Man that huge one for me. Samsung phones have so much bolated wear and you can't delete the apps. Also should be illegal to add games to my device after an update.
Man that huge one for me. Samsung phones have so much bolated wear and you can't delete the apps. Also should be illegal to add games to my device after an update.
I already did this by never getting smart devices.
Don't connect it to the Internet
That's easier said than done. I've had TVs that wouldn't work unless TOS were accepted and I've had TVs scan for open networks.
I'm at the point of opening TVs to disconnect the wireless antennas.
I have two TVs. One is an small 720p set we keep in the bedroom with a connected Chromecast, and the other is a 1080p "smart" TV, but they made the mistake of building a Chromecast into it, so we literally never use the "smart" features and just cast from a phone or computer.
I don't care if that's "low resolution." I grew up with CRT TVs. 1080p is terrific as far as I'm concerned.
I can't even find a goddamned thermostat that doesn't require some kind of internet connection.
Smart Devices are fine. Buy devices that use Z-Wave or ZigBee and run them with something like Home Assistant. All local processing, no internet needed.
I have a couple of smart bulbs and switches and a couple of wyze cams around but I don't want or need a smart doorbell, thermostat, etc. I like being able to turn off our bedroom light from my watch or phone and the smart switches work well for devices that need to be plugged in where the actual power cable is hard to reach.
The company needs to be broken up.
Because that solution worked so well in the telecomms industry.
We need a solution, but breaking up businesses isn't the only one - and arguably isn't a good solution when they can more or less carry on with the same practices under more complex ownership structures. A better solution is regulation and enforcement. The government is supposed to regulate to level the playing field between consumers and big business.
The government is supposed to regulate to level the playing field between consumers and big business.
Too bad our regulation framework is captured by the same people who own those companies and their friends.
I think we need new legislation that prevents companies with a valuation over a certain inflation-adjusted threshold, say $10 billion, from participating in mergers. Then split up the big troublemakers. This way, they can’t just buy each other out until there are only a few left. They have to innovate and compete to keep growing.
I would love to get rid of my smart devices from amazon/Google but I have yet to find a single plug and play device that allows me to control all my lights, plant humidifiers, aquariums, TV, and whole house music by voice that isn't from them or even better FOSS.
I could understand suspending deliveries to keep drivers out of those situations as it's investigated. But what the actual fuck is going on where they suspended the family devices? What an actual joke. First off, Alexa is dogshit, and now you advertise that you'll just cut users off on every platform at a moment's notice? Why would anybody use it going forward?
Because the vast majority of users will never ever run into a situation remotely close to what happened here.
Not even sure what security matters in this context though. This isn't a security issue.
Right, we should always ignore a problem because it doesn't affect me personally. There's never been an issue with that ever in history. I mean, no way they would do this for something like non-payment or excessive returns on your Amazon.com account, right? No way this system of turning off all of the expensive devices you've purchased from them could ever turn bad, right?
This family didn't even do the thing that they were accused of, but everything was disabled immediately. That's an acceptable policy to you? That's a policy that makes sense? What if you had one of their shitty fire phones? Now your mobile phone doesn't work because somebody thinks they overheard you say something on your camera?
A cloud company removing your access to your security system while maintaining it for themselves definitely is a security issue
This is absolutely a security issue, because the company controlling all your security devices can disable them at their pleasure. You don't have any control over the security device that you have paid for. I fail to see how you are unable to realize that's a problem.
There's a reason anybody even remotely familiar with computer security will tell you shit like this is a bad idea.
100% untrue. Most experts I know without an agenda don't really have any issues with them in a personal usage scenario.
Unrelated topic but Reddit still exists. You can go back there any time.
Egh I'm interested in seeing this place evolve.
Laws need to be made against this shit ASAP. No company has a right to lock people out of their homes.
Yeh that’s very dystopian
Reasons I try my hardest to use FOSS. This kind of shit is the stuff of nightmares.
-Elon has entered the chat.
Just another reminder that you don't own anything digital - companies do. Forgo these cheap cloud products, use hardware that you can control
It's a huge stretch to say you don't own "anything" digital. But yeah, don't buy any physical products from Amazon. Apple is next on the offenders list, and Google is also dangerous if you don't know how to navigate it.
I mean, if I buy a game on steam and valve goes belly up, how do I retain my games? Game companies were all too eager to stop selling physical discs for PC games and instead give you a code for you to redeem. And you can't sell it after you play it like with console games, because it goes against most PC game companies' terms of service (edit - ...to sell your account)
If you buy a security camera that is only available through the cloud and the company stops paying for the cloud service, all you have is a paper weight
This is literally why the instant I found out about Stable Diffusion being open-source I set out on a quest for one I could run locally and control. Fuck the censors, fuck all these fly-by-night frat bro get-rich-quick apps that charge you to harvest your data and steal your prompt writing for their "research". Fuck it all. I have a GPU. I have time. I use it myself and control all of it. I even have sandboxed it into an isolated environment so nothing can escape. Fun times.
You need a goddamned CS degree just to use something fun and know you are secure.
The answer here are standards like Matter that are interoperable between brands. I get that if I buy all Amazon devices they are going to work better with each other. But if I buy a device from a different brand I should be able to choose whether I link it to Amazon or Apple or my own home-cooked thing. These easy cloud integrations are really important for mass adoption and for the non-tech savvy. They just shouldn’t be a lock in with no choices. 
the answer here is to not sign your life away to a corporate overlord that can end you at whatever imagined whim or accidentally flipped bit.
The answer here is that a digital first sale doctrine and protection of personal digital copyright are things that need better dictation into the already stated legal protections. We literally have a Constitutional right to the things we create. Congress has created protections for our creations via copyright. If you take a picture, you have instant copyright to it. You have a legal protection that you can cite to bring civil litigation to bear onto those who violate it. If Amazon takes your photos and locks you out, they cannot remove that copyright protection that you're entitled to. EXCEPT, when their TOS indicates that you and Amazon enter into a quasi-joint ownership of everything that you upload.
And that is the thing. We already have laws that protect consumers on all of this shit. Congress just hasn't indicated how those protections translate to digital goods and for the most part, they've left it up to the courts to dictate it, which has gone incredibly bad for consumers. Congress has the power to bring over buyer protections on goods into digital goods, they just won't.
That's what is so frustrating. We have protections, but just because it doesn't explicitly say "applies to digital goods too" the corporate overlords get to royally fuck us over. That I think is the most infuriating thing. If this was an actual physical photo that was in a lock box or something that I was making regular payments for and the bank just decided to not let me get to my lockbox. I literally have the ability to drag their asses into court and have explicit protections to make that bank, at the very least, let me get my shit out of their box. But if it's a digital photo in a digital lockbox, that answer is that I get to fucking pound sand if Amazon says so.
It makes no fucking reasonable sense why it is like this. With the context of greed, yes, perfect sense. But no reasonable person looks at the vast number of consumer protections enshrined in our law and then looks at the vast void of protections in the digital world and go "Huh, that makes sense."
FYI copyright on your own files is independent from any right to access your file storage, copyright is nothing like property law no matter how much lawyers pretend it is.
Instead you want to invoke privacy law and the right to your own data.
And first sale doctrine would apply well to digital purchases like media and apps and especially the right to keep using your purchased electronics (with fully functional offline modes)
I mean, it is easily done.
You just have to have a single bare thread of self control, and give up constantly fueling your instant gratification.
Sure, until your kid's school requires you to sign up for Class Dojo and a Chromebook and a bunch of other shit just so they can meaningfully participate in class (upon pain of getting arrested for truancy otherwise). Or until the announcements for community and political events (you know, to meaningfully participate in democracy) are distributed via Facebook. Or a fuck-ton of other ways in which you are COERCED into accepting this shit because the "alternative" is to drop out of society and go live in the woods like the Unabomber.
ITT: people missing the point of the article
That's far less fun than being vauge and condescending on a Web forum though.
The irony of your downvotes re: a common initialization in the exact subculture this community is focused on... Just how many boomers are here, anyhow? 🤣🤦🏼♂️
same with those poor ppl that bought philipps hue stuff... now trapped in a cloud...that will sooner than later ask for money or strangle you
thing that baffles me is so many still root for some other cloud services like spotify, debris or whatever exotic service....
Best thing about Hue though is they are zigbee and you can pair them to any zigbee controller and control them with Home Assistant. That's what I did I ditched the hue hub and use home assistant. Best of both worlds. I get the good CRI of the hue lights without the cloud crap. On the other hand feel bad for those that use any WiFi lights that can't be used with anything other than the proprietary app.
What zigbee receiver are you using now? I have both zwave and zigbee with hue but I'd love to ditch the Hue shit.
I am using a husbzb -1 but only the zigbee side, for Zwave I am using a TubeZB device. I use to use it for both but I wanted Zwave 700 radio. There are plenty better zigbee dongles now including ones with poe Ethernet
For me, the most disturbing thing about Spotify is that I signed up for it three credit cards ago and somehow the billing has automatically transferred to my new card each time I had to get a new one. I've never had anything else that I've subscribed to with recurring payments do that.
Hue runs over the local network and uses open protocols under Phillips branding. There's no cloud involved.
This is changing requirements around setting up the service, it doesn't change how the data flow between the hub and the lights work.
Don't get me wrong, it's a lame and unnecessary change, but easily subverted using a hushmail or whatever.
hue fanboys just love their shit blindlessly
The pearks of iot
"a company arbitrarily decided a person isn't allowed to use the things they have bought and paid for, essentially stealing his money by not providing the good or service that was paid for, it's totally fine"
-You
Definitely a huge concern, but Amazon didn't erase this guy :P In a very real sense, this guy was fine and was still able to use most of his tech via Siri integration. I'm actually kind of glad Amazon is trying to shut down services for bigots.
I’m actually kind of glad Amazon is trying to shut down services for bigots.
How exactly was he a bigot?
As it turned out, he wasn't. But when they stopped servicing him, they had every reason to believe that he was.
Do you continue to service a customer whose behavior is otherwise unacceptable until you're absolutely sure he's a bigot? Or do you abide by your legal obligation to protect your workers from such behavior?
I don't know if Amazon did the worst thing here, but I don't know that the best thing is far off from what they did.
It was only Jackson’s technical skills and particular automated home setup that saved him from what could have been a larger lockout. “My home was fine as I just used Siri or [a] locally hosted dashboard if I wanted to change a light’s color or something of that nature,” he explained.
I think you are missing the point here. Yes, Amazon, blah blah blah. But technology and everyday life are increasing in their intersection. And things like the Equifax breach show, you don't have to participate to be involved.
In most of everyday activities you have some form of legal recourse, save for many of the technical activities. In many cases, this is largely left to companies to offer recourse and aside from arbitration, you have little other rights offered to you to bring about civil suit. Like the guy's photos, he took those photos. He has legal copyright over them, except when they're hosted in the cloud the TOS of many services makes your legal copyright suddenly a joint ownership. This reduces your ability to exercise your copyright to get your photos back and increases the bar of evidence to entry for civil litigation. For the most part, you are at the whims of corporations to exercise a right the Constitution grants you (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8).
That's the more general thing you should take away from this. You have rights granted to you, but because our legal system is largely silent on many digital aspects, you are barred in many cases to exercise your rights in the United States. For a lot of things, you lack legal recourse on something that everyday becomes more and more intertwined with your everyday life, whether you like it or not.
Yes, yes. It's easy to look at this particular episode and indicate "well you shouldn't use Amazon". And that's a fine take, but you're missing the point the article is attempting to make. In general, there are a lot of rights granted to you that you don't get to use because the law on how you use those rights in the court system is largely left up for companies to dictate. That is a really non-good position that lots of people have been yelling for our leaders in Government to address. When people yell, "we need to modernize our laws", this is what they are talking about.
Our predecessors created protections for us citizens. And because our current leadership won't translate those protections into the terms of modern society, companies are getting to dictate how, when, and where you get to exercise those protections our fore-bearers worked tirelessly for. You are having something stolen from you that it is easy to steal because so few actually need it, but those that need it are seeing the hard implications of that theft. And it will become more and more problematic as more and more things of our society require that technology. And some of it, you don't get to have a say on if you'll join in or not.
So it's really important that "IN GENERAL" you remember that this is really, really, really important to everyone. Yes, this specific instance, just don't use Amazon's cloud services until they have been resolution processes, that are more transparent. But please, don't loose sight of the bigger picture here that the article mentions.
FYI
One of those rights is right to deny service. Just like you can be banned from here for hate speech, or harassment or what have you. I think youre getting twisted around, yes technology and tech companies become more involved in everyday life, but none without alternatives, which also grow everyday. We're talking about how this specific case isnt the worst, its just Amazon and the guy can use other services. But thats every case. Every case will involve one company exercising its right to not provide service, and the user being able to go to some alternative service.
Locking you out of your data should however not be allowed. They should be forced to give him a chance to migrate everything off their services.
No company holding physical items you own on your behalf would be allowed to seize them without warning and compensation.
In this case it's the "suspect" of racism, in which I think we all agree should not directly lock you out of your account, but perhaps give you a warning.
But what if it's suspected illegal actions or content? Like them catching the home server being part of a DDoS attack, or overhearing signs of child abuse / identifying possible child pornography content or noticing illicit gun ownership. Their AI will determine that there's a 97% chance of that being the case.
I wonder if that would change things.
If such a system is not allowed to block usage, it will probably at least inform the local police.Your home setup will in most cases eventually act as a panopticon.
thanks for using Leebra!
go to feed...
This should be read and understood by everyone and everyone needs to cancel their smart devices from Amazon. The company needs to be broken up.
save