Ring founder Jamie Siminoff is back at the helm of the surveillance doorbell company, and with him is the surveillance-first-privacy-last approach that made Ring one of the most maligned tech devices. Not only is the company reintroducing new versions of old features which would allow police to request footage directly from Ring users, it is also introducing a new feature that would allow police to request live-st

  • Dr. Moose@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    2 days ago

    We still need to protect the idiots. Thats why we’re banning asbestos and have safety codes. How is this any different?

    • MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      How is this any different?

      IT and privacy is too abstract for non-tech people. Bring examples with people instead of the tech devices to make an impact.

      Things like this:

      • youmaynotknow@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 day ago

        This is the right approach. Normies won’t pay attention to any “your privacy is at risk” argument. But showing them examples (plural, as 1 instance won’t do shit either and will just be dismissed) of people getting fucked by all the surveillance COULD make some of them take it into consideration (no guarantees).

        I do not agree that people that allow these devices into their homes are idiots. I see them more as “ignorantly lazy”.

      • Dr. Moose@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 day ago

        Isn’t roofing too abstract either? 100% majority of people dont know how prevalent asbestos was in roofing material and what even asbestos does but yet if you tell anyone thay their shit has asbestos in it they’ll be quick to rush to alternatives. Sometimes people just need to be told what to do.

        • youmaynotknow@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 day ago

          That’s right. But how detrimental asbestos is took time to be made abundantly clear and known, plus “authorities” got involved, so the sheep listened. With surveillance, the same “authorities” want the public to be ignorant so that they can keep it going without us countering it.

          Similar situations, but certainly not equal.

    • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      We need to protect uninformed people. You do this by informing them. If they know the risks and still decide they don’t care it’s their problem, not ours.

    • Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      Not if they are willingly bringing this inside their homes. I think it’s very different from substances that you might not be aware are there and are highly toxic.