Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
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.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
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.