So trivial, yet it really ticks you off.

[tonyb]

Okay. But does a smart TV let the cable company know anything about your viewing history that a not-smart TV doesn't?

And doesn't viewing content on a laptop leave every bit as indelible a fingerprint as viewing that same content on a smart TV?

I'm hoping I'm not coming across as disputatious. I teally wish to know what real-world distinctions might be drawn between my various privacy forfeiting options.

 

[GHT]

There's no avoiding the plain truth that we sacrifice our privacy in ways beyond our imaginings of just a few years ago. And it's certainly curious that more of us aren't pushing back.

This is probably the reason why technology has left me behind. Why are companies so interested in tracking us? To canvass and sell more and more, but more sinisterly, to sell on that which they have farmed. You should read Mark Zuckerberg's take on privacy, it freaked me out so much that it was the reason why I'm not on Facebook, or any other social media. I'm almost paranoid about keeping my details secret. Credit card purchases are a last resort only, there hasn't been one rejection, here in the UK, to my request of an internet purchase, by sending them a cheque. All my utilities I pay cash, even my cell phone bill is paid at the Post Office counter and like Lizzie, I refuse smart meters. We have to pay an annual tax to our local authority, it's known as council tax. Most pay it monthly, usually by direct debit. I pay it in full, up front, at The Post Office. Even though they have their money, it doesn't stop the authority from telling me that direct debit is their preferred method of payment. No! Only I have access to my account, and nobody else. All this farming of personal details conjures up an image like the TV show: 'Person of Interest,' whereby everyone walking about has a little tracking number following them.

 

[Lean'n'mean]

"NO" means "YES" in online speak. The more someone claims not to give away any personal details online, the more they are revealing information about themselves to those who are interested in collecting it.

 

[swanson_eyes]

So many women here don't make any kind of effort at all: mannish hair cuts, jeans, tennis shoes, baggy sweatshirts, no makeup, etc. That's fine--they can do whatever they want--but it makes me stand out sorely. And I understand it will garner a few looks during the day. But on public transit people will actually stare at me, turn in their seats to do so. It's so rude. I'm just trying to get to work. I feel like scrapping the femininity and wearing sweats and a ponytail everywhere. But I'd get stares because I take literal baggage with me (can't carry a lot of stuff and have a rolling cart).

 

[2jakes]

I was very shy growing up all through high school.


It was during my tour of military service.
There was a bowling lane at the base.
I went with a buddy who was very confident.

He invited me to a game.
I declined.
He asked why.
I told him.
"I don't know how to bowl, besides everyone
will see how badly I am.”

He replied:
"You know what,
You are very conceited.
you feel like everyone is looking at you.
Well Look around,
nobody is looking or cares!

And if they looked, so what.... they wouldn't
give it a second thought afterwards if you fell
flat on your face.
So just relax & enjoy life while we can.”

(This was during the Vietnam conflict)

So I played & although I did poorly,
I had a grand time.

Later we were shipped to different locations overseas.
I never saw my friend again.

So where ever you are....Thanks again, pal!

 

[tonyb]

I was very shy growing up all through high school.


It was during my tour of military service.
There was a bowling lane at the base.
I went with a buddy who was very confident.

He invited me to a game.
I declined.
He asked why.
I told him.
"I don't know how & everyone will see how
badly I am.”

He replied...
"You know what?
You are very conceited.
You think everyone is looking at you.
Look around, nobody is looking or cares!
And if they looked, so what.... they wouldn't
give it a second thought if you fell
flat on your face.
Relax & enjoy life while we can.”
(This was during the Vietnam conflict)

So I played & although I did poorly,
I had a great time.

Later we were shipped to different locations overseas.
I never saw my friend again.

So where ever you are....Thanks again, buddy !

I must concur with your friend. Shyness is indeed a form of arrogance.

It's not that I have no compassion for shy people, for they are denying themselves much of what this life has to offer. But I would hope that for their own sake they would come to recognize that other people really aren't paying them nearly the levels of attention they imagine.

 

[Lean'n'mean]

Shyness & being self-conscious aren't quite the same thing. Shyness is often rooted in low self esteem.

 

[tonyb]

Shyness & being self-conscious aren't quite the same thing. Shyness is often rooted in low self esteem.

Sure. I'd argue that arrogance is rooted in low self-esteem as well. Every full-of-himself (or herself) blowhard I've gotten to know at all well presents that blustery version as a cover for serious self-loathing. I was raised by such a person. A brother is a veritable case study.

The lady doth protest too much, etc.

It's knowing this that keeps my anger toward such characters in check. Sure, they can be hard to be around, but for the rest of us that's a momentary problem. They gotta be around themselves all the time.

 

[sheeplady]

Okay. But does a smart TV let the cable company know anything about your viewing history that a not-smart TV doesn't?

And doesn't viewing content on a laptop leave every bit as indelible a fingerprint as viewing that same content on a smart TV?

I'm hoping I'm not coming across as disputatious. I teally wish to know what real-world distinctions might be drawn between my various privacy forfeiting options.

The issue is that there is the potential for data collection beyond viewing information, and what information is being collected is unclear. Cable companies (particularly in the past) didn't tend to track what viewers watched. And broadcast and DVDs used to be untrackable.

A smart TV would not let the cable company know anything... a smart TV lets the TV manufacturer know information being collected, which is not necessarily limited to viewing information. It at a minimum includes how the TV is functioning and usage patterns, which the company uses to understand performance.

The issue is that a smart TV can communicate information other than your web browsing- it can communicate *anything* its sensors and programming is designed to detect, collect, and transmit. In addition, what it is designed to collect today can be entirely different than what it collects tomorrow, due to the fact that through the WiFi connection it can update its software.

But what really gets me, is that they do this with little benefit to the consumer, who's providing all this rich data... for free. And it's taking up your bandwidth, which you pay for. And likely, you don't know about it.

This information collection is not limited to Smart TVs or DVD players... it can include your toaster and your fridge.

ETA: At this point I likely sound like I have a tinfoil hat on my head. My main problem is that we're getting data collected from us without our consent and without (in many cases) our acknowledgement or benefit. As a researcher myself, I don't think that's fair.

 

[tonyb]

What sort of sensors are on my TV? Camera? Microphone? Motion detector?

This is a serious question, by the way. I would have never guessed that Big Brother would have a Korean name.

 

[sheeplady]

I would guess all of those, though not necessarily. The issue is that the only way these devices "report" is by connecting to your wifi, which in most cases, you can disable.

The big issue I think is the security of the Internet of things. These devices don't have top notch security, but have access to your wifi in which your other more secure devices operate. It's possible to hack a fridge and therefore not only use that said device to spy on you, but access other info over your secure connection.

In other words, any info you transmit is only as secure as the weakest device you have on your wifi to a skilled hacker. There's no imperative that your fridge have strong security like your laptop. Hence it's a vulnerability.

Then there's the US government, which I forget the exact phrasingn, but it amounted to "the internet of things ushers in a whole new way of doing surveillance." They have hackers too.

 

[dh66]

So in other words, watching TV and wearing pants are no longer mutually exclusive activities.

[emoji51]

Sent from my XT1030 using Tapatalk

 

[vitanola]

A little news about "Smart TV" problems:

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/81691.html

"Owners of Samsung smart TVs need to watch what they say if they've activated the voice recognition feature on these devices.

The feature may transmit some voice commands, together with information about the device, to a third-party service that converts speech to text, Samsung's global privacy policy warns.

Further, Samsung may collect, and the device may capture, voice commands and associated texts to evaluate and improve the feature.

The information has sparked considerable comment in the media since it was first published in The Daily Beast..."

"Concerns about smart TVs recording voice commands or transmitting them to third parties may not be overblown.

Smart TVs can be hacked into and used to spy on their owners, security experts at Italian firm ReVuln warned back in 2012, when they posted a video demonstrating how to hack a Samsung Smart TV by exploiting a zero-day vulnerability..."



Makes my RCA Victor T-100 seem like a very good choice!

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

By now the NSA must have the world's largest porn collection.

 

[LizzieMaine]

J. Edgar Hoover would have so enjoyed the 21st Century.

 

[dh66]

He probably wouldn't have kept a smart TV in his house, though.

Sent from my XT1030 using Tapatalk

 

[LizzieMaine]

"In keppitalist America, TV watch you! What a country!"

 

[GHT]

Shyness is indeed a form of arrogance. It's not that I have no compassion for shy people, for they are denying themselves much of what this life has to offer. But I would hope that for their own sake they would come to recognize that other people really aren't paying them nearly the levels of attention they imagine.

Shyness is arrogance? A bit harsh Tony. I know you went on to justify your comment and made a sympathetic reply towards shy people, but arrogance, seriously?
Shyness is a psychological defence mechanism. We may be shy, because we are afraid of a negative outcome, but there's also the fear of harm. If I don't know you, what possible harm can you cause me? There are those who would rather avoid doing something than risking failure. Shyness may also be the result of a learning deficit. Some people grew up as social outsiders and could not practice certain social skills. But sometimes fear and low self-esteem are at the heart of shyness. You may be afraid to say something stupid, to behave in an unusual manner, or to get rejected.
The famous comment sometimes accredited to Lincoln, sometimes to Mark Twain:
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt."
Is often quoted in the media. It really isn't a helpful remark to a shy person trying to overcome their affliction. I grant you that shyness could be defined as arrogant if it's a mask for a superiority attitude. But those that I have met with shyness have never struck me as being holier than thou. On the contrary, so many have said to me that they envy me my nerve and ability on the dance floor. Suggest to them that they get themselves a few dance lessons and they are straight back in their shell. Dancing means interaction with others, close up too, in an embrace. Perish the thought.

 

[tonyb]

Okay, so it's a bit of a generalization.

Still, shyness is often a sort of self-absorption, a paying attention to one's own self (and one's own feelings) in a manner that the circumstances rarely warrant.

I can see how it would be a defense mechanism, and entirely warranted, in the case of relatively vulnerable people, such as children.

But for the run of people I take it as an indication that a person is according him- or herself more importance than the circumstances call for.

Of course I feel for such people, as I feel for any distressed person, but I would urge the chronically shy to take a somewhat more detached view of themselves and their adjustment to their world. You know, to "get out of themselves," as the pop psychology phrase has it.

I'm no Zen practitioner, but I agree with that notion of "being in the moment," to pay attention to what one is doing.

I recall in group presentations dealing with teammates who suffered stage fright. My advice was to pay attention to what we are presenting.

That advice was typically met with words to the effect of, "But I am paying attention to it, that's about all I've been paying attention to for the past three days, and that's why I'm nervous."

No, I replied, you AREN'T paying attention to what we are doing; you are paying attention to how you feel about what we are doing. And that's just getting in the way of what we are doing.

 

[Lean'n'mean]

but I would urge the chronically shy to take a somewhat more detached view of themselves and their adjustment to their world. You know, to " get out of themselves,"

If only it was that easy, like telling someone with clinical depression to "snap out of it & pull yourself together" ...........such things cannot be cured by a simple click of the fingers. Real shyness is more than just a bout of self indulgence, it is a real handicap & often requires a long period of medical & psychological help to overcome.