<story><title>Google in, Google out</title><url>https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/21/google-in-google-out/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>MrQuincle</author><text>&amp;gt; And yet. Like every I&amp;#x2F;O attendee I received a free Google Home device as part of the I&amp;#x2F;O experience. (I attended as an engineer, not as press.) But I don’t want one; I’ll be giving mine away. Sorry, Google. It’s not that I mistrust you. It’s just that I don’t want to have to trust any profit-driven megacorporation quite that much. Not Apple, not Amazon, and not even you.&lt;p&gt;It is very interesting to me why certain microphones and cameras are fine, while others are not.&lt;p&gt;Almost everybody carries one of both in their pockets or in their purse. However, it is a no no to embed a cam in a pair of glasses. Building a mic into a speaker is not okay for this guy, but consumer satisfaction is quite high for these devices. I guess to have mics and cams in your car is fine as well.&lt;p&gt;If it&amp;#x27;s about babies or security (door bells) it is also fine.&lt;p&gt;Augmented stuff on your phone seems a necessary predecessor before Google glass can come out for people like this.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s some kind of anti-sensor attitude that seems to erode over time. I don&amp;#x27;t think it&amp;#x27;s about privacy, it seems to be about control. Where&amp;#x27;s the button on that thing!?</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>jlg23</author><text>&amp;gt; It is very interesting to me why certain microphones and cameras are fine, while others are not.&lt;p&gt;If you film yourself during sex that&amp;#x27;s one thing. If I film you during sex without your explicit consent that&amp;#x27;s a completely different thing.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; However, it is a no no to embed a cam in a pair of glasses. Building a mic into a speaker is not okay.&lt;p&gt;Building is not the problem, usage is. People don&amp;#x27;t complain about the new features but about the people who use them without consideration for others&amp;#x27; privacy.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; I guess to have mics and cams in your car is fine as well.&lt;p&gt;No? Absolutely not. Neither is sending any data about my car to any other party (like manufacturer or insurance).&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; I don&amp;#x27;t think it&amp;#x27;s about privacy, it seems to be about control. Where&amp;#x27;s the button on that thing!?&lt;p&gt;You are right if with &amp;quot;that thing&amp;quot; you refer to the user who is violating my privacy. Controlling my own devices is easy: The button is my wallet which simply does not open for devices that spy on me.</text></comment>
<story><title>Google in, Google out</title><url>https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/21/google-in-google-out/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>MrQuincle</author><text>&amp;gt; And yet. Like every I&amp;#x2F;O attendee I received a free Google Home device as part of the I&amp;#x2F;O experience. (I attended as an engineer, not as press.) But I don’t want one; I’ll be giving mine away. Sorry, Google. It’s not that I mistrust you. It’s just that I don’t want to have to trust any profit-driven megacorporation quite that much. Not Apple, not Amazon, and not even you.&lt;p&gt;It is very interesting to me why certain microphones and cameras are fine, while others are not.&lt;p&gt;Almost everybody carries one of both in their pockets or in their purse. However, it is a no no to embed a cam in a pair of glasses. Building a mic into a speaker is not okay for this guy, but consumer satisfaction is quite high for these devices. I guess to have mics and cams in your car is fine as well.&lt;p&gt;If it&amp;#x27;s about babies or security (door bells) it is also fine.&lt;p&gt;Augmented stuff on your phone seems a necessary predecessor before Google glass can come out for people like this.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s some kind of anti-sensor attitude that seems to erode over time. I don&amp;#x27;t think it&amp;#x27;s about privacy, it seems to be about control. Where&amp;#x27;s the button on that thing!?</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>techdragon</author><text> I&amp;#x27;m least offended by the door bell type devices. They are on the outside and offer no more information than someone could gain by snooping at my house from the street. The benefits of being able to pretend to be present at home when the doorbell is answered is significantly better security of my personal goods against casual burglary. The downside is someone could remotely harvest a profile and recordings of who enters and leaves my house, which can be viewed from the street and offers me no tangible loss of personal privacy over what someone who wanted to watch me could already do.</text></comment>