I still can't get over how it is still legal for a manufacturer to retain any kind of control over a device after sale. It's even more dystopian that you basically can't buy a phone that isn't backdoored.
At least now you can buy a second-hand phone with an unlocked bootloader, and flash it with GrapheneOS or PostmarketOS, which likely are not phoning home you location or actions, and switch off the mobile and wifi data connections just in case.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-g...
The NSA has had the capability to track switched-off phones since 2004, so it's fair to assume that a number of actors, nation-state and otherwise, can also do it now
Edit: changed to a better source
I was able to find this article about how this could work: https://privacyinternational.org/blog/1357/tech-companies-re... Apparently this relies on a software hijacking so that the phone is not really off.
Another, actually better article: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130723/12395923907/even-... also points to malware injection.
This corroborates what I've heard here and there while working in the GSM industry: you could trust a phone that's turned off, if only you could trust it being actually turned off.
Whats difficult to get over is when non-tech companies, e.g., Bausch & Lomb, go along with the nonsense.^1 All this supposed corporate responsibility and yet they still partner with unethical "tech" companies.
1 Probably should not be surprised considering B&L is owned by Valeant Pharmaceuticals. (Who has sinced changed its name to try to escape its well-earned bad reputation.)
Since I no longer have a landline, I can't confirm it works now.
It's the same as asking "is internet backdoored". It might be wiretapped, but you can use encryption to avoid that risk.
We should stop making it illegal for people to do what they want to things they own.
It would be nice to live in a world where the needs of nerds are more important than those of idiots on Instagram but that's not going to happen.
Luxottica/FB should be free to make a product/service they can charge for and you're free to buy something else (PineGlasses release in 2030?) or hack it.
You making a modification to your glasses to hide an LED isn't a repair... at least in the terms the FTC is using at present.
Probably not but many of us live in the surveillance states. Businesses and governments already have lots of hidden and visible video cameras everywhere, I don't see why citizens shouldn't be granted the same liberties to invade others privacy instead of having double standards.
Yes. I use knives for cooking. I could use them for butchering my neighbors but that would be none of the knives' manufacturers business.
Not just knives. Anything can be used in a dangerous or harmful way. You can suffocate someone with a pillow. So this line of reasoning leads to any company having the right (or maybe the duty?) to monitor us.
So they can make "safe knives" if they wish but I would rather buy the other ones.
They’re not particularly popular as far as I can tell, but my point only relies on the concept itself as another example of manufacturers implementing features to attempt to influence how the product can be used.
It's still dangerous via slashing if it's at all useful for food prep
https://www.1911forum.com/threads/does-a-fighting-knife-need...
https://www.google.com/search?q=bayonet+crossguard
It's subtle, but true. I would imagine that a "kitchen knife" with a full cross-guard that was regularly carried in your belt and implicated in a crime would probably not be considered "just a kitchen knife".
eg: all the rules around gun shapes, sizes, etc. etc. so they don't become "assault-style weapons" or give people impure thoughts when they're out on the shooting range.
https://www.npr.org/2019/08/08/748665339/the-pistol-that-loo...
Furthermore I do in fact think that the distinction is big enough to justify legal protection to the end user on the basis that one can burn your house down (and can happen by accident with no user intervention) and the other cannot.
Personally I think words like “harm” have concrete meaning outside of language specifically crafted by marketers in order to make awful products more palatable.
I'm reminded of how phones sold in Japan have a fake shutter sound on their camera apps that you can't disable. Yes, there's a good reason for it (preventing creeps from quietly taking upskirt photos of women on subways), but it also removes the ability to take silent photos for legitimate reasons.
But in the general sense, I do find this new Facebook product to be gross and creepy, far worse than Google Glass. And frankly I think a recording light, which will easily become washed out and invisible in sunlight, is a pretty poor attempt at helping maintain the privacy of random people.
An exploding battery is not, to my knowledge, “controversial” in that we’ve all agreed that fire is unwanted behavior. This is why I’ve found issue with your battery analogy.
I do not believe there is a meaningful equivalence there.
It also seems like the only way to implement devices whose operation requires ongoing performance of services by the company. If I'm needed to ensure a device can fulfill its stated goal in an ongoing way, then of course I need to retain some kind of control - if to tell devices to update or send me photos or whatever. This doesn't mean that you need to cut off modified devices, but it also doesn't mean you need to put up with them either.