My dad just bought this little bugging device to not need to type anymore, I need some good reasons to convince him that this is not a good idea and he should trash this piece of spyware immediately.
I don't know exactly what this device does and I also don't know how sensitive the microphone is I don't talk in the living room anymore for good.
I need to make this clear for a super normie that does not know shit about anything and even refuses to use a decent adblocker and literally not gives a single fuck about anything he does online.
If he didn't see anything wrong with putting a device that literally listens to your every word 24/7 to sell you shit, and wasn't deterred by the Vault 7 leaks then nothing will. There are some people you will never be able to convince that their privacy matters.
Parker Garcia
Try pic related.
Grayson Morales
Exactly. Some people never understand these problems because the consequences are so nebulous, immaterial and far-away.
If people don't understand maybe there is some reason to this: -No knowledge about computers -No knowledge about networks -No Knowledge about the use of informations -No perspective or view of future
Continue if someone has any idea.
Benjamin Murphy
Here's a step by step: Be 18 Have a job Move out, underage faggot
Isaac Cook
He wants to rid his family of the botnet, not to let them succumb to it
Nathan Ross
I'd only seen this Alexa thing in Mr Robot and I thought it was a bit of sci-fi like the smarthouse. Only recently I found out it was a real thing. I thought Mr Robot was bad, but I watched anyway, now that I know that they're just using a "hacker" show to shill a piece of spyware, I ain't watching anymore.
Brayden Brown
There's only one thing missing in that talk, he puts way too much emphasis on ads, insurance, consumer stuff in general. Whereas the real power lies in social control through individual or segmented targeting. Election campaigns using all this data from corporate trackers is just one example. What prevents governments, political parties and social network giants from using it outside of elections and for social control? Some of these actors do it already. I think this is what people don't understand the most. They don't care if they get ads tailored to them, they expect manipulation from ads agencies anyway (duh). But a lot of them do care about manipulation in other areas. The problem is it is hard to explain it to them because manipulation, when it works so perfectly, is imperceptible and they won't even believe you it's actually there. People have this assumption that they themselves would know if they were manipulated because "I'm not that stupid", as if the whole point of it is not precisely that you do not know.
Gabriel Gutierrez
Tell him there are studies showing finger exercises lead to higher virility
Gavin Lopez
Because that's the theme of his speech. "How thousands of companies are profiling, categorizing, rating and affecting the lives of billions."
Matthew Reyes
It's literally designed for retards.
Brody Evans
You must be really dense. They're not "shilling" Alexa, the whole point of the FBI chick using Alexa to talk is to show she has no real friends and is using a piece of hardware to fill the void.
You're supposed to say "holy shit, she's pathetic, I'd hate to live in a world were these people replace human companionships with these shitty pieces of hardware designed to sell shit" not "boy, Alexa really seems like a human being. Imma buy 5!"
Julian Ramirez
...
Landon Perry
You must be really dense. There is no such thing as bad advertisement, it's all about exposure. The people who buy the botnet don't care about the botnet. Of course the company behind Alexa paid the show for the product placement, even when it was "critical" about it. (I don't watch American tv crap so can't really judge that)
Blake Thompson
The theme of his speech is about collecting and organizing data i.e. "corporate surveillance". This data is then sold to governments, political parties, etc. too. He mentions it himself. Just look at Cambridge Analytica.
Angel Gutierrez
No, he deliberately made it about how corporations collect and use that data. Please seek help for your autism.
Gavin Hernandez
Sorry, but it's you who are autistic by refusing to see the whole use of corporate surveillance. He already talks about the political use of it in his talk, but it's only briefly, while he goes into extreme details how you're discriminated when buying a toaster.
Lucas Jenkins
I'm not refusing to see anything. I'm just telling you that because he deliberately made it about corporate surveillance, he talks mostly about corporate surveillance. This doesn't mean of course that this would mean he has to exclude any reference to governments spying. Let me explain how it works when you do a speech. You pick a topic. you speak about that topic
Do you notice in that process there isn't any excluding involved. That would be silly. Any knowledge that would be relevant to the topic, like in this case governments spying using the same techniques as corporate spying. But there has been a lot of talk about government spying and using big data, but not so much about corporate spying, so I guess when he picked the theme of his speech he thought: I will speak mostly about corporate spying! This way I will introduce a lot of new information to people who are interested in this topic! Notice again that he didn't thought: I am not going to talk about governments spying! People already know so much about this, I will simply avoid that subject. No. That would be silly.
Luke Nguyen
Let me make it clearer: political use of corporate surveillance is part of corporate surveillance. Do you think governments and political campaigns collect data on their own? No, it is done precisely through corporate surveillance. So if you want to raise awareness about the effects of corporate surveillance and you consider the above important then you could talk about it as well instead of just ad and insurance discrimination. Insurance agencies don't collect data themselves either, they are in the same part of equation as governments and political campaigns.
Isaac Jenkins
surveillance is okay as long as it's only used to sell you things; that's freedom. Political use crosses the line because it can allow incumbents an unfair advantage and subvert the will of the people. The government has regulate corporate surveillance to make sure nobody uses it for political purposes.
Matthew Morgan
Ads are designed to manipulate the will of people. So why is that good (and you even call that freedom) and when a government does the same it is bad? Our knowledge economy is based on that unfair advantage you mention, this is why lawyers make so much money. So why is that ok, but when a government has that kind of advantage it is suddenly bad?
All big data collection should be regulated. There is no ethical difference between corporate or government surveillance in my opinion. The purpose is the same
Colton Jackson
If this were true, companies wouldn't need to waste money keeping an image. Every single piece of ad would be a guy screaming "buy X!" and bad rumors would be embraced.
But since we know this isn't the case, that companies waste millions of dollars to create and maintain an image and that bad press has actually ruined companies in the past, you're full of shit.
Matthew Kelly
I think user's point is that the "coolness" factor is more powerful than a meaningful critique. And that is true because we have been brainwashed into it by the general hyperactive advertisement culture, even most movies now look like long TV commercials. So our brains are trained to process any medium as if it is an ad. Yes, there is such a thing as a "bad image", but it isn't caused by a scene from a TV series but by the media making a shitstorm. And the latter only happens when there's a really huge fuck-up, or if something disturbs journalists' radical centrist sensibilities. Otherwise social networks controlling our lives are fine, being spied on is fine, everything is fine. Because it's not convenient to worry, or actually doing something about it. And convenience is our God. OP's dad seems like a typical case of this.
Luke Robinson
...
Christian Adams
To watch ads people must first consent to consuming the media that contains them, thereby exchanging some of their agency for cheaper/more entertaining television shows or what have you.
To have something implies the ability to dispose of it as you see fit, or to exchange it for something you find more valuable. In this sense, to have freedom means being able to trade some of that freedom for whatever you like - security, entertainment, religious reasons, etc.
Sebastian Allen
Freedom is not a currency.
Julian Peterson
It is, that's why they call it "free market" :^)
Grayson Evans
Using a copyrighted product in the media is prohibited by copyright laws unless the copyright holder has given it's explicit agreement. So it has to be product placement and you probably interpreted the scene in such an assburger way you failed to see it for what is: advertisement.
Caleb Martinez
That's false. You can't copyright a product.
Austin Cruz
Ok buddy.
Gavin Green
Who the fuck is moaning right before alexa starts talking?
Thomas Cox
I recognize that blowjob.
Benjamin Young
No seriously. You cannot copyright a product. Copyright is for things related to created art. For actual physical, functional machines and similar you use something called "Patenting". For slogans, names and words associated with a product you use something called "Trademarking".
Jaxson Gomez
is alexa making the moaning noise? is it a preview of the porn its about to play or something?
Eli Gutierrez
Yes, that would be relevant ITT if it wasn't used interchangeably by everyone except lawyers. If you say patent/trademark/copyright everyone will know what you mean. So please stop derailing the thread with your shilling techniques you fucking autist.
Kayden Cruz
Copyright law has a definition. Please don't dilute that definition by assigning this specific term to a different definition. People should use other words to describe other ideas.
Logan Williams
Stop posting.
Grayson Morris
You've got it backwards. It's the lawyers who try to muddle the distinction to extend different restrictions from one concept to another.
The fact is that there is no such thing as "intellectual property". Different legal concepts shoved into this bag have completely different motivations and rights attached to them, and are nothing like physical property regardless of how much Shlomo would like to change that.
Chase Foster
occasionally block amazon flows and make your dad feel it's too buggy to use
Chase Gray
This is absolutely disgusting that a couple would place this surveillance box right on their nightstand.
Xavier Johnson
show him what it can do
Gavin Long
I have one simple way to show people I'm not comfortable around these devices. I whisper. With this simple trick I can still communicate with them while dodging speech recognition software.
Haha, get a typewriter and when he asks you something in the living room, use that to answer.
David Foster
Haha, make sure you don't name your daughter Alexa. I wonder who will be the first dad who says "Alexa, suck my dick!" and gets raided for CP.