would immediately spread through the industry like wildfire. The only thing that changes is whether the costs for more expensive clients are carried by less expensive clients or correctly priced for the more expensive clients. I don’t think you understand the insurance business very well if you think they will just toss away customers rather than offer them a different rate in absence of some kind of pseudo-socialist detrimental legislation along the lines of “rate X for all or don’t service”. You could be a pyromaniac and I will offer you fire insurance, assuming you pay accordingly.

Essentially you have three possibilities:
1. Insurers can’t correctly price existing clients due to lacking the data and thus socialize costs.
2. Insurers can price in correctly and the society deems it best to not subsidize individuals with reckless attitudes towards their health. The fat slobs pay more as a result.
3. Insurers can price in correctly and the society deems it best to subsidize individuals with reckless attitudes towards their health. The society voluntarily pays fat slobs’ additional costs.

The current situation is the 1. with regard to fitness activity. 1. and 3. are identical in terms of cost distribution, but the reasons for them are different. One is based on obscurity and lying through omission, the other on transparency and empathy.

Now frankly, I think that the latter two scenarios are fairer. I would rather not subside slobs, but if the society as a whole decides to legislate that slobs should be taken care off at my cost, so be it. I can always move somewhere else if things get too socialist for me. In either case, everyone is making an education decision, as opposed to a bunch of freeloaders siphoning away my salary by eating nothing but grease.

Re:I even read TFA

[inking]

What do you mean less lucrative? They are all equally lucrative, because it is an even playing field. You could very easily start playing the privacy game and be “more lucrative” by gathering less information. Apple has been doing this very thing since the FBI investigation. Let’s see how well that works out for them in the long term.

Can we be a little more precise when it comes to how these businesses are generating so much money—they aren’t, they are actually shit in a dress, check the PE ratios on publicly traded IoT-only firms—instead of going on with this ominous “Blabla data sell Blabla tracking” nonsense? It is painfully obvious that it is 1.) easier for the user to deploy devices that connect to a central server and 2.) collected data can be used for improvement purposes.

Re:I even read TFA

[Harlequin80]

The topic of this article is devices collecting data on kids. Kids are not old enough, in possession of enough knowledge, or empowered enough to make decisions about things that may negatively impact them 15 years in the future when they are an adult.

The fact that an option may exist to reduce your premium through giving an insurer access to your fitness monitor is not a bad thing. The option for you to get a discount through other activities is also not a bad thing. However in both of those cases it is you that is making the informed choice.

But a device which collects data on a minor, that then provides that data to organisations that may then use that data to discriminate against them in the future, through no fault of their own is a problem. This concept is recognised repeatedly already through our societal norms and laws.

Re:I even read TFA

[Harlequin80]

Your comment is also focused on those behaviours that you can control. Imagine instead the situation where you had an erratic heartbeat event while you were 4. That even was detected by your fitness device and as a result, at the age of 21, no insurer will give you life insurance or your life insurance has exclusions for any heart conditions or is prohibitively expensive. This is despite never having any other issues, never being diagnosed with any heart conditions and despite being otherwise healthy in every way,

Re:I even read TFA

[inking]

I disagree entirely. A minor who cannot make decisions that impact their future also does not pay their health insurance premiums. Whatever additional costs would arise would be carried by the parent, who coincidentally is also responsible for making sure their children don’t become morbidly obese to begin with. Moreover, the decisions of the parents already shape the future of the child to such an enormous degree that turning 18 with your health data already avaible to insurers is hardly anywhere near as critical as how well you did in school, how healthy you are irrespective of premiums and what kind of person you were raised to become.

Except for the most extreme cases when actual abuse is taking place, the “societal norms” you mention always dictated that the parents can do whatever it is they bloody like with their child. Messing up their future insurance premiums is just another one of the things on that list.

Re:I even read TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, I didn’t ask you, so it is really not your place to ask questions in return.

That's a most bizarre opener. This is a public forum. If you want to have a private discussion, have it somewhere else.

Re:I even read TFA

[Harlequin80]

Maybe.

But I'll be honest and that sounds like a massive pain in the ass.

I don't wear a watch / fitness tracker anyway, so it's a bit irrelevant. But my wife has one of the garmin watches and if it had to be plugged in to download data it would be instant game over. Perhaps time will show me that I'm the fool, but I don't care that her heart rate, gps position or whatever else is available to garmin. I feel that the risk of someone stalking her or trying to do her harm via that data is such a small risk as to be negligible.

I guess time will tell.

Re:I even read TFA

[JaredOfEuropa]

So you think you ought to get a discount on your health insurance for healthy living. Do you also think it is fair that you pay way more premium for your pension (if you have a collective one), and that you pay more tax if your country offers a state pension, because you are much more likely to live to an old age than the candy eating fatass? I think it was the BBC who did a short study into this and came to the conclusion that when you add everything up it's you, not the fatass, who is getting a sweet deal. Of course that depends a lot on how your country manages pensions and health care.

In socialized/universal health care the situation may get even worse if you take people's life styles into account. Since everyone is insured by law without exception, the government may simply decide to curb cost by outlawing unhealthy living. No more smoking, no more fatty foods, no more candy bars. No more drinking either. Oh, and no more jogging for you either since it's murder on your knees and we don't want to have to replace them when you get older.

Re:I even read TFA

[inking]

It isn’t focused on only those conditions. I have specifically listed genetic illnesses, which I presumed most would assume to mean the general category of “things that aren’t your fault”.

You are confusing two points though. One is how you treat genetic illnesses, which is not the job of the insurer. It is a question of whether or not you socialize that aspect of healthcare, which I frankly think that we should socialize (I do not have any either, AFAIK).

The other point is whether insurers reject customers based on irresperentitive data. This is almost entirely a non-issue, because it would be solved by competition in a very short time frame. If one erratic heartbeat at age 4 means that you are very likely to suddenly die or become perpetually hospitalized at age 21—short of socialized healthcare—the insurer absolutely should increase premiums. If not, a different insurer will gladly take you and the former will eventually lose their market position causing an amendment of their policies. This is a literal non-issue.

Re:I even read TFA

[Harlequin80]

You really are fixated on whether people are fat or not aren't you.

How about considering things other than being fat. And then have that kid raised well, well education, well exercised, well integrated into society etc. Just because the had a toy when they were 4 or 5 should not be able to be used against them when they are older. And just because there might be other things that a parent screwed up it doesn't mean you can justify anything.

The societal norms I am talking about are things like the separation between juvenile criminal records and adult ones. Or that we don't allow minors to vote, drive or drink alcohol.

Re:I even read TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol “Before I answer this question, answer my question” is much weirder when you specifically weren’t asked a question public forum or not. Like what is this, the primaries?

Re:I even read TFA

[wierd_w]

There are significant reasons for item 1.

Namely, IPv4 is exhausted, and nearly everyone lives behind NAT, which prevents immediate 2-way communication. (needs to have a stateful connection created from inside a network) The only people that can realistically afford a direct, uninhibited connection on the IP4-bone are corporations. Hence, motherships for things that in the past, really did not need them.

Adoption of IPv6 will negate this issue entirely, when combined with sane IP stack software, and quality service providing daemons that listen on ports.

The end user would be EMPOWERED by this, because they can SPECIFY what the identity of the server is. (and control that server.)

as for 2, again-- that is what OPT IN is for. You do not, or at least, should not DEMAND that data from end users. Doing so is arguably the same as demanding to see a woman's panties ever time she puts them on, to assure quality of the elastic in the waist band. It's just absurd.

Re:I even read TFA

[Harlequin80]

Well socialised healthcare is something that I 100% agree with and fortunately live somewhere that has it.

I also think you give competition too much credit. Insurance underwriting is highly concentrated into a small number of organisations. The vast majority of insurance offerings are underwritten by less than 20 companies world wide.

Re:I even read TFA

[wierd_w]

Lol "Before I answer this question, answer my question" is much weirder when you specifically weren't asked a question public forum or not. Like what is this, the primaries?

The question that was asked openly, is this:

"Explain to me why insurance companies knowing less about those who they insure is a good thing? "

Without more context to answer that question, specifically about the questioners values, (and thus what they would consider "good things"), it is not possible to answer the question. Do you expect me to be clairvoyant AC?

Re:I even read TFA

[inking]

I already get a discount on my premiums. It’s not a question of “if”, it’s a question of “how” and “how much”. I am perfectly willing to make concessions to fat slobs to pay less into the pension fund based on their estimated life expectancy and correct that awful inequality determined by the undoubtedly fair and balanced BBC study.

I have absolutely no problem with your lala land scenario. The government derives its power from the people who vote it in. If they want to vote in an authoritarian dictatorship, more power to them. I can always live and work somewhere else, if the conditions it sets up are against my interests. As a matter of fact, I already am in a country where I have to pay considerably less for fat slobs than I did a few years ago. My taxes are also collected here. Amazing how it works, isn’t it?

Re: I even read TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody ever got in trouble for buying IBM as they say, even if you over or under pay by some amount. There is a big difference between the service contract and the licensing. Licensing is much more obtuse. Thatâ(TM)s why I always run big software contracts past my board, who have the expertise to see through nonsense. On the other hand, if you shop at the local general store, you never count the change or complain if they ask you to help lift something on to a shelf.

Re:I even read TFA

[wierd_w]

As for what I mean by "Less Lucrative", you know exactly what I mean, so dont play coy.

There is significant value in sample size, because sample size increases confidence of a statistical sample being demonstrative of a demographic that is being targeted. Advertisers are VERY aware of that. They *DO* in fact, "Care" about the sample size, and thus DO care that there is a difference between "mandatory collection" and "voluntary collection."

The former is more predictive than the latter, and thus of greater value to them for their purposes of tailoring advertisements to prey on the insecurities and foibles of their target audiences. It is thus "More profitable."

Re:I even read TFA

[inking]

Most countries do allow minors to drink alcohol if allowed by the parent. Don’t know where you are getting that from. Many more allow minors to drive at 16 if supervised too.

You seem to be fixated on the fact that having a toy that monitors your health will have some magical effects once someone turns 18. It will not. If your health is bad when you are 17, it will be bad when you are 18. If it gets better when you are 19, so will your premiums. Obesity is merely the clearest example of how this works. It’s a bit more difficult to get better lungs after becoming a chain smoker at the age of 12 due to quality parenting.

Re:I even read TFA

[inking]

That is hardly because of competition not working out. Insurance is highly regulated and difficult to enter. Same as banks. It is competitive enough to offer very slim margins though. You are more than welcome to buy stocks of Continental, AXA or whatever if you think they are doing that great.

Re:I even read TFA

[inking]

You are fooling yourself if you think that end users want to control any kind of server. How many people do you think even know what a server is? Joe Doe wants things that do things and do them easily. That’s it.

Re:I even read TFA

[wierd_w]

You are fooling yourself if you think the server component cannot also be a discrete device.

"This plugs into your router--- This amazing device is now able to do its thing! Like MAGIC!"

Simply because it happens to just be a dumb server with its own hardware to do server side things, does not mean it has to be "WOOOO!! SO TECHNICAL AND DENSE ONLY A CHESSCLUB NERD COULD DO IT!" in how to set it up.

Re:I even read TFA

[inking]

No, I do not understand what you mean by “lucrative” and you are still not making a lot of sense.

Lucrative means that someone is making money. To make money through IoT, they need to deliver products to the end users (even if they do so for free and live off ad revenue). The company that offers a more appealing product ships more products than its competitors. Thus, if shipping products that are collecting data is more lucrative than shipping products that do not collect data—according to your own statement—consumers seem to be preferring products that collect data. Finally, everyone ships products that collect data, at which point it is no longer lucrative because the margin is driven down to its economic minimum.

So, no, I don’t understand what you mean. Could you please explain this a bit more? It seems that everyone, except a small group of privacy evangelists still stuck in the 20th century, is very happy with the situation.

Re:I even read TFA

[inking]

That’s amazing that you think so, but I am yet to see a popular product that actually has the characteristics you are describing. I guess everybody, including yourself, just hates money and doesn’t want to ship one.

Re: I even read TFA

[Cochonou]

Of course, you have a point in saying that collecting data allows for service improvement. However, the example you chose is pellicular. Do you really think that Google search results have improved so much in the last 20 years ? Personally, I do not. Granted, the web is a much bigger place now than it was 20 years ago, and with the way social networks are linked today, the old pagerank algorithm would not be as effective now as it was. Nevertheless, the collection of a aweful lot of data seems to be required just to return wikipedia as the first result of a query.

Re:I even read TFA

[wierd_w]

You are being obtuse, so I will spell it out for you in very simple terms.

An advertiser is interested in getting money from retailers, who wish to sell a product.

They offer a service to those retailers: "Hey, we know about your customers, and can help them to know about (pssst-- no really, we know how to kajole them into buying!) your product, so that you do more business! For a nominal monthly fee, we take care of it for you!"

The retailers, of course, do not want to spend money they do not have to. They want the most return for their dollar spent, so they go for the advertising firm that is best able to translate dollars spent into positive dollar increase in sales.

The retailer, thus-- has a natural motivation to maximize the predictive qualities of the data they collect/obtain. The more predictive, (and the less they have to pay for access to that data), the more money it makes them, because their service is more valuable to the retailers.

Like the retailer, the advertiser is very picky about whom they purchase or obtain their data from. Paying to get the data they need to make predictions about consumer spending, so that they best can target them for their client's products, is a cost center for them. They want to get the best possible data, at the lowest possible price. They themselves are a business. They want to make profit too. These people are already masters of statistics and statistical analysis. It is kinda "their fucking job" to be experts in that. As such, they are VERY much aware of how sample size, and bias in collection affect the predictive qualities of the data they seek to obtain.

An average site operator, or IoT creator, necessarily creates and stores data about their users. Advertisers are interested in that data, because more data points that can be cross-referenced create useful inferences. (This is what "big data" really is. Knowledge of when you go to the loo, can have predictive effects in otherwise seemingly unrelated activities, such as who you will vote for, what kind of meal you like to consume, or even what you like to watch on TV. Having access to *ALL* of that data, to look for associations, is how big data works. Advertisers know this. This is why they want that data.)

The IoT company may or may not be itself an advertiser. (GOOGLE!!)

The IoT company often operates on a shoestring, as you state. As such, they are looking for additional ways to make income. Advertisers say "Oh, that's some interesting data you have there. Would you be interested in... Selling it to us?"

The kind of data collection that the IoT company collects (Voluntary vs Mandatory-- Selective vs Comprehensive, et al) determines the value of that data to advertisers, and thus dictates the market value of that data-- EG, how much *more* money the operator of the service for that IoT device COULD be making, by partnering with an advertiser.

Thus-- "More lucrative."

Re:I even read TFA

[wierd_w]

AGAIN, because you seem to be an idiot.

1) There are significant technological barriers at the moment, because IPv6 adoption is low. This inhibits the ability of such devices to function.

2) Adoption of IPv6 will fix this problem, and allow the devices to be deployed in exactly that manner.

If you want an example of an attempt at such a product-- How about a Western Digital MyCloud NAS?

It's a consumer grade device, that claims to be able to give you a personal cloud storage platform, on a consumer grade price point.

Due to the IPv4 saturation problem (which again, forces people to use NAT firewalls, which demand stateful connections!), this technology requires the use of a mothership to broker the VPN tunnel it creates for the user. Does the user know it is creating a VPN tunnel using OpenVPN? NO-- THEY SURE THE FUCK DON'T.

If it were an IPv6 native device, it would have no need whatsoever for the mothership.

The headaches caused by the IPv4 problem make this device's support forum a constant litany of angry customers being dissatisfied. Despite that, WD sold them like hotcakes.

Again, with strong IPv6 adoption, those headaches would not have happened, and there would have been may happy customers.

You are making a logic error, in that you are ascribing false causality to why these devices are currently not flying off shelves like free beer. You ascribe it, falsely, to difficulty of user setup, instead of technical issues causing fuckups and bad performance, which ultimately stem from the current status quo of the internet at large.

A status quo that can, and would, go away with IPv6 widespread adoption.

Re: I even read TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Boy, I bet you're just the life of the party.

But don't worry, no matter how joylessly ascetic your lifestyle, the insurance companies are busy looking for a reason - any reason - to deny your claims too. =)

Re:I even read TFA

[thegarbz]

I do not know of any direct physical toys either

We've covered this topic on Slashdot before. We've talked about the Furby Connect, the Toy-Fi Teddy, on separate articles we covered the German government warning about My Friend Cayla wifi connected doll.

 

Re:I even read TFA

[thegarbz]

I mean, fear mongering is fine. But seriously could you not find even ONE example of the abuse of privacy for a kids tech toy?!?!?!?!?! FFS.

Is it really fear mongering if something is already known? This topic has come up on Slashdot several times with several separate articles. Examples: Furby Connect, Toy-Fi Teddy, and My Friend Cayla (the latter of which had it's own article due to the German government issuing an advisory on the poor security of its connected features allowing ANYONE to track your children).

Re:I even read TFA

[thegarbz]

If the device communicates with a mothership, you should not use, nor buy it.

That kind of blanket statement is nothing more than an advertisement for an armish community at this point. I guess I'm going to have to move. oh wait my car connects to the mothership too. Damn!

Re:I even read TFA

[HiThere]

I can't give any examples either, but there've been several stories about this over the past year. Also prior to that, though less commonly. E.g., a Barbie doll that sent ongoing conversations to a central location, where who knows what actually happened to the data. (The claim is it wasn't processed outside of feeding back conversation fragments. But who knows. And even if that's all the company did with it, it was transmitted unencrypted over the internet [though I'm assuming in a preprocessed and compressed form].)

Re:I even read TFA

[HiThere]

It's not even that simple. Companies go bankrupt all the time, and when they do their assets get sold off, regardless of whether or not they promised to keep them secret, and how honorably they intended to keep that promise.

Re:I even read TFA

[HiThere]

YES. Google has not improved the results that it returns to my searches over the past decade, so the collection of data hasn't helped. (Actually, Alta-Vista did as good a search, often better, but was a bit more of a pain to use.)

Re:I even read TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Here you go: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/14/retailers-urged-to-withdraw-toys-that-allow-hackers-to-talk-to-children

I don't know if you'd call that the Guardian talks about to be "abuse of privacy", but I would.

Re:I even read TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember those day and want them back too! 100% of IoT devices primary purpose is to spy on the people who buy them, and send as much data as they can back to their real owners, the corporations that made the devices. Why do you think that IoT devices have no actual security features? Because that would hinder their main function as spy devices! Even if you turn off the "location services" and GPS in your "smart" phone or tablet, Google or Apple know where you are within 50 to 100 feet because they have huge databases of the locations of wi-fi nodes. Whenever your phone or tablet connects to wi-fi, they can track you by what wi-fi nodes you device can "see"! 99% of phone apps that want to access the internet do not need to do so, they are just programmed to spy on you and send data to someone! Don't even get me started on the spying in the Windows 10 Spy/virus that cannot be turned off! (even though they let you think you can control some of it, you can't turn ANY of it off!)

Orwell's 1984 was supposed to be a warning, not a blueprint for society!!!!

Re:I even read TFA

[sjames]

Keep in mind that the purpose of insurance is to spread risk. The day they can perfectly characterize lifetime risk is the day insurance dies, and no amount of competition can save it from that.

Re:I even read TFA

[sjames]

It is so regulated because it has such a long history of dirty tricks.

We never saw insurance insurance because company was going to make that sucker bet.

BTW, AXA is in the Euro Stoxx 50 and has been around for 200 years. They're doing fine.

Re:I even read TFA

[sjames]

I keep seeing people claiming fear that a socialized healthcare system might go ban happy, but can you point to one that has actually done that?

Re:I even read TFA

[b0s0z0ku]

Depends on the tracker. There are some lower-end devices that work strictly locally -- they talk to an app on your phone (if that) but don't require creating an account for them to work. They even work WITHOUT a phone in some cases. They're basically pedometer/watches.

Re: I even read TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

"My kids have no purchasing power"

Ah, so thats why they're sucking dicks in the mall parking lot.

Nice.

Re:I even read TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Pervasive security holes and privacy violations with IoT is an even bigger pain in the ass.

Re:I even read TFA

[inking]

Oh boy, I think you are a lost cost. If a company operates on a shoestring and finds a way to make additional income, thus increasing their margin, other companies copy that behavior and reduce the price until it reaches it minimum sustainable value. At this point it stops being lucrative. Effectively the customer is choosing this product over others because it offers him more (value proposition and functionality) for less (data collection). This is the reason why people use free webmail instead of some paid service or running their own mail server. How is this a difficult concept for you to understand? There is no such thing as “lucrative” business practices in anything but the immediate short term.

Re:I even read TFA

[inking]

A status quo that can, and would, go away with IPv6 widespread adoption.

Do you want to make a ten thousand dollar bet that it will not go away in ten years time when IPv4 is deader than VHS? Put your money where your mouth is.

Re:I even read TFA

[inking]

Mostly, but not entirely. A large number of insurance contracts are really just a way of indirectly investing into productive assets. You can get a life insurance at the age of 70 that pays out in case of death from natural causes. We all know that it’s not really an insurance at this point, but it is still profitable for both the insurer and the insured due to asset appreciation vis-a-vis just holding cash. But mostly, yes, it kind of just a brokerage when the risk is determined perfectly.

Re:I even read TFA

[inking]

Sure they are doing fine. Insurers and investment banks have to be large to underwrite certain projects. The insurers’ FCF is not particularly impressive though, so it’s hardly a branch that is exploiting some kind of monopoly or does not suffer from races to the bottom as the previous poster implied.

Re:I even read TFA

[slothman32]

So you don't mind that a company is disrupting the privacy of your child?
That they could sell the info to Facebook?
Or did I read that wrong?

The outcome is loss of privacy.
In my case, it is not worth anything in particular, just "I want it."
It has no monetary value or no security value.

Re:I even read TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

>seriously could you not find even ONE example of the abuse of privacy for a kids tech toy?

The potential is so in your face it's not a matter of if but when. I'd be very surprised if it's not happening right now.

The facebook revelations have shown us how the industry treats us and our information. By allowing the type of sharing they do it opens up avenues for bad people.

Re:I even read TFA

[dcw3]

There's little reason for most tech to require communications with a parent company. "armish community" be damned. Neither of our 2012 vehicles did.

Re:I even read TFA

[dcw3]

My old Garmin tracker didn't communicate with Garmin. There was a program you could load on your computer and upload your data to it to show where you went on the map, but unless you decided to share that data with friends, it didn't leave your machine. That program is gone now, as Garmin moved it to a web interface, and collects everything...no reason for it, so I'm done with Garmin.

Re:I even read TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

most western countries have massive taxes on tobacco for this reason

there's also more and more pressure to implement fat/sugar taxes by various activist groups

it hasn't gone completely out of hand anywhere AFAIK, but western society in general is clearly heading in that direction fast at the moment

Re:I even read TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

If garmin has the information then by extension so does the government whenever they want it

You do realize that that kind of location information is exactly the kind of information secret police organizations like the stazi where trying to collect?

It's a lot less obvious that that info is being collected because:

1) it's with an extra middleman: the government isn't collecting that data itself,
it's letting (in cases of phone location data, actually *forcing*) companies to collect that data, and then imposing a legal requirement on the companies to provide that data to the government whenever asked.

2) the army of human informants has been replaced by an army of technological devices, that also have a secondary purpose, which makes it seam less problematic to most people (that impression will last till the first publicized genocide based on such data)

That however does not the collection of that data any less problematic, and will not make the inevitable abuse of that data any less horrible when it happens

Re:I even read TFA

[sjames]

The U.S. has plenty of taxes and stealth taxes (see "tobacco settlement") on cigarettes as well, it's just that if you actually get a smoking related illness, you're on your own even though in theory you already paid for it with your taxes.

See New York for attempted regulation of sugar minus actual healthcare being provided.

Shiftig the discussion, are we?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, they should shut them. That is not even the discussion. Nor up for it.

The discussion is, how long the company execs who sell such products should go to prison.

(Or rather, I 'd prefer them getting the choice between a therapy to cure their psychopathy, or them getting expelled from our society. As that's more fair.)

Re:Shiftig the discussion, are we?

[Anonymous Coward]

Blast them from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Re:Shiftig the discussion, are we?

[Anonymous Coward]

I favor exiling them to Clipperton Island. It is a sand spit in the Pacific with nothing but a few palm trees, a few birds, and billions of orange crabs. Send them there with nothing...no food, no water, no clothing, nothing. And make sure that they have no chance of escaping or being rescued!

ShuN, dammit!! ... Stupid mobile UI!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is there no preview function for the mobile site??

Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Without question.

Re:Yes

[Z00L00K]

Yes, but also question why they want to do it in the first time.

On the other hand - imagine how fun it would be to hack that system and inject a lot of weird data. "90% of the kids using this toy loves Stalin."

Re: Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

You are under arrest for violating Betteridge's law.

Alexa is an equal opportunity tracker

[Anonymous Coward]

People are buying Alexas, Google Homes and Siris. Who cares what they should shun? What matters is what they do. Trackers are in. Alexa, order lube.

Fake data?

[Anonymous Coward]

There should be more possibilities to feed that stuff (and by "that stuff" I mean everything from smartphone app to IoT crap) with credible fake data. Want my GPS? Sure. Want my contact list? There ya go.

Let 'em drown in crap.

Re:Fake data?

[wierd_w]

The message format for GPS pings is public knowledge. As is the frequency band.

The issue is that (IIRC?) it is illegal to broadcast on that frequency range.

Make it legal to do that, with some sensible power transmission rate (like, say .01W max) so that any such broadcast is restricted to just a few meters, and incorporate it into some little coin cell powered tags-- and booya, bob's your uncle.

Re:Fake data?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I wasn't about GPS jamming. I was about the app querying GPS data from the OS, and, yes, getting /some/ GPS data. Under the user's control.

Same for every other data: ambient sound, contact lists, optical sensor, accelerometer, you name it.

Re:Fake data?

[wierd_w]

Fake location data (for testing purposes! Or COURSE!) is incorporated into pretty much every android phone as a developer option. (sadly, you have to push the magic button a bunch of times to turn it on...)

That does not help with IoT devices though.

Thankfully, most IoT devices are in actuality-- just VERY poorly secured Linux boxes, and often times you can get root console access. A little poking, and you can make those things do Whatever the Fuck You Want. Want them to routinely tell the mothership that it should go fuck itself? Sure-- set up a recurring cron job that does exactly that. Black-hole the device right at its interface with a local hosts entry/DNSMasq/Bind9 config? Sure. You can do that too.

The fundamental problem is that you cannot get a defective end user (A user that cannot be made to understand the gravity or consequences of operating a shitty IoT gadget) to stop being a defective end user.

Re:Fake data?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. As a geek you can pull that off. That's good. What we need is to make this accessible to non-geeks (and by "accessible" I not only mean "technically accessible", but also to raise enough awareness).

> The fundamental problem is that you cannot get a defective end user

So let's "fix" the users! This takes lots of education, lobbying and all that crap. But it's worth it!

I think headlines like "IoT is spying on your children" are part of it.

Re:Fake data?

[wierd_w]

We nerds have spent the better part of 20 years TRYING to do exactly that.

The problem, is that what is interesting (and thus obvious) to *US*, is NOT interesting (nor obvious) to THEM.

There is no way to MAKE them interested. Thus, there is NO WAY to "Fix" them.

There are sufficient numbers of them, that like PT Barnum put it, "One is born every minute", and the same business calculus can apply.

Re:Fake data?

[Anonymous Coward]

> there is NO WAY to "Fix" them

Defaetist. Don't give up. Every little victory counts. Having the UK publish embarrasing details about Facebook, thus forcing them to dump their investor's money into (eek) "traditional" advertising is a victory. As is making someone understand why their search results from work are so different from those from home (this one person switched to DuckDuckGo as a result).

Never give up.

Re:Fake data?

[Anonymous Coward]

If that's defeatist, then capitalism is defeatist. You can pretend that you can fix greed and fail, or you can accept that greed is in our nature. People do not want to learn how stuff works. Exceptions only prove the rule. Instead of wearing yourself out trying to "fix" what can't be fixed, take advantage of your knowledge. The best way to make people do something is by making them follow your example because you have something that they want.

Re:Fake data?

[Anonymous Coward]

> then capitalism is defeatist

Pitchforks, from time to time, do help. Sometimes guillotines.

> You can pretend that you can fix greed and fail, or you can accept that greed is in our nature.

This is the story those 5% up there want you to believe. So you keep quiet and hope to, eventually, be "up there". Spoiler alert: they won't let you in.

Better keep your pitchfork in working order.

Re:Fake data?

[Anonymous Coward]

People still won't want to learn how things work even if you keep your pitchfork in working order. Conservative use of our cognitive resources is a winning trait and as much in our nature as greed. Revolutions don't eliminate greed and revolutions don't eliminate laziness either. The course of history is determined by people who understand that.

Re:Fake data?

[HiThere]

Sorry, the other users have other specialties that *YOU* are poor at. It takes a lot of time and energy to master a specialty, and nobody can master even a large fragment of them. Can you chip a flint arrowhead and bind it to a stick straight enough to fire from a bow? (Using materials that you didn't buy.) That's a relatively simple one that I got close to at one point, but the arrowhead kept cutting the binding. I would have needed to search out some tar or fresh pine resin...which wasn't available where I was. These days even the proper stone isn't available locally (then I used discarded milk bottles, but they don't work anymore since they changed what the bottles are made of).

In the medieval period a blacksmith was expected to grade his own ore, make his own charcoal, and purify his own iron. Can you do that? How about just designing your own CPU? Be detailed enough so that you can tell the chip foundry what to do.

Educating the users is tempting solution, but it's not one that could plausibly work.

Re:Fake data?

[Anonymous Coward]

Never. Gonna. Happen.

most people don't and never will undestand or care about technical issues to do with computers. it's unreasonable to expect them to.

>> The fundamental problem is that you cannot get a defective end user
>So let's "fix" the users!

read that again. they ain't broken and therefore can't be fixed...

unprecedented evile never sleeps

[Anonymous Coward]

& we're just starting to wake up to our centuries long lead in of mindphucking misinformation? even the kids & hymenless monkeys pity us? better days ahead..

even Ian Betteridge is wrong, occasionally.

[Anonymous Coward]

hell the fuck yes you should avoid them.

Re:even Ian Betteridge is wrong, occasionally.

[No Longer an AC]

Where the fuck are my mod points when I really need them?

Mod this AC up!

Do we need an "Obvious" moderation category?

Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes.

Toys?

[aglider]

If it's your kid to play with it, then it's a "toy".
If it's it can play with your kids (and your family), then it's not.

A computer (or a smatphone) disguised as a toy with full networking ISN'T A TOY!
It's a computer on the internet with microphones, cameras, GPS, wifi ... you name it.

Go buy dolls, Lego bricks, books (from dead trees), card games and the likes.
Your kids won't feel "different from the others".
It's you that who thinks you kids could feel different.
They are kids, they need real friends, runs and scraped knees.

Re:Toys?

[thegarbz]

Go buy dolls

Which one?
This one? : https://www.myfriendcayla.com/...
This one? : https://www.amazon.com/Toy-Fi-...
This one? : https://furby.hasbro.com/en-us

Lego bricks

Should I buy this Lego? : https://www.lego.com/en-us/ser...
Or maybe some Lego which comes with these instructions? : https://www.lego.com/en-us/gam...

Your kids won't feel "different from the others".

Oh wow. You don't actually know or understand children at all.

Re:Toys?

[aglider]

How do you spell "lego bricks"?

I do understand mine. Three in my family and 20+ at school.

Re:Toys?

[thegarbz]

Yeah but how do you build them? My last set of Lego bricks came with instructions of how to download an app.

My point is, your delusional if you don't think this is a problem that is slowly taking over every bloody facet of our lives. There's a shitload of your classic toys out there which these days push you towards some kind of connected system.

Spy toys are mandatory, citizen

[Anonymous Coward]

Toys are teaching tools. And why not start teaching you'll be tracked by soulless corporations for their profit (and your detriment) your entire life and beyond, at the earliest opportunity? Who wouldn't want their kid to be prepared for this coming life as best as possible?

This approach is also known as "you cannot stop progress". Here, have some happy pills, citizen.

Re:Spy toys are mandatory, citizen

[Anonymous Coward]

Asshole. Even your sarcasm is asshole-ish. Or are you such an abject lilly-livered coward that you actually believe this shit and take nosy corporation/government dick up your ass willingly, thinking you really have no choice? Are you a Chinese operative, trying to influence us into the ultimate police state you poor bastards live in? Any way you cut it: fuck the fuck off, we'll have no more of that bullshit. Kill yourself.

Cloud pets, My Friend Cayla, Blu Phones

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it cited their own article right there in the first paragraph:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amazon-will-stop-selling-connected-toy-filled-with-security-issues/

Which listed a few.

"But in 2017, hackers were able to access CloudPets' database, containing email addresses, passwords and voice recordings from children, "

OK.

NFW

[Anonymous Coward]

Toys are teaching tools. And why not start teaching you'll be tracked by soulless corporations for their profit (and your detriment) your entire life and beyond, at the earliest opportunity? Who wouldn't want their kid to be prepared for this coming life as best as possible?

This approach is also known as "you cannot stop progress". Here, have some happy pills, citizen.

No, that would get them USED to be tracked and grow thinking that it's NORMAL. Then one day the Google-facebook-(NSA) tracking implant will be issued -for their own protection and convenience, of course - and they'll be all lining up for it.

Re:NFW

[inking]

So like a smartphone? The one that everyone caries with them today anyway? Truly a horrifying future for the mankind.

Re:NFW

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh Bosco ... when did that truth occur to you?

Re: NFW

[Anonymous Coward]

Only a putz is getting tracked like that. Live your life simply in moderation. Always smile and dress well even if it is only those few times you are out in public. People canâ(TM)t get over first impressions. Cheap tricks donâ(TM)t matter. Journey of a thousand miles begin with one small step. Also if you box use expensive and gentle smelling salts. But home is where the heart is. This collection of platitudes brought to you by slashdot

Re: NFW

[Hognoxious]

Walk tall, keep your eye on the ball, stick your chest out and always carry a torch.

Re:NFW

[Anonymous Coward]

"being tracked" is not a binary condition

Wash your hands, even if you're "gonna get infected anyway".

Wash your hands, not because it works specifically against e.coli-strain#135, but as a non-specific defensive practice.

Use of a smartphone means vectors to state actors, the tech megaconglomerates. Use of a smartphone APP exposes you to whoever it fucking wants.

Use a cloud toy if you're defeatist. But don't equate the two.

Re:NFW

[Rick Schumann]

So are you saying that, like me, you don't have a smartphone and refuse to own one under any circumstances? If so then I applaud you, sir, and 100% support you in that. Spread the word, get people off smartphones, encourge them to take back their privacy.

Re: NFW

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Ricky... symptom or cause?

More power to you but get real... Smartphones aren't the problem... Big brother and the companies that do its dirty work are the problem...

"SHUN TECHNOLOGY!!! SHUN ADVANCES IN TECHNOLOGY!!!!!! RAAAARRRRRRR"

Re: NFW

[ChatHuant]

Don't follow leaders, a-watch the parking meters.

Re: NFW

[Rick Schumann]

If you can't separate the technology from how it's being misused/abused, then you have to choose to either be taken advantage of, or discontinue use of the technology in question. Since it is literally impossible to secure a smartphone against the sort of abuses that wireless companies/ISPs, corporations, and governments perpetrate upon them, then you must choose: continue owning/using smartphones, or get rid of it and use something simpler that cannot so easily be exploited. Not that someone like you can understand what I'm talking about, it appears to be beyond your understanding.

Re:NFW

[jpaine619]

Not all of us have a smart phone.. So your statement of "everyone" is false. I actually know a few people who have flip phones. Some of us decided that smart phones aren't a good trade for privacy. Although to be perfectly honest, I never got to the point where I rejected a smart phone for privacy reasons.. I just didn't want to be one of the idiots who act as if their phone is glued to their hand.

I've known more people fired over excessive phone usage at work than people fired for all other reasons combined. It's.. disturbing how many people can't put a phone down long enough to save their job.. And I'm not talking about unreasonable firings over trivial usage.. I'm talking about people fired because by 10:00am they're still fucking around on the phone versus doing any work...

Re: NFW

[jpaine619]

More power to you but get real... Smartphones aren't the problem... Big brother and the companies that do its dirty work are the problem..

Bullshit... Spying/tracking issues aside, I'm seeing people being fired because they can't put those fucking phones down and do some goddamn work. I haven't run any studies or conducted any polls so I have no authority to claim any stats, but I can see what I can see with my own eyes and it's disturbing..

All I can do right now is make some assumptions based on what I read / see and I think a good chunk of the population is highly susceptible to.. I dunno wtf to call it.. Maybe entertainment addiction? They can't go more than 5 minutes without checking facebook or twitter or.. whatever the fuck they are going but the behavior is exactly like I've seen with junkies... It's not a small amount either.. I don't have stats.. But if I had to GUESS off the top of my head.. It's upper 20% or maybe low 30% of the population..

I actually watched a girl get fired when her boss told her put her phone down, finish up her work and .. blah blah blah fuck around on the phone at lunch on her own time.. She picked her phone up before he was finished speaking.. And honestly, I don't think she even realized she was doing it... It was so habitual...

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

The trackers don't probe you yet. You may be skipping a step.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

You show double plus thought citizen so that others may think correctly. You have done well.

Yes, they should shun these toys

[junior]

Yes, There is more than enough snooping going on already

Re: Yes, they should shun these toys

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone is being tracked more than they think. It is like a self evident truth. Your mobile phone tracks you. If you made a chart or graph for the average person on how much they are tracked they would still return to their tracking devices. Even if you boiled down the ocean to show them the tracking on a monthly basis they still wouldnâ(TM)t care and will still pay monthly fees to be tracked. Thatâ(TM)s a good deal for the trackers - someday soon people will wise up and not want to conduct their business in the open. Capiche?

How about just buy proper toys?

[The Evil Atheist]

If the toy can do anything as sophisticated as tracking people, then it is not a toy. Give the kid something that will actually stimulate their minds instead of yet another over-hyped, pre-built, can't-take-apart boring piece of crap.

Re:How about just buy proper toys?

[tlhIngan]

If the toy can do anything as sophisticated as tracking people, then it is not a toy. Give the kid something that will actually stimulate their minds instead of yet another over-hyped, pre-built, can't-take-apart boring piece of crap.

Or there's plenty of "offline" toys that don't need batteries or screens or network access or anything. Though batteries aren't specifically excluded since some great toys use them.

I got my friend's kids stuff that is useful and lacks a screen - books, board games, regular toys and other things. Not a screen in sight And if you're really stuck with no ideas, a grab bag of LEGO blocks (even add the Technic stuff) is a wonderful creative gift. And yes, deadtree books are great - I don't care if you have an e-reader or whatever, a book has plenty of things going for it.

And I spent less than $50 for both of them, with two presents each. Cheap enough that even if it only amuses them for a day, it's not a big deal, and compatible with practically every parent's rules on screen time.

About the only thing I wish was still around were those old Radio Shack electronics kits. I think I had to be pulled away from that thing when I got it.

Re:How about just buy proper toys?

[thegarbz]

If the toy can do anything as sophisticated as tracking people, then it is not a toy.

I agree. Personally I use My Friend Cayla doll as a manual labourer to fix odd things around the house.

YES

[Anonymous Coward]

and while they're at it

Parents Should keep their kids away from slashdot.

caption : dogfood

Better hope it's recessive

[Hognoxious]

the gene is out of the bottle

As the bishop said to the actress.

Re: Better hope it's recessive

[Anonymous Coward]

Your stupid kid barely passed social studies. Thatâ(TM)s why the cops are after him. You better go hide out somewhere warm

Re: Better hope it's recessive

[Anonymous Coward]

As the Simmons said to the...

Yes. Absolutely.

[Qbertino]

Any other questions?

These toys are perfect

[gweihir]

They prepare children early for the upcoming and partially already established surveillance society where the only privacy you have is in your head. Well, until they crack that, they are already hard at work on it. The earlier the kids learn that privacy, freedom, individuality and such things are a historic aberration that does not and cannot last and that they need to hide who they are at all times, the better their chances in life.

Yes, this new wave of upcoming authoritarianism and fascism is utterly horrible but so many completely stupid people are cheering it onward that it very likely cannot be stopped. Just as before when such catastrophes happened.

childrens connected toys are a twofer

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only do companies get to start a profile on a future consumer, they also get to track the parents for even more of that profit.

And it got only a baseband processor.

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is completely in control of your network provider.

Including listening in to you.

And because standard network encryption is a pathetic joke, everyone else can too.

That is how *they* are talking.

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound like them. Suggesting mass-murder.

We're the ones *not* harming. Got that?

No!

[Anonymous Coward]

The sad fact of the matter is that there are some parents that are not fit parents. We need these harmless toys to allow government and corporations to monitor our children to ensure they are not being abused or brainwashed by negligent parental units.

By allowing these toys into the kids homes we can ensure we are safeguarding our nation's children. Both the left and the right agree that our children are our nation's most precious resource. They need to be protected.

When someone comes at me with some weird conspiracy theory about who the media industrial complex is brainwashing their kids; I am thinking these are the people who most need monitoring. What are they hiding? They could be an Anti-Vaxers,white nationalists, or terrorists.

In the new global order there will be no dark corners in the world. All children will have equal access to the kind of constant 24 hr monitoring that only the richest, whitest people on the planet had access to just 10 years ago. No longer will houses be the corrupt dens of inequity and abuse that they are now. We will bring light and observation to the deepest darkest corners of everyone's homes.

Should Parents Shun Toys That Track Their Kids?

[QuietLagoon]

Yes.

Devil's advocate

[OrangeTide]

Perhaps the information collected on children isn't of much interest or value to their parents. If something has no value to you personally then what do you care if someone "exploits" it?

I do think it's problematic that there is little to no disclosure on these tracking schemes, what is done with the date, who it is sold to, or how to get your data permanently removed from the data set. Consumers are unable to make an informed choice right now because of a totally unregulated market for data collection.

Finally, is all this data collection even necessary? Does big data marketing tactics benefit our society in any way? I can't imagine a scenario where it does. If we had no marketing of any kind would people still buy toys? Yes, and that's easily proven. We can make laws to remove behaviors in our society that we find disruptive, harmful, or pointless.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Gravis Zero]

Perhaps the information collected on children isn't of much interest or value to their parents. If something has no value to you personally then what do you care if someone "exploits" it?

Well, I'm not a sociopath and I wouldn't want it to happen to me, so yeah, I care.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Rick Schumann]

Do you have children? If you don't then perhaps you don't have the perspective to understand the mindset of a parent. I don't have children but I understand why they'd feel this way: anyone spying on your kids, whether in person or remotely, is automatically a threat to them in some way, and you can say that's paranoia all you like but it's a parents' right to control access to their children. 'Molestation' can take many forms.

Re:Devil's advocate

[OrangeTide]

Paranoia isn't a very strong argument. Plenty of parents don't seem to care if a computer knows what cartoons and videos their children likes. It's exactly how YouTube works.

I would find the whole process less creepy if it were anonymized better. Collecting data on a population is not quite as invasive as associating information with an individual.

'Molestation' can take many forms.

Let's not be hyperbolic here. It does disrespect to real victims of molestation.

I seem to recall similar questions....

[mark-t]

... when I was a kid. Should parents shun toys that glorify the military or violence, like GI-Joe, or gun toys (even nerf guns)? Should parents buy toys that reinforce gender stereotypes? Should parents shun overhyped toys for their kids just because their kids say that everyone else has one or is going to get one?

The answer is always the same: It's up to the parent, and regardless of what you may think of them for that decision, it's still their right, until the kid is old enough to be making his or her own money and buying stuff for themselves that they want.

Children should spend time with other children

[Rick Schumann]

The research shows that children should spend more time with other children being properly socialized and less time paying attention to technology and I for one wholeheartedly agree with that. We seem to have more and more 'awkward penguins' in the world who end up as adults with 'social anxiety' problems and are 'socially avoidant', prefering to stare at a screen instead of seeking out the companionship of other people. So-called 'social media' is not a substitute for being 'actually social'; texting someone on your phone is not a substitute for looking at them across the table from you and having an actual conversation. Children should be running and playing with other children, not staring at screens playing pointless games. Medical research has even shown that childrens brains don't develop properly if they spend too much time interacting with video screens. Do yourselves and your kids a favor, parents: buy your kids toys and games that are oriented towards playing and interacting with other children live and in-person, and not the toy or game itself.

Silly Question

[nehumanuscrede]

The question should be:

Should anyone be allowed to incorporate tracking / metrics hardware into devices of any kind without full disclosure that is not buried under fifty pages of legalese ?

The answer is no.

The parents I know

[nospam007]

..buy those gadgets exactly _because_ of that feature.
They _want_ to spy on their kids.

stupid sheeple

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people are too stupid/ignorant to care

No.

[Anonymous Coward]

Parents should shun anything that tracks you without an exchange of services, e.g. a traffic app, just like everyone else.

We're not going to EVER get them to stop tracking us . . . so until there's a proven way to mess up the data that they get, we won't be on even bargaining grounds for a civilized solution.