One lawyer may have just killed part of the Internet of Things

Network World ^ | Nov 4, 2014 6:50 AM PT | By Andy Patrizio

[roadcat]

Well, he became increasingly paranoid, to the point that he thought the government was watching him from out of the television.

Think about this from another angle. The watched have a watcher. A co-worker often told me about another worker he knew. His job was to watch video captured from city buses in SF. Every bus had a couple cameras recording everything going on every day. Recording thousands of people. The worker was going nuts from spying on so many people, and ready to kill himself.

Now picture Big Brother spying on millions of us, watching us and listening to us with our mundane conversations. Day after day, like a drippy faucet without end. These spies are going to go nuts trying to find a needle in a haystack of inane ridiculous conversations. At least that gives me some comfort; they will be overloaded with boredom and stupid chatter.

[wideminded]

1984 only got the date wrong.

[roadcat]

People are being conditioned to have no privacy.

Yes, that's happening. Cameras everywhere. Parking meters that have cameras (well they do where I live). Cameras so tiny that you can't easily spot them unless you know they are there.

Just because you know you're being watched doesn't mean you have to give up all privacy. I've read of some groups giving tips on how to disguise yourself to become invisible to cameras and face recognition. By applying a few marks with makeup on your face, and/or wearing weird glasses and hats, you can fool face recognition software that makes you unrecognizable as a person. As for audio, much tougher to beat that kind of tracking.

[cynwoody]

There should be a rule simple enough to make a constitutional amendment: As a matter of law (if not always fact, LOL), you have complete control over your computing devices (those being whatever devices you may have that execute an instruction set, for starters).

This would annoy Hollywood. But I don't watch that many movies, so I don't care if Hollywood goes bankrupt (it may, but creative movie makers won't).

Trusted computing devices must always trust their owners first.

That might screw up some possible business models, but I don't give a damn!

[itsahoot]

or microphone

Actually any speaker can be a reasonable microphone, I thought of this back when they started with the instant on feature, been paranoid for a long time :)

[Swordmaker]

Actually any speaker can be a reasonable microphone, I thought of this back when they started with the instant on feature, been paranoid for a long time :)

It can, but it's another consideration to connect it to outgoing circuitry. Going backwards through digital circuitry is really not possible as there are uni-directional diodes in the circuitry.

[Faith65]

bkmk

[a fool in paradise]

"More troubling is the microphone. The TV boasts a ‘voice recognition’ feature that allows viewers to control the screen with voice commands. But the service comes with a rather ominous warning: ‘Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party.’ Got that? Don’t say personal or sensitive stuff in front of the TV."

So you can have a camera with audio recording data built inside your television set but not in your home security system (by law)? That doesn't make any sense.

[Bobalu]

you can fool face recognition software

[tbw2]

The other thing pushing smart appliances are the mandates for the smart grid, in the hope that it will reduce power usage.

Smart Grids - The Promise and the Potential Problems
http://tamarawilhite.hubpages.com/hub/Smart-Grids-The-Promise-and-the-Potential-Problems

[itsahoot]

Going backwards through digital circuitry is really not possible as there are uni-directional diodes in the circuitry.

I guess if the manufacturer cooperated they could un-uni it, but no manufacturer would ever do that right :)

[TheBattman]

"Having had a career in EE, CE, I think this guy is full of hot air. If the NSA wants to spy on you it can now."

But why make it some much easier for them by providing the hardware, open invitation, and our blind eye?