What Slab said and more cowbell. 
3 Likes
Thanks, guys!
Line creep. ‘I draw the line at x.’ Current line is implanted chips/sensors for most.
Traditional privacy principles are beyond quaint to fresh young things. It’s a line they were born(e) across.
{Tin Foil Hat On}
And the Vaxx serialized bio-ID marker those whom got the jab received 
2 Likes
I forgot how specific this was… and how long ago.
Well, I just did an in-depth analysis of the difference between the ratio of responses between the two poll options BEFORE post #70 seven days ago (which revivified the topic and poll you’re welcome) and now and it turns out it is THE SAME. 14 additional responses heaped upon the prior 59 at exactly the same ratio. By FDA standards this is CERTAINLY of significance to the user. You may now draw conclusions compatible with your individual truths with confidence.
Rejected out of hand by the
What does he know. 
1 Like
Love the sign.
I will point out a few things though.
- The poll does not have neutral wording and would in no way be considered scientifically valid
- The Sample size is not representative
- It is not correct to say I reject anything here out of hand. This is not a black and white issue to me where everyone must have the same preference and opinion. It is completely reasonable for some people to want to use cameras indoors, and for others to be totally against it. I totally respect anyone having a different opinion and preference related to this and believe both sides can be “right” for them. I do not think either side should attempt to enforce their views or preference on everyone else though.
- Even my preference is more of a cautionary middle-ground. I allow cams indoors, but I don’t have them in privacy critical areas like my bedroom or bathrooms, and a few such areas. I do not reject the importance of privacy by any means. However, the benefit I’ve have gotten from being able to save happy and funny family memories has, for me, been far more valuable & far outweighed the potential privacy risks in those fairly public areas.
I guess I’m personally used to some areas of my house being fairly public areas instead of private areas. My wife is the oldest of 12 kids and most of her family has lived with us at one point or another, so we’ve always had areas that were fairly “public” areas with constant guests, etc. So it’s never bothered me much to always consider the main rooms public. I totally respect anyone who does consider everywhere private though. I do not oppose that all. I fully support everyone choosing their own preference and comfort level.
1 Like
Would you agree that most of the powerful folks driving the trend away from traditional privacy are zero-summers?
They are not really negotiating anything with those who disagree. They are effectively dictating it. Removing options.
Seems to me we are meeting a sustained if slow motion aggression with appeasement.
Sometimes that doesn’t turn out so well. 
How does this relate to Wyze?
Business plan: Offer people things they like and want. Provide rationales that support their decision to have it. Downplay perceived detriments.
And I give them big props for accepting counter-speech. They’ve been consistent in that from the outset. 
I don’t think it’s a conspiracy or as intentional as some other people may think. I think it is a fairly natural byproduct of trying to either monetize or leverage as much as people are willing to allow, combined with the natural progress of technology.
And while I don’t believe the following is IDEAL, I personally think the disappearance of general privacy is almost inevitable (at least in some physical areas), whether we want it to be or not. For example, several completely separate groups of researchers have demonstrated how they can use the changes in WiFi signal interference levels to actually create a 3D image of anything within it’s reach, including the exact shape of every human, their movements, poses, etc. Anyone could use this technology to spy on anyone even through walls (the theory behind it is that SWAT could see what is going on inside a house/building during a hostage situation without having to put any of their agents in danger or have a direct line of sight through a window, etc. Now they can just leverage nearby WiFi radio waves to map out the entire area including where everyone is and what everyone is doing, all live).
Nowadays even if you don’t personally use WiFi, your neighbors probably are and their signals probably bleed throughout your house too…in fact, in urban areas, and many suburban areas, it’s hard to find a single inch of territory that doesn’t have some kind of WiFi signal going through it, so they could probably just use other people’s WiFi signals to see every single thing every person is doing if they really wanted to, all by simply collecting and interpreting publicly available radio signals that already exist. I don’t think there was ever a conspiracy or plan to get everyone to widely adopt WiFi everywhere, but ultimate effect is that anyone who leverages one or more of these methods of WiFi signal interpretation can theoretically see everything anyone is doing almost anywhere. I don’t know that there is realistically a way to undo or prevent it now. The cat is out of the bag. It would basically take EMP-ing the whole world back to the stone age to undo it now. 
That is not to say that we can’t still probably have some measure of digital privacy, at least for a while…though that is a whole different conversation. Some will argue that quantum computing will make digital privacy go away, but that is mostly a misunderstanding as there are quantum-resistant cryptography options, as well as quantum-safe hardware options. Even some forms of Multi-factor authentication are not vulnerable to quantum computing attacks. There are also interesting proposals for specifically leveraging the Bitcoin Blockchain in a way to be the ultimate security and identify proof of the future… Very interesting stuff IMO. A combination of such things will certainly be able to stay ahead of quantum security concerns and preserve some degree of digital privacy.
BUT I still think physical privacy’s days are numbered, inevitably. I am not saying I like that or want that, I believe it is just inevitable in the long run, and that we as a species will have to come up with new laws to adapt and address how to handle the way things evolve as a matter of fact, rather than how we would ideally wish. Even making something technically illegal (interpreting WiFi signals to 3D map everything and everyone in the vicinity), doesn’t mean that people can’t still do it in secret without anyone knowing. It will still be commonplace no matter what IMO. Even if we ban all WiFi, the same thing could be done with lots of other radio signals that permeate everything at varying frequencies.
On the plus side…I would totally love to be able to run a gesture interpreter locally on my smart home. Have it watch for when I make certain gestures to silently execute different rules and automations, or watch when I get close to a room and turn the light on in advance. Watch when I leave a room and turn off those lights. It can watch for hundreds of things and do whatever I want it to do based on how I program it. I would prefer not to have any of that info in the CLOUD on some company’s servers, but it would be kind of cool to run locally through Home Assistant or something on my own server. It could even have different preferences for every member of my household and have different rules of what to do when we are alone, vs multiple of us in the same location, etc. I’m not saying I want to lose privacy to have these benefits, but if physical privacy is ultimately a lost cause in the long run anyway, I’m sure going to take advantage of the benefits of that technology.
I totally respect anyone who feels or believes otherwise. I have just ready some of the different experiments and research and concluded that I believe physical privacy has a terminal diagnosis…and while I wish it didn’t, I’m also excited for some of the cool things I’ll be able to do with some of that tech too.
(Braces for peepeep to break my limbs for not saying privacy is definitely guaranteed forever)
1 Like
Break your limbs? Ouch! You’re my buddy, we’re just talkin’… serious. 
They can’t have achieved this digital inevitability without having violated existing privacy law.
Resistance is futile?
Especially if laws are not enforced and, if enforced, punishments are largely limited to ‘cost of doing business’ fines.
Break the law. Omit punishment. Make new laws to enforce our conscious evolution.
Visionary.
I have studied the right to privacy quite a bit, including the rulings from the Supreme Court on their interpretations related to the matter stemming back as far as Griswold, and subsequent rulings, and I am not convinced it is as solid and straightforward as we would like to think (especially since there has been a lot of contradiction and overturning on the matter over the years), especially in an area like the topic at hand, and particularly when it comes to individual “punishments” as you say, since it is often more about the government protection. and/or civil law, rather than criminal law.
Disclaimer: While I did once work as a legal assistant in a law firm, IANAL, so the above opinions/summary are my own and there are a lot of nuances to it, and there is no advice implied. That’s all a fairly complex discussion, and less fit for this category anyway.
I do get where you are coming from, of course. I am just not confident that advancing technology will care what our opinions are if something is nearly impossible to regulate…and sometimes the regulations have the opposite effect as the intention. It is hard to say.
2 Likes
Destiny seems to figure in your outlook. There’s an all-bets-are-off-ness afoot.
Do you believe it is our destiny to consciously evolve into a new species?
Answer or not, thanks for engaging. I appreciate the richness you bring to a conversation.
We're getting a little off-topic, but I'll answer briefly
The primary problem with your question here is that there is no definitive criterion for defining a new species.
I think our species is at the most critical breaking point though to determine if we get past our 0.7G level civilization to reach a level 1 (on Sagan’s extension of the Kardashev scale). It all depends if we can get past this current stage without destroying ourselves from war, and several other controversial things I won’t list.
I think ultimately I tend to agree with a lot of Michio Kaku’s summaries on the future of humanity and the ultimate options of the end of the universe(s).
But I don’t think any of us will technically be alive when this question will be a relevant discussion. Oh, we’ll have some bio-mechanical engineering marvels, including having people with dual bio/digital brain merging to some degree in the near future, and while some people will argue these are a different species, there is ample room to argue that it is still not much different than the ways we’ve already had a symbiotic relationship with technology for decades, and it certainly won’t qualify under reproductive isolation definitions for a species for a while yet, if ever. Rather, technological innovations are likely to continue to expand the meaning of “human” for many more millennia,… Though if you get close the point of the end of the universe, things may of a necessity require a drastic alteration to deal with challenges related to “the big freeze”… But these are just fun hypotheticals branching from advanced astronomy, mathematics, and philosophy that I am only the tiniest interested novice at.
Though if we wish to continue to discuss random things off topic, we should do so in a water-cooler thread. 
1 Like
Wi-Peep?
Yeah. It’s not a dystopia.
I totally agree. We are empty nesters and we walk around here free. We are not body perfect by any means. All I can say is if your looking you will sure hurry up and turn the channel or find a another camera to spy on. You might go blind.
I do try to keep my zones free from areas that I frequent when it is after bedtime and we are being loose and free. If you keep watch good for you.